posted
A correction to what I said before: only the first 70 minutes of the almost two hours is actually Dr. Miller's lecture. The remainder is Q&A, and you won't miss much if you skip it.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Tom, that isn't ironic, and you still haven't shown anything. No one has yet. Because no one knows. It's all a bunch of unproven speculation. You see, Megabyte, the evolutionary "scientists" consider the simple envisioning, withing their own creative minds, of some way that some particular evolutionary process could occur, that that in fact constitutes evidence. But nothing has ever been replicated in a lab. Extrapolating the results of natural section within a species to a chance process that would have to take millions of years is not science. It is mythology.
There is simply no evidence for Macroevolution, and if you're honest with yourself, you will realize that. In fact, the evidence is a complete denial, but denial is also the state of the Materialists who get to decide what is and is not science. And you are all falling for it, for some reason. No biggie; I fell for it too. I mean, who am I to question the scientists? But it never happened.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tom, that isn't ironic, and you still haven't shown anything. No one has yet. Because no one knows. It's all a bunch of unproven speculation.... There is simply no evidence for Macroevolution, and if you're honest with yourself, you will realize that.
*beats head against wall* Resh, will you at least stop pretending to be open-minded? Because you're aggressively ignorant on this topic.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
(Am I wrong anywhere, guys who are more knowledgable than me?)
That's an excellent basic summary, although I would add that a common mechanism through which evolutionary branching points occur (that is, when one molecular system begins to diverge into two), is when gene/ chromosome/ genome duplications happen. Due to the nature of DNA replication, these events occur surprisingly often, and through mechanisms unrelated to simple point mutation. The result in each case is that you now have two redundant versions of the same gene(s)... each of which then evolves independently of the other. In the case of a gene duplication, one copy might continue to act in its usual role, while the other evolves an entirely new function. Or both copies might develop into two new roles. Or the two copies might both continue to serve in their existing role, but become specialized to act at a certain time or location within the organism. Pretty much anything can happen at this point, because once you have two copies of a gene, their natural selection is uncoupled.
One particularly cool example that I've mentioned in other threads is that of homeotic genes, which are responsible for patterning the anterior-posterior axis during development. Put more simply, these genes control which end of the embryo becomes the head and which end becomes the anus. If you look at their amino acid sequences, they demonstrate a striking homology that indicates that they all originated from one ancestral gene, even though each homeotic gene now has a specific, unique role- for example, one gene might oversee head development, while another oversees tail development. But all of these genes clearly originated from one primordial patterning gene, which underwent multiple rounds of gene duplication.
What's really awesome is that you can actually observe the evolutionary timeline of homeotic genes by looking at the homeobox region (the area of the chromosome which contains the homeotic genes) in different organisms. As predicted by the fossil record and what we know of evolutionary history, "older" forms of life such as flatworms and arthropods have fewer homeotic genes than more recently-evolved lineages. And what's more, by comparing the sequences of individual homeotic genes between species, we can actually track which homeotic genes observed in older clades are the ancestors of the homeotic genes observed in mammals and other vertebrates. We can, just by looking at the sequences, figure out that homeotic gene A in nematodes underwent a duplication event approximately X million years ago, resulting in the homeotic genes A1 and A2 observed in arthropods, and that A2 later underwent a series of duplications of its own, leading to the genes A2A, A2B, and A2C observed in vertebrates.
And it doesn't end there. We've also found a situation in which gene B appears in nematodes, but not insects or mammals. Again using sequence comparison, we can figure out that after the divergence between the nematode lineage and the lineage that would eventually give rise to both arthropods and mammals, gene A duplicated again, resulting in the formation of gene B. And again, we can pinpoint with surprising precision when that happened in time.
quote:You see, Megabyte, the evolutionary "scientists" consider the simple envisioning, withing their own creative minds, of some way that some particular evolutionary process could occur, that that in fact constitutes evidence.
This is not true. There are two points to consider: One, your words were "This cannot possibly happen, there is no mechanism for it". When we then say "Yes there is, goes like so", you cannot shift the goalposts to wanting proof that that was what really did happen. If you say "X is impossible", then showing that it is possible is sufficient to defeat your argument.
