posted
"Regardless of the types of horse fossils you find, they are all horses. All bats, all whatever. And that's all they are for as long as they are found. Hundreds of millions of years without change, sometimes."
posted
"I know it's a pseudo-science because I hear the same stories that have been going around for a century and a half now."
Funny. You just described Creationism.
But every day there's new information, new experiments, in the field of evolution. New fossils are being found, transitions are being discovered, like, say, the transition of whales from land animals to aquatic ones.
If you'll like, I'll cite MY sources.
Or are you not going to just jeer at my daring to mention something like that?
Are you really going to claim that the animals which walked on land were still "just whales"?
I mean, if you really wanted, I could find you large numbers of different fossils. I could find you plenty. You want me to? Just say the word, I'll bring you plenty.
You want me to show you how mutations occur? Do you want me to show you beneficial mutations, which did not exist before? I can show them to you. Merely ask.
posted
How do you know your position is accurate, if you don't hold it on evidence?
Even if evolution is true, that in no way proves your belief.
Let's pretend evolution NEVER HAPPENED.
Does that prove your beliefs? No.
Certainly no. And there are plenty of other people who claim all sorts of things on the subject of how the world was created, who disagree with you, and would also claim that the idea they believe is something without proof. But they KNOW it. And would claim you're wrong.
How would a person go about seeing which of these myriad beliefs which do not have evidence are correct? How?
How can you justify believing that God created us through magic, holes in our socks and all? How do you hold this higher than the idea that Prometheus made humans, as his brother made the animals, and eventually gave us fire and was chained to a rock and tortured for it until Hercules freed him, and then human beings degraded over several ages, shrinking in physical size as well as ability?
Why do you believe the one and not the other?
Why? Assuming evolution is false, why should I believe you over, say, a Hindu, or someone who says humanity has existed in its current state for billions of years, and the Earth is on the back of a turtle?
Why do you believe the one and not the other? They have or had faith that they are right, too, you know. How do you know?
posted
Lot's of posts in the time that I wrote that, which was immediately after sylvrdragons.
Steven, you are saying that only an expert should bother. That relegates me and about 99 percent of the American population to a role of "shut-up and listen, and don't argue."
Troubadour, why don't you give me an encounter with randomness (that isn't in your imagination) that resulted in a higher degree of order.
swbarnes: "Beneficial does mean “whatever mutation causes a phenotype that looks at a cursory glance to be nifty”. It means “a mutation that makes its bearer more likely to reproduce more than others in its population”"
Are you saying that the only criteria that should be measured against the fitness of an animal should be its increased ability to reproduce, however that is accomplished? In other words, a species is considered more fit if has a greater ability to survive as a species? That the fittest are more likely to survive? That survival of the fittest is a concept where the fittest survive? Are you catching on, yet? That natural selection is a statement that is true no matter what you think about anything? Natural selection is not a mechanism for anything. It is not an explanation of anything. It is a tautology.
You say most mutations are neutral. That does not jibe with what I was taught in a biology class, right out of the textbook). However, I'm surely not going to argue with you about it, seeing as how I distrust everything I've ever been taught about the official story of creation. However, the part about an accumulation of neutral mutations was not made up. I don't remember who it was, but it was an attempt to explain how saltation events could have occurred. No doubt there were detractors, but I would appreciate it if you would not accuse me of either lying or simply being crazy.
Here's something curious: "No its not, it’s a scenario that you made up. It’s not what evolutionary theory predicts, and it doesn’t match with what the data shows. But since you won’t look at the data, and you won’t listen when someone tries to teach you better, you will continue to argue like a lunatic."
This is in response to my saying that Natural Selection works on changes that result on random genetic events. If the random genetic event incurs some advantage on the creature, or (I left this part out) environmental changes give one creature an advantage over another (and the only reason why the two are different in the first place is because of random genetic events), then Natural Selection selects for the advantaged species. This is the argument of a Lunatic? This is the the argument of Evolution. Seriously, how is this wrong? How would natural selection work on species with no differences between them? You think insulting me is the only way to defuse my argument? I think you're getting desperate.
"So essentially, you are arguing that science should spend more time studying angels that it currently does."
Yep, definitely getting desperate. This is called a false dichotomy. You immediately follow with: "Funny how no Christian universities with working biology research programs seem to agree with you." This is called an appeal to authority. You should really take a course in logic, you'll learn how to avoid doing all these things.
Do you even care? You just made it up your own imaginary arguments you look like a lunatic Your invincible ignorance it’s a scenario that you made up you won’t look at the data you won’t listen you will continue to argue like a lunatic. it makes you look insane You want to be privately crazy not a soul on the board agrees with you you admit you are wildly ignorant You make up evidence You should just expect to spectacularly lose every argument you will ever have with intelligent, honest people.
Hmm. I've changed my mind in the face of your compelling arguments.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steven, I'm not a Young-Earth Creationist. I believe the Big Bang happened, for instance. Why? Because we can actually see Cepheid variables, and red shifting. Astrophysicists made stunningly precise predictions that had a real chance of being wrong, and they weren't. Cobe has proven a hot big bang event. The thing is, I allow for the possibility that we could be massively wrong about everything, even that. The entire universe may be only a few thousand years old, if for instance, all that stuff happened before time was created. That's a bit of a mind bender, and one I like to dwell on from time to time.
Megabyte, for the last time: I'm not interested in proving anything! Something happened, I don't know what, I have my beliefs. What I don't believe is Evolution, and I'm inviting all of you to convince me that I should. So far, it looks like you've all given up.
[Edit] Hmm, maybe that's not entirely true. I am actually trying to show that by not allowing certain possibilities to enter into your heads (like, your starting assumptions may be all wrong), you are unable to perceive the emptiness of your theory.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Steven, you are saying that only an expert should bother. That relegates me and about 99 percent of the American population to a role of "shut-up and listen, and don't argue."
I sure wish you would shut up. As far as the rest of the population goes, the percentage of YEC believers has been going steadily DOWN the last 250 years, not UP.
I will admit there's probably less chance of picking up an STD or a cocaine addiction at Bob Jones U., or Liberty, or Pensacola Christian College. However, you really should give credit where credit is due. Those institutions are not pinnacles of science.
Seriously, give credit where credit is due. Which movie would you rather watch, one made on a 100 million dollar budget by African pygmies (how that would happen I don't know), or one made by Spielberg on 1/10 the cash? Which plane would you rather fly on, one built by OSC, or one built by Lockheed-Martin? Give credit where it's due.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, Resh, if you can accept that the Earth itself is billions of years old, then listen to this. There are fossil-containing rock strata that have been found, by multiple dating methods, to be hundreds of millions of years old. Plenty of the fossilized life forms in those old rock strata have gone extinct. Others have shown up. If you can accept astrophysics, then you have to accept geology. If you accept geology, you have to accept that vertebrate life forms have been here for over a hundred million years. You also have to accept that plenty of those life forms are gone, gone, gone, and that others have arrived since then.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Sam, I'm obviously driving someone crazy.
Yeah, arguing dishonestly and stupidly sometimes tics off honest and intelligent people. Don’t say you haven’t been warned.
quote:But I'm not sure exactly how much of the blame lies with me.
We know. You aren’t sure of anything, except that evolution is wrong. You don’t know exactly what the theory of evolution predicts, you know almost none of the evidence supporting it, but you know it can’t be right, because biologists don’t study angels enough.
quote:On to the serious stuff. Suminon, I know a statement like "Evolution is pseudo-science" needs to be backed up, and saying "This is just what I believe" is not enough. I've been explaining why I think this way for the last five pages, and in numerous other threads (and I think I'm becoming progressively more effective, judging by the way Sam considers every new thread to be a "new low.")
See, here’s the disconnect. We all think that evidence-free explanations are worthless. You obviously don’t. You will never convince anyone here of anything, because saying “It’s too complex” or “scientists should be studying angels more” isn’t evidence, and never will be.
quote:It's pseudo-science because it is not a fact, but taken to be the most basic fact of existence. No "real" scientist doubts it, and does not seek do disprove it.
You have it backwards.
200 years ago, all European scientists were Creationists. Their faith told them it was the right answer, and they knew of no data to contradict it. Evolution and the fact of an ancient earth were hardly “basic facts of existence”
Then, they started collecting data. And when their data contradicted their YEC beliefs, they trusted the data.
It wasn’t an atheist conspiracy, it was the data. And the data has only gotten stronger for evolution. Even if we lived on an earth that permitted no fossilization at all, the genetic data alone would be more than enough evidence of evolution. Fossils are just a neat addition.
quote:Anything that is considered evidence must be confirming evidence, because how could something that is true discomfirm the truth?
It can’t, because the truth is defined by the evidence. When the evidence tells you that your “truth” is wrong, you stop holding it as the truth.
What evidence do you have that evolution is wrong? And you CAN’T use complexity unless you are going to quantify it. You can start with quantifying the complexity of those teeny tiny DNA sequences I gave you, and then you can move on to whole genes, and whole organisms.
quote:The evidence must be wrong. Karl Popper said that a scientific prediction that had a high probability of being wrong would be impressive evidence for a theory if the prediction came true. Can someone give me a prediction about Evolution that has a high probability of being wrong?
Sure. The 29 examples of macroevolution link that I’m sure you’ve been given has at least 29 examples.
What about the odds of taking 100 orthologs, drawing phylogenetic trees from them, and having those trees all be nearly exactly the same?
If you are such an expert in probability for us, why don’t you calculate the odds of that happening by chance?
quote: Someone said in a different thread that a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian would change things. Does that person really think that's going to happen? Of course not, otherwise he wouldn't have said it.