Second point, for the evolution of the eye we actually do have some really excellent lineages and intermediate steps, alive in the world today. Similary for the flagellum.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you say, KoM. But what are they? I'm calling your bluff.
Tom, I address your post by pointing to Tarrsk's directly following. "Due to the nature of DNA replication, these events occur surprisingly often, and through mechanisms unrelated to simple point mutation. The result in each case is that you now have two redundant versions of the same gene(s)... each of which then evolves independently of the other..."
Is any of this science? Or is it exactly what I described it as?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you say, KoM. But what are they? I'm calling your bluff.
Because I suspect you of arguing dishonestly, I will, before linking, ask you to acknowledge that by showing a plausible evolutionary path, your argument of "That can't happen" is refuted.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Link if you want, accuse me of dishonesty if you want, I don't care. If you provide compelling evidence, I will look at it. This, to me, is not about winning or losing. I'm searching for truth, and I think I've found an absolute dead end with evolutionary theory.
Rather than linking, why not just tell me in your own words what the evidence is. I'm only using my own words, and that's pretty much all I ever do. Nearly every book I've ever read on the subject I've checked out from the library, and I only argue from memory (with the occasional google search to verify that I am not accidentally making something up.) I do this because that's all you've got when it comes to face-to-face encounters, which I'm sure I've said before is when it really matters. So yeah, why don't you just tell me what you think.
Meanwhile, why don't you tell me if you think that any of what Tarrsk wrote qualifies as science?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Rather than linking, why not just tell me in your own words what the evidence is. I'm only using my own words"
That doesn't work with you! I'm not KoM, but I just DID what you ask KoM to do, spoke about a small piece of the evidenc in my own words, and you dismissed it utterly, without any thought.
You did the same thing to Tarrsk.
Which is easy, as long as we aren't dealing with actual evidence. You can always say "you're just full of it!"
Why should we play your game, and not bring out actual pieces of physical evidence, if you're just going to flat out dismiss it?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, let me begin with this: It's gonna take awhile.
"It's all a bunch of unproven speculation. You see, Megabyte, the evolutionary "scientists" consider the simple envisioning, withing their own creative minds, of some way that some particular evolutionary process could occur, that that in fact constitutes evidence. But nothing has ever been replicated in a lab. Extrapolating the results of natural section within a species to a chance process that would have to take millions of years is not science. It is mythology.
There is simply no evidence for Macroevolution, and if you're honest with yourself, you will realize that. In fact, the evidence is a complete denial, but denial is also the state of the Materialists who get to decide what is and is not science. And you are all falling for it, for some reason. No biggie; I fell for it too. I mean, who am I to question the scientists? But it never happened. "
posted
You could link him to things, and have him ignore them instead. I mean, I'm sure he'd read them when he had time.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
"you still haven't shown anything. No one has yet. Because no one knows. It's all a bunch of unproven speculation."
That's not true. We've shown plenty. The theory of common descent, the theory of evolution, has plenty of evidence for it.
To begin, let's start with what evolution is, and what it is not.
Evolution is "a change in the gene pool of a population over time."
First. We have observed this. We have observed changing in the gnee pool of populations over time. Even you cannot deny that. (if you do, I'll bring specific examples. It might take me longer, but it will be worth it. I have all night, after all.)
We have observed the gene frequencies, the traits of certain species, including ourselves, change over time.
This, of course, doesn't in and of itself require there to be new traits to come about. It could just be, as you could rightly say, a trait that already exists becoming more common. True.
Evolution requires genetic variation, however. There need to BE other kinds of traits, for such changes, which have been observed, to occur. For one to become more common than another, for black wings on a moth to become more common than white, the black wing traits must exist.
The question then, is, what causes these traits to exist? What causes white wings, and what causes black wings?
The answer is simple: The entity's DNA! The deoxyribonucleic acid which exists in the nucleus of every cell. As I've said elsewhere, this drives every single solitary chemical reaction within the body (and everything within the body is a chemical reaction, at the most basic level. This, again, you do not deny, and can't.) is controlled by the DNA.
The variation exists. We can find the place on the DNA where, say, the blood type is controlled, or where eye color is controlled, or many, many, many other things.
You do not argue against this, correct?
So. In the creation of each cell, the DNA in the cell is copied, and the new copy becomes part of the cell that splits off. This has been observed.