Well, if you think our examples are bad, why don’t you give an example of evidence that would convince that Creationism is wrong. Or an example of evidence that would prove that heliocentrism is wrong.
quote:I know it's a pseudo-science because I hear the same stories that have been going around for a century and a half now.
Again, that’s not a weakness to anyone else. You are the one who values “innovation” over factual.
quote:When is a dog no longer a dog? When it doesn't bark and hump your leg.
So a wolf is or isn’t a dog? What about the offspring of a wolf and a dog.
quote:According to the theory, there should be a direct continuum between dogs and a pig, perhaps
Direct? Evolution doesn’t predict that. And more importantly, there is no such fossil evidence or genetic evidence that this is the case.
Evolution predicts that they have a common ancestor, and dogs evolved one way, and pigs another. Is there a “direct” continuum between you and your second cousins?
Really, you have outdone yourself in proving that you have literally no idea what evolution says. We need to have a lot of people keeping hard links to this post as the number one evidence that you don’t understand evolution at all. Honestly, bright middle schoolers could have told you that that was wrong. It’s like saying that gravity predicts that everyone should be attracted to everyone else, so why aren’t we all stuck together? Or like trying to refute heliocentrism by pointing out that the moon doesn’t orbit the sun.
I predict that now that you have typed that evolution predicts a direct line between pigs and dogs, you will forever believe that the theory of evolution states this. You will repeat this assertion over and over again, and nothing anyone says to you will change your mind. You will never wrap your head around the idea that you might be wrong, and you will never accept that only a person whose understanding is deeply, deeply flawed could have made such a ridiculous statement.
At the end of this thread, you will have convinced yourself that you have one more line of invincible evidence that evolution is wrong.
quote:The change should be so gradual that you would not see any real differences until at one point you find you are looking at something that is more pig-like than dog-like.
If you substituted “homo erectus” and “homo sapiens” for “pig” and “dog”, then you’d have a true statement , not only of what evolutionary theory predicts, but of what the fossil record actually shows.
But what you have written is just crazy.
“Regardless of the types of horse fossils you find, they are all horses.”
The ancestors of whales had legs. How is that “still a whale”?
quote:Then give me a better alternative, and it had better be one that doesn't "frighten and bewilder me," or you will be dismissed outright.
We know. Sorry, but all we have are the facts. You keep asking for us to give you something else, and we just aren’t going to. Your insistence that you want something else is remarkable in its frankness.
quote: It's pseudo-science because disagreement is greeted with mockery and dismissal.
Sorry, but rank stupidity deserves mockery and dismissal. Denial of facts in favor of “innovative” and “elaborate” is likewise deserving. Your belief that evolution predicts a dog-to-pig transitional series is, for instance, well worth mocking.
If you want people to stop mocking your ridiculous statements, stop making them. Stick to the factual instead of the innovative.
quote:I have nothing worth saying because I've already proven my ignorance by stating my disbelief.
Utterly and totally wrong. You have nothing worth saying because you have nothing of fact to say. You have your made up dog-to-pig-transitional stories, and hand waving about “It’s too complex”. We don’t want elaborate and innovative fantasy. We want facts. And you have proven over and over again in the eyes of every person on these boards, that you don’t.
quote:The best you can hope for is to kindly teach me
Ah. I asked you before if you were responsible for the accuracy of the claims you make here. I see that once again, you are denying that you are responsible, and making everyone else responsible instead.
It’s a cowardly stance.
We expect little better from Creationists, and we are seldom surprised.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Someone said in a different thread that a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian would change things. Does that person really think that's going to happen? Of course not, otherwise he wouldn't have said it.
The reason it's thought unlikely is because evolutionary theory suggests that it is unlikely. If you don't believe in evolutionary theory then the discovery of that fossil (or many others) in the Cambrian would not be an unreasonable idea. Whether the evolutionist that proposed it thought it was unlikely is irrelevant. In fact, the more unlikely he thought it was, the stronger it's refutation of evolution would be.
Also the "rabbit in the Cambrian" is just shorthand for "anything dramatically out of place" as the fossil record largely reflects what evolution predicts.
If the "fish with legs" fossil preceded both the legless fish and legged amphibians who's traits it shares, then we might suspect it was not an evolutionary bridge between the two. Similarly if the "whale with legs" fossil were found *after* the whale without legs and the land animals and whales who's features it shares, then we wouldn't identify it as a bridge between those two forms. But time and again, these transitional fossils do appear in the order we would expect them to be.
It's unfortunate that the conditions required for fossilization are relatively rare, so that we are left with only a small fraction of the life that has ever lived to examine, but what we do find consistently fits the theory.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you saying that the only criteria that should be measured against the fitness of an animal should be its increased ability to reproduce, however that is accomplished? In other words, a species is considered more fit if has a greater ability to survive as a species? That the fittest are more likely to survive? That survival of the fittest is a concept where the fittest survive?
Definitions are not tautologies. They are definitions. Fitness is defined by how well the organism reproduces. And I wasn’t talking about whole species, I was talking about individuals. You just made up that thing about species. An individual is fitter than other individuals of that species if it has more offspring than others.
quote:You say most mutations are neutral. That does not jibe with what I was taught in a biology class, right out of the textbook).
If this is the same textbook that taught you to expect a direct transitional series between pigs and dogs, then it’s not worth the paper it’s printed on, no matter how innovative it is.
quote:However, the part about an accumulation of neutral mutations was not made up. I don't remember who it was, but it was an attempt to explain how saltation events could have occurred.
Cite the peer-reviewed journal in which this was reported, and preferably, the peer-reviewed articles in which the mechanism was laid out. I suspect that you limit your reading in this area to Creationist sources, so you won’t have any viable evidence to back this up.
Most of the genome of eukaryotes just doesn’t do anything useful. Slapping another CA onto a sequence of CACACACACACACACACACACACACACACA just isn’t going to do anything, and no “activating mutation” is going to change that. Having a random G->T mutation that is 60 kb downstream from the nearest gene just isn’t going to do anything.
If you think otherwise, by all means, layout the mechanism.
quote:No doubt there were detractors, but I would appreciate it if you would not accuse me of either lying or simply being crazy.
Stop arguing like a crazy person. It is, for instance crazy, to say that there is “too much” complexity in organisms” when you have demonstrated that you are completely unable to quantify the complexity in the tiniest sequence of DNA, let alone the complexity in a whole genome, or organism. If you imagine that your Creationist pals can do better, consult their works to help you answer the DNA sequence question. I warn you, you won’t find much there.
quote: Here's something curious: …This is in response to my saying that Natural Selection works on changes that result on random genetic events.
The scenario of neutral mutations hiding sinisterly in the background, waiting for one more to “break the camels’s back” is what I was calling crazy. You left out the quote I was responding to on purpose.
If you present good evidence that I am wrong, then I’ll look crazy. But you won’t. If you don’t, then I look justified, if a little picturesque in my language.
quote:If the random genetic event incurs some advantage on the creature, or (I left this part out) environmental changes give one creature an advantage over another (and the only reason why the two are different in the first place is because of random genetic events), then Natural Selection selects for the advantaged species.
You see how you use the term “creature” and “species” in the same sentence? They are hardly the same thing. You should defend your notion of how evolution works on members of a population before moving into how it works between species. The appearance of equivocation between individuals and species will not help your argument, or your reputation for arguing honestly.
quote:This is the argument of Evolution. Seriously, how is this wrong?
The workings of evolution on individuals, is fairly straightforward: those genetic sequences which allow their bearers to reproduce better will become over-represented in the population in which that bearer breeds.
Once you talk about how evolution works between species, or between two populations that might or might not be drifting into different species, that’s more complicated, and I admit I don’t know all the finer points. You’d have to talk to a real evolutionary biologist.
quote:How would natural selection work on species with no differences between them?
If you had two different species of closely related bird, one red, and one blue, and a predator developed much better blue vision than red, such that it was able to catch blue birds easier than red birds, then the blue population would dwindle, and the red population would increase. Less blue variants would breed better, and the bluer one would die out, and eventually, you would not have a forest with blue and red birds, you would have a forest with a larger red bird population, and a smaller population of not very blue birds. Whether the not-blue birds are the same species as the old blue population is a tricky question, the partially depends on genetics, partially on behavior, partially on how one defines species. The data don’t usually allow for a simple classification scheme.
So how is the above scenario different from what you think happens?
quote: Do you even care? You just made it up your own imaginary arguments you look like a lunatic Your invincible ignorance it’s a scenario that you made up you won’t look at the data you won’t listen you will continue to argue like a lunatic. it makes you look insane You want to be privately crazy not a soul on the board agrees with you you admit you are wildly ignorant You make up evidence You should just expect to spectacularly lose every argument you will ever have with intelligent, honest people.
Hmm. I've changed my mind in the face of your compelling arguments.
You ignore the data that you are presented with. You keep saying over and over again that you want “innovation”. Calling you crazy is innovative, and it got a response. Why am I responsible for your choice of how you want to be addressed?
If you wish to be addressed with exclusively rigorous arguments, present only arguments which are rigorous. If you wish only to be presented with the facts, present your own facts to support your arguments.
Really, this isn’t about proving evolution on this board. That’s already been done for 100 years. What it’s about is whether or not you can support your arguments. Do you think that a anyone on the board believes you have?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Troubadour, why don't you give me an encounter with randomness (that isn't in your imagination) that resulted in a higher degree of order.
See, I've never claimed personal encounters with randomness. You however have.