What has also been observed, is that such copying is not always perfect. This is true for many reasons. Basically, mistakes can be made. Mistakes ARE made. Many genetic anomalies in children, those children who are malformed in body or mind, are caused by such mistakes. The genes are different in many cases, due to a mistake.
Some diseases are caused because of genes that already existed, but NOT all. Some are new, mistakes made due to an error during meiosis. This, again, from genetic disorders of some humans, you should also admit is true.
Now, as I said before, each piece of DNA controls a certain thing. A certian protein. Do you deny this? The mistakes cause a different protein, or no protein, to be made. The instructions are changed.
This is why my eyes are a mixture of colors, and not any one color. The DNA code controlling my eye color messed up while I was being made, and the proteins that that portion of DNA ordered are different than they would have been if there had not been a mistake. The newly changed orders make my body create a mixture of pigments. My eyes are partly blue, partly brown, partly hazel, with even a hint of green in there as well. My right eye has more blue than my left.
And the reason my eyes are not normal, is because the DNA code, for some reason, messed up. That is fact. That is a mutation. A new mutation, most likely, and not something that was already part of the population. It's something new. A new gene, caused by an error in copying. Luckily for me, it's not harmful, and is actually pretty cool.
Do you deny any of this so far? We're still in the realm of observable facts, by the way.
So far, we have the meaning of evolution, change in a gene pool over time. We have what the gene pool is. We see how the change occurs. We see how new changes occur.
Sometimes, the changes are bad for you. Like the genetic changes in many diseases, they kill or harm the person who has them. Adn those people don't have many children, do they? Certainly fewer than those without the error.
What has been observed is that some traits are not useful in some situations. To use the classic moth example, in an area where white moths stand out, say, around a coal factory where the ground is covered in black soot, and are able to be caught more often by predators, those moths that have the genes for black wings will be less likely to die.
That's natural selection. Those traits that are beneficial will become more common, because those that do not have said trait will not be able to survive as often, and will not be able to reproduce as often. Thus, evolution, as defined above, occurs, and soon most of the moths are black.
Again, this does not require a new trait, just a trait that's already there. However, as we've also covered, the mechanism for the creation of new traits is clear. I see it every time I look in the mirror, as my eyes themselves are physical evidence of new mutation that did not occur before.
Now. We know what natural selection is, and what evolution is. We've seen it occur. We've seen natural selection (which is NOT random!) occur, we've seen evolution, as defined above, occur. Do you disagree?
Next, we define species.
A species is a group of individual creatures that can reproduce with each other. That's it. If you can reproduce with it, and create viable offspring, which can also have offspring of their own, you're the same species. Would you not agree? That's basically the definition scientists use, by the way.
Now, the reason, say, a tiger and a lion cannot create a child that can reproduce is that, while thier genetic code is similar enough to fuse and create a new being, this new being's genetic code works well enough for itself, but it cannot do the processes needed for reproduction. The combination of genes just don't mesh well enough for that. The same is true of mules.
I'm being very simplistic, but that's due to time. It's still true. Do you disagree with this?
Anyway. A species can have a number of different traits. Look at dogs, for example. But they're still the same species, because they can still interbreed. For all their differences, they could look like different entities! They're certainly farther apart than many species.
Big and small, short hair and large, different structures of the face, different proportions for body structure... but they're still, pretty much, the same species.
Look at the difference between a dauschund and a great dane and a St. Bernard. These differences are more than between some distinct species! At least, in the outward physical properties, at least.
Can the creation of these animals, many of the differing breeds having been made in historical times, not show how easily differences can occur and accumulate?
I should get back to species for a moment, and accumulation of changes.
Anyway. The shift of one species to another has been observed. That's another fact. That is to say, there is a population of, say, flies, from which a portion are isolated. Over time, they eventually are unable to mate with the original group.
This kind of thing has occured, and has been witnessed more than once. A group of a species, after a number of generations, being unable to mate and create offspring with other members of the original species, and have become able to mate only with each other.
That's speciation. Do you disagree with this so far?
It occurs because of an accumulation of genetic changes. That is to say, new viable beneficial or neutral genetic changes occured in the isolated population. Enough of them occured that, when mating with the original population, their genes are different enough that they cannot create viable offspring.