I'm just curious as to what those are that they are so convincing to you.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Are you saying that the only criteria that should be measured against the fitness of an animal should be its increased ability to reproduce, however that is accomplished? In other words, a species is considered more fit if has a greater ability to survive as a species? That the fittest are more likely to survive? That survival of the fittest is a concept where the fittest survive? Are you catching on, yet? That natural selection is a statement that is true no matter what you think about anything? Natural selection is not a mechanism for anything. It is not an explanation of anything. It is a tautology."
Are you saying complexity is something that evolution cannot do? In other words, something is complex if it is something evolution cannot do? Evolution cannot create complexity? Are you catching on yet?
You still haven't explained anything. Your idea of complexity explains nothing. It's a tautology.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether a mutation is harmful or beneficial is often dependent on the environment. Additionally, there are often trade-offs. Some beneficial mutations have downsides even if on the whole they are helpful. And some are beneficial to those who have one copy of the gene, but harmful to those who have two.
An example of environment-dependence:
There's a mutation called CCR5delta32. It more or less breaks the CCR5 gene. That doesn't really cause much trouble and it offers protection from certain kinds of viruses, including most types of HIV. So if you're in an environment where you're likely to be exposed to HIV (an IV drug user, for example), then it's a beneficial mutation. But this mutation also makes it more likely that you'll have a serious or fatal West Nile virus infection. So if you're in the middle of a swamp full of infected mosquitos, it's a harmful mutation.
Is CCR5-delta-32 harmful or beneficial? That depends on whether HIV or WNV is a bigger threat to your health.
Also, many mutations in a gene will not change the protein product because there are several different ways to code for most amino acids. It's pretty hard for a mutation to be other than neutral if it doesn't change the protein.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sam, I'm obviously driving someone crazy. But I'm not sure exactly how much of the blame lies with me. You're right about me losing my cool last time. All I can say is that I promise not to post after several hours of drinking and losing at poker. As poor as it is, at least I have an excuse. What's yours?
I'm not allowed to point out your position is based on bogus logic and negative argumentation without an 'excuse?'
I never knew that logical counterpoint was so offensive to you, but hey.
quote:I am actually trying to show that by not allowing certain possibilities to enter into your heads (like, your starting assumptions may be all wrong), you are unable to perceive the emptiness of your theory.
"By not allowing certain possibilities that cannot be tested for to be allowed to render any possibilities that can be tested for impossible in a scientific mindset, I'm asserting that I'm right and you're wrong."
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: It's pseudo-science because disagreement is greeted with mockery and dismissal. I have nothing worth saying because I've already proven my ignorance by stating my disbelief. The best you can hope for is to kindly teach me. But why are you being met with so much resistance?
The problem here is that you're not providing viable arguments against evolution, you're attacking it as a whole. Because evolution is such a complex and multi-faceted theory, claiming that the entire thing is wrong would require you to disprove every element, which you haven't even come close to doing.
In actuality, it is real science, because if you were to bring up a specific working theory or piece of factual evidence which seemed to contradict a different theory or piece of evidence, we (both the people here discussing this with you and the scientific community on the whole) would be happy to consider it.
The problem seems to arise when, rather than actually participating in the scientific process and discussing various elements of the evolutionary theory, you do treat it as pseudo-science, and assume that making blanket statements about its unsuitability will make us realize how foolish we've all been by looking at the evidence and building educated theories upon it.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Are you saying that the only criteria that should be measured against the fitness of an animal should be its increased ability to reproduce, however that is accomplished? In other words, a species is considered more fit if has a greater ability to survive as a species? That the fittest are more likely to survive? That survival of the fittest is a concept where the fittest survive? Are you catching on, yet? That natural selection is a statement that is true no matter what you think about anything? Natural selection is not a mechanism for anything. It is not an explanation of anything. It is a tautology.
Another example where you seem to believe semantics plays a role in science.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
Humans need to breathe air to survive, therefore, it is only humans who can successfully breathe who are able to survive.
Well, obviously that's a tautology, and therefore untrue and completely worthless in understanding human biology or survival. Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I already provided a clear refutation of the "natural selection is a tautology" argument, Resh.
You've acknowledged that you believe that I am arguing with you in good faith so I'd appreciate it if you'd return the favor. If you disagree with the refutation I provided immediately following your initial tautology claim, please explain why rather than just ignoring it and continuing to make the claim.
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Also, many mutations in a gene will not change the protein product because there are several different ways to code for most amino acids. It's pretty hard for a mutation to be other than neutral if it doesn't change the protein.
There are some papers arguing that even silent mutations can change the protein due to rare codon usage. Not that that is important to the discussion at hand, but it is kinda interesting.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll admit right up front that I don't debate very much, and indeed, I'm more interested in honing those skills in this thread than I am of convincing you of anything.
Having said that, I realize that in my last post, I used a few wrong words. Words like 'Assume', and then setting only a limited number of choices set me up for exactly what happened. In my defense, however, you proceeded to cherry pick my post, take things out of context, and then ignore my points.
My probability argument was aimed to change your stance from Complexity being 'Impossible' to 'Improbable', which have a world of difference.
My next argument was attempting to point out that the entire theory of Evolution can only stand up in a certain version of Reality (or set of versions), and if you don't share the fundamentals of that set, then nothing we say can possibly convince you otherwise.
I don't have a bunch of facts and links to throw at you. I'm not trying to convince you of anything really. I'm just trying to give the perspective. Trying to put it into context, if you will.
It goes back to my Art example. I wouldn't have much success trying to explain a color painting to someone that sees in Black and White; or a sculpture to someone who sees in 2D. I'm sure someone could write a beautiful symphony using nothing but dog whistles, but no human would be able to appreciate it.
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I know it's a pseudo-science because I hear the same stories that have been going around for a century and a half now. Dogs! Come one suminon, I'll play along. When is a dog no longer a dog? When it doesn't bark and hump your leg. According to the theory, there should be a direct continuum between dogs and a pig, perhaps. The change should be so gradual that you would not see any real differences until at one point you find you are looking at something that is more pig-like than dog-like. Unfortunately, there is not one example of this ever occurring between any of the major phylum. Regardless of the types of horse fossils you find, they are all horses. All bats, all whatever. And that's all they are for as long as they are found. Hundreds of millions of years without change, sometimes. Fortunately for the truth-seekers out there, the enormous variety of species out there allow for some creative storytelling, and all those minute transitions are just as real in your imagination as you think the resurrection of Christ is in mine.
- - - emphasis added - - -
Me and my dogs So, we’ll take as a “working definition” the observation that dogs bark and hump legs (I hope they don’t do it only on mine ). The result would be that an animal, descendent of a dog, that no longer barks and/or humps legs is a non-dog (being a “new species” we don’t have yet a name for it!). Note: that definition of a dog is not scientific, but I think it will serve the purpose quite well anyway
Now, about the dogs and pigs. I have noticed, (even if others didn’t), that you ended that sentence with the word “perhaps”. I appreciate that you said it. Nevertheless, you should understand that this is a claim that will outrage any scientist working on Evolutionism, simply because there is no such “prediction” from that theory. It is a ridiculous claim and unfortunately can be used against you to “prove” that you have quite a mistaken idea about what “Evolution” is. It is as if I’d say that Creationism is about a deity that that is afraid of humans and therefore created the Universe for the sole purpose of pleasing us.
So, there are no “transitional” or “continuum” between dogs and pigs (actually, it they were found, it will be a nice puzzle for the scientist to solve, and it might prove evolutionism partially wrong).
I propose to concentrate on talking about any possible transition/continuum between dogs and non-dogs, knowing that a pig is a non-dog just as a chicken is a non-dog, but that evolutionism doesn’t say that a dog “would evolve” from a chicken, or that it ever did.
Ok, I give you my next question: How many types of dogs are you aware of (by the “working definition”)? I personally searched “dog” on Google Images and found many different types, and I’m fairly certain they can fit our “understanding” of a dog (I’ve seen many of them IRL too manifesting their “dogyness” ).
A.
PS: I’m still interested in the answer of my previous question about what is it that you think could “prove” evolutionism.
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There have been a few things mentioned recently in this thread that are actually not quite as cut and dried as they are at first glance. I know that by going into the details, I am probably opening myself up to a whole new world of Resh's cherry-picking-based approach to "criticism," but honestly at this point, I'm more interested in talking about what modern evolutionary theory states (and how modern biology supports rather than refutes it) than going over the basic evidence ad nauseum, especially since the target audience is apparently incapable of making even the slightest effort in understanding it. I'll go into one example below- if people are interested in discussing the details of evolutionary biology more, I'd be happy to continue. I love this stuff.
quote:Also, many mutations in a gene will not change the protein product because there are several different ways to code for most amino acids. It's pretty hard for a mutation to be other than neutral if it doesn't change the protein.
As a fellow graduate prisoner, er, student, I know Shigosei is well aware that you can have all sorts of neat effects from mutations that have no effect on protein sequence, but here are some details for anyone else who is interested.As Shig and scholar both mentioned, codon usage can play a factor- we've found that many organisms favor particular codons over others, although the exact reason(s) are unclear at the moment.
In addition, you can also get mutations in so-called regulatory regions- sequences of DNA that don't actively code for protein, but do play a role in controlling when other genes are expressed. For example, every gene is preceded by a "promoter" sequence, which binds various proteins that assist in transcription of the gene from DNA to RNA (the first step in generating a new protein). These proteins are commonly called "transcription factors." Mutations in the promoter can change the ability of the promoter to bind to its transcription factors, either increasing or decreasing binding affinity.
You can therefore modulate the expression of a given gene by mutating its promoter. Gene expression is also controlled by non-coding elements called "enhancers" and "silencers," which like promoters act to modulate expression of a gene, but aren't necessarily directly adjacent to the gene. Enhancers can be quite far from their target genes- in fact, we've found enhancers that aren't even on the same chromosome as their target!