This has been observed. Disagree yet?
So. We see that species can become isolated from each other. We see that they can separate, their genes never to mix again. And from that point, they continue diverging, with new mutations occuring in both populations.
But. Isolation is required. Or at least, isolation is important. This isolation can be geological. This isolation can be becaues all the members of the species, or most of them, that didn't have a specific trait all died out. Whatever the reason, isolation is important, for this divergence, this genetic drift, to occur.
The effects of this isolation has been seen. Further, there are many causes of such isolation in nature. It happens. And speciation happens.
To get back to dogs for a second: The differences in their traits is vast. At least, the differences in certain traits. Given enough time, purabred breeds could become separate species.
For the same reason that a daschund looks different from a St. Bernard and a Great Dane, different species begin to look very, very different. Selection of particular traits.
In the dogs, humans are and were doing the selection of traits. In nature, humans don't, or weren't, but it happens because certain traits are more beneficial for a certain environment than others.
We can see the changes in DNA.
We see how DNA works. Remember, as I said above, each piece of DNA, at least, each piece that is read, codes a specific protein. Each word, each sentence of chemical letters orders something different. When a change occurs, a different protein with a different effect is made. Sometimes, the change is small. Sometimes, entire sections of DNA are copied or changed at once, due to the kinds of mistakes that can occur.
As I said in a previous post, the colors that the eye can see is a good example. They've in fact observed the change in genetic code that causes colorblindness, unless I'm very much mistaken. The thing that is changed is an error, which causes the creation of the wrong proteins, or at least proteins that do not allow the creation of molecules that detect the difference between green and red wavelenghts of photons, at least.
This has been observed. My description of the specific chemical reactions is rather general, and unclear, but it's been observed, regardless of my faults in describing it.
All that I have said so far has been observed. Dogs look and can act differently based on the traits that selective pressures (in this case, us) puts upon them. If they were properly isolated, the continued changes (which we now see can and do happen) will result in their being unable to mate with other breeds of dogs (this speciation has also been seen, and does happen.)
That's not just evolution, it's speciation. And from there, evolution continues based on the selective pressures.
This is all observed. This is all evident.
This is NOT unproven speculation. Not in the least. Do you disagree?
So far, we've seen that small changes, new species, can occur. We've seen that changes can be rather large, thanks to changes in DNA, as in dogs. We've seen that isolation can allow mutations to accumulate in the population, to the point where the DNA is too different to combine to create viable offspring with the old population, much like is true with tigers and lions.
Now. There are multiple points you can use in response to this. For example, that ther hasn't been enough time for the kind of changes seen. That this is just microevolution, and not the kind of thing that can create eyes from nothing. That this does not prove that we all share common descent with other animals. Many points. It's gonna take me awhile to get through them all, honestly. But I'm still going to continue. But for now, consider this first post in a series, complete.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Link if you want, accuse me of dishonesty if you want, I don't care. If you provide compelling evidence, I will look at it. This, to me, is not about winning or losing.
That would possible be a first, then . . .
See? You are evolving! Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
We have observed what you would probably call microevolution, which is stated above. All those things have been observed.
We have also observed above what scientists would call macroevolution (but which you probably would not) but I'll get to that in a moment.
Let's define microevolution, as Dougles Thobald has, as "relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms."
Microevolution would include my multicolored eyes, if they became common through the procreations of my descendents.
Macroevolution is a term that is originally used by scientists. This is what scientists mean by it (since they invented it, I think it's fair that we should use their meaning, don't you?) "In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species."
That is what macroevolution means. At least, that is what it originally means. If it is changed by creationists, than so be it. But I'll use the actual definition, thank you very much.
To be clear, this definition means, at least, the splitting of a species into two. In other words, macroevolution is speciation, what I mentioned before.
It also means changes at a higher level, kingdom, phyla, etc. But it is not limited to it.
Notice, an example of macroevolution would be any speciation event. We have observed speciation events. Therefor, since speciation is one level of macroevolution, we've witnessed macroevolution at the level of species.
I understand you use the word to mean something different. you also use the words theory, science, evolution, species, and other words in different ways. But that's not the way scientists use it. It helps to know what scientists are saying, and how they define the words they created, and to udnerstand what they're saying.