Now, to bringing all this molecular biology back to the subject of evolution, I'll need to go briefly into development. As I've mentioned in previous threads, the morphology and physiology of any multicellular organism is dependent on its development. I'm going to focus on animals for now since that my area of expertise, but keep in mind that much of this is true for plants/ fungi as well. Development, broadly speaking, is change in an animal's body over time, as laid out by its genetic code. The field of developmental biology places particular emphasis on changes in the embryo, since that is when the vast majority of "patterning" takes place, but development technically occurs throughout life- for an obvious example, think about puberty.
So developmental biology, when merged with our modern understanding of genetics and molecular biology, allows us to study exactly how an animal goes from a fertilized egg to a complete adult. What genes are expressed, at what times, and at what places? How do these genes interact to generate the complex structures we observe? What distinguishes "top" from "bottom" when, during early development, an animal is nothing more than a spherical blob of undifferentiated cells? What about right versus left? Front versus back? Inner versus outer? Why does the intestine curl in one direction and not the other (and why does this occasionally flip around in certain individuals)? We can address all of these questions today, and all of them are highly relevant to evolution.
In particular, I've mentioned in several threads before the idea of master regulatory genes. These are generally transcription factors that are responsible for activating (or suppressing) a whole host of downstream genes, which in turn are responsible for activating and suppressing yet more genes, and so on and so forth, until we get to the genes that actually do stuff- enzymes that synthesize ATP, surface receptors that distinguish a T cell from a B cell, globins that carry oxygen in red blood cells, etc.
The master regulators often have very simple expression patterns: for example, the fly gene bicoid is expressed in a simple diffusion gradient from front to back in the early embryo. Its transcription factor activity is directly based on its local concentration, so it activates a different set of genes in the front of the embryo than in the back. There's more to it than I have time to go into here, but suffice it to say that the genes it activates at each region in turn generate finer and finer gradients, until the embryo is cleanly segmented. When coupled with similar regulatory systems patterning the left/ right axis as well as the top/ bottom axis, you get a classic Cartesian coordinate system in which every little point in the embryo is experiencing a different combination of regulatory gene expression. It's not hard to see how you can go on from this to laying out exactly where the heart forms, or how to form the brain so that the cerebellum is beneath the cerebrum.
All right, so development is awesome. How does this tie back to the original point about non-coding mutations? Well, since bicoid and its fellow master regulators are transcription factors, you can imagine how a mutation in their target promoters/ enhancers/ silencers could have wide-ranging effects on an animal's final morphology. This, by the way, is an example of how Resh's argument about how evolution "cannot create information" is utterly irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether a promoter mutation increases or decreases binding affinity to bicoid (and IIRC, both types of mutations have been identified in promoters for numerous regulatory factors). Either way, you are effecting a change in the resulting organism.
Let's say you get a G->T substitution in the promoter of orthodenticle, one of bicoid's target genes. If this mutation results in increased affinity to bicoid, then you increase orthodenticle expression. If it results in decreased affinity, you get reduced orthodenticle expression. You get the picture. orthodenticle is involved in eye and antennae specification. I don't know the exact molecular details, but let's say, hypothetically, that it controls eye size- a not-unreasonable conjecture. So under our hypothetical model, upregulation of orthodenticle results in a larger eye, and downregulation results in a smaller eye. Now let's say that our G->T mutation makes it harder for bicoid to bind its target promoter (generally a more likely scenario anyway). We therefore get less orthodenticle expression, which produces a smaller eye.
You could imagine situations in which a smaller eye would be detrimental to the fly's fitness pretty easily, I think- less eye means less sight, which presumably means more difficulty in dodging hungry insectivores, which in turn probably means more death. However, what if our fly is part of a cohort that just colonized an underground cave? Caves are completely light-free, and often have very little in the way of active predators. So what would have been a really nasty mutation on the surface doesn't have nearly the negative impact on our fly's fitness when it's in the cave. Now, remember that any sort of growth requires a certain amount of resources- growing an eye is itself a cost. By specifying a smaller eye genetically, our fly is actually saving some energy during its development, which confers some small but significant benefit to its fitness. What happens when the benefit of a smaller energy requirement outweighs the cost of crappier eyesight? Natural selection takes over, and your small-eyed flies are now favored to greater reproductive success. Over a number of generations (and when we're dealing with master regulators, it doesn't even need to be that many), our fly cohort's eyes continue to shrink, until they are completely gone. In the meantime, they're severely ramped up their other senses so that they can hear and sense vibrations in the air extraordinarily well, allowing them to effectively fly around in the dark without having to see.
Now, let's reintroduce some of these flies back onto the surface. Their inability to see is once again a huge disadvantage, so they'll probably die out, but leave that aside for now. These flies have spent the past several thousand years adjusting to mating in the dark. The cues they use to identify their mates has gradually changed in that time- for example, maybe they used to identify mates visually based on exoskeleton color, but now favor touching other individuals and feeling for the right bristle pattern. Will our reintroduced cave-adapted cohort mate with the wild-type flies still on the surface? Unlikely! Even if they could technically still form viable young if you forced their egg and sperm together, they probably wouldn't mate naturally because they wouldn't recognize each other as potential mates! So these two cohorts will already never mate again. As more time passes, even if both cohorts survive and coexist in the same area, they will only continue to diverge, including at a genetic level well below the master regulators. Eventually, something like a translocation or chromosome fusion will undoubtedly occur, and the flies will become incapable of generating viable offspring even in vitro. Viola- speciation has occurred.
As a final note- if anyone wants more details on transcription factors, master regulators, and bicoid in particular, here is a fantastic summary of the system. It's really an amazing example of how modern biology synthesizes all of its sub-fields (genetics, embryology, molecular biology, etc) to reveal how we can go from the simple to the complex in a stepwise fashion.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:When is a dog no longer a dog? When it doesn't bark and hump your leg. According to the theory, there should be a direct continuum between dogs and a pig, perhaps. The change should be so gradual that you would not see any real differences until at one point you find you are looking at something that is more pig-like than dog-like. Unfortunately, there is not one example of this ever occurring between any of the major phylum
Interestingly enough, the major macroevolution example that has been established through the fossil record is a transition between a land mammal that (if I recall correctly) had some piggy features into whales. Still, it isn't a dog-type creature, so I'm guessing that this doesn't really count.
I did once see a movie of a dog wearing scuba gear, though. That should count for something.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I once saw a program that went into detail about, oddly enough, the link between pigs and insects. I wouldn't mention it normally, but I think it comes from a very reliable source.Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"... the entire theory of Evolution can only stand up in a certain version of Reality (or set of versions), and if you don't share the fundamentals of that set, then nothing we say can possibly convince you otherwise."
I couldn't agree with you more, sylvrdragon. I'm sorry you thought I was cherry picking. Nothing to fear from me there, Tarrsk. I have no clue what any of that means.
Thanks suminon. I thought the whole thread had derailed there. I pretty much just ignored every post after that, except for Matt's. It just turned into a hatefest. Yes, I said perhaps, and that was very much purposeful. That was a hypothetical lineage that I was using out of ignorance of any actual ancestor of dogs (or pigs.) Nothing unusual there, I'd like to know what Evolution says is the direct ancestor of a dog.
My point is that there should be a direct continuum of animals between any animal and its direct ancestor, no matter how far you go back. The theory [b]requires[/i] this. There should be a direct, unbroken line of daughter to mother all the way from my own mother to the very first life form. If I am wrong here, let me know. And every step of the way there should be a gradual change, so small as to be nearly unnoticeable (unless you entertain saltationist theories, and if you do, please tell me about them.)
The fossil record indicates that if Evolution is true, then that rate of change is highly irregular. The rule is stasis. All life forms are found with fully developed features, all major groups are completely distinct from each other, with the extremely rare instance of possible transitionals, and the various phenotypes maintain their forms with very little change for millions, even billions of years for some of the earliest types. This fact must be accommodated by the theory, punctuated equilibrium being the most famous example of this accommodation.
However, as MattP says, "it's unfortunate that the conditions required for fossilization are relatively rare, so that we are left with only a small fraction of the life that has ever lived to examine, but what we do find consistently fits the theory."
You can't have it both ways. Is the fossil evidence so spotty that it does not represent the actual development of life on earth? Or is it very strong evidence, but of something other than a direct and very gradual development of Man from bacteria?
I'm sick of having to scroll past all the vitriol, so I going to start a new thread. I ask that only people who believe they can refrain from childish name-calling attend. Suminon, sylvrdragon, MattP, Mightycow, you guys are unconditionally invited. Steven, just take back what you said about how you wish I would shut up, or just tell me it was just a joke. A few of you other guys (shigosei, Tarrsk, scholar) the only condition I ask is that you please avoid using too much jargon, because you're making me feel stupid. Megabyte, swbarnes and Samprimary, it's a free forum, so post as you please, but I'm officially ignoring you from now on.
So look for my very own thread about evolution! I'll start with something MightyCow said and we'll see how things go.
Of course, if you guys really want to make me feel like a loser, then no one respond. Jeez, that would be embarrassing...
posted
" All life forms are found with fully developed features"
Define "fully developed" features. How would you tell if a feature was partly developed or fully developed in the first place? Further, you are holding these things as fully or incompletely developed compared to what standard?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: " All life forms are found with fully developed features"
Define "fully developed" features. How would you tell if a feature was partly developed or fully developed in the first place? Further, you are holding these things as fully or incompletely developed compared to what standard?
On the other thread.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
). The result would be that an animal, descendent of a dog, that no longer barks and/or humps legs is a non-dog (being a “new species” we don’t have yet a name for it!). ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
manifesting their “dogyness” ).