There's plenty of arguement about micro and macro evolution, even in science. (it's not all that monolithic as you think, after all) but the details of that are not important to this discussion.
You state there is no evidence for macroevolution.
First, based on the actual definition of macroevolution, as given above, yes there has.
Second, you basically give the arguement, and have in the past, that the vast changes, like the creation of the eye, cannot occur due to these small cumulative genetic changes.
First, it's good to know how often mutations happen. In fact, experimental evidence of rates of mutation have been recorded since the 1910's. Apparently, rates of mutation occur around 0.1-1.5 per zygote. In other words, there are between one tenth and one and a half mutations per person on average, mathematically speaking. This is based on the observations. Do you disagree with it?
Something, honestly, that has interested me is chromosomes. I have always wondered how those differ, and change over time, and what mutations can create different numbers of them. I am not quite as clear about chromosomes, but from what I've read, chromosomes can fuse, and the number of chromosomes can change, and interbreeding is still possible, because DNA aligns by the local sequences, not the chromosome structure.
I don't know a lot about it, but I intend to learn more about chromosomes. For now, I'll have to trust the observations of others.
But the changes in chromosomes is not a challenge, if it is true that differing numbers of chromosomes does not make interbreeding impossible in and of itself. (which is what the evidence says, apparently.)
Anyway.
Remember, once one change occurs, further changes can also occur. Not only can individual genes and groups of genes change due to mistakes, but chromosomes can change, and be lost. Down's Syndrome, or another disease of its kind, adds an additional chromosome in humans. However, that mutation is harmful. Not all mutations are harmful, though. Sometimes, they can be of benefit.
Now, before we get any farther, we need to deal with the rates of mutation.
They're much too slow to account for the amount of diversity on the Earth today, if the world is only 6000 years old or so.
So, let's segue into the age of the earth for a moment.
what evidence is there for the age of the earth, and what does it state?
There's a ton of it, and I really don't want to spend ALL night listing it, but let's get some general things out of the way:
Astronomy, geology, physics and mathematics, cosmology, paleontology and the other sciences all independantly point towards an old planet, much older than 6,000 years.
From what we know about the creation of solar systems, from observing other stars, we can deduce at least something of how our solar system came about. From the speed of light, which has been measured, and the distance of stars, we can know that at least the universe itself wasn't made 6,000 years ago.
We have all sorts of evidence from astronomy that the world is older.
Geology shows many pieces of evidence as well. So do the basic laws of nature, such as the decay of radiactive elements.
By the way, there's no evidence for change in the rate of radioactive decay, though if it was objectively found the physicists would all be incredibly interested, and they'd be studying this new finding with great interest and enthusiasm. If you proved it, of course.
To be honest, this is not in any way an adaquete description of the evidence for an old earth. Not at all. I accept that. But I don't have enough time to give everything an in-depth view. I simply don't know enough of the many millions of details to give you strong arguements about every branch of science. I am fallible, and I do not know a great deal.
But regardless, the evidence I've seen hints very strongly that the earth is really old, and the universe is even older.
I know you will not assume this is true, just because I say it is. But if you'll deny the different pieces of evidence from unrelated scientists, all working on different fields, most of which are unrelated to evolution in any way... I really can't change anything.
You probably won't trust my assertion that it's so. But if you assume that the laws of nature were in the past as they are now, then the evidence suggests strongly a very old earth indeed.
Now, back to the point:
We've seen microevolution, and what scientists call macroevolution. Now we'll focus on the reasons to believe that all beings descend from a common ancestor.
First, we accept the fact of speciation, which has been observed.
We also observe the different kinds of species, the many millions of species of plants and animals on the planet today.
How did they come about? Why are they similar in some cases, different in others? Finally, I'm going from observed data to theory. (but I'll be back to observed data in a minute!)
Knowing that speciation occurs, and microevolution occurs, and admitting that the earth is billions of years old, we see that there is a long time for evolution to occur.
But that doesn't say anything. Even if ther eare billions of years, and evolution does occur as stated above, it doesn't prove either common descent or that we were created that long ago.
But, there are multiple threads of evidence, from different fields.
There's comparative morphology and anatomy, comparing the features of animals and plants and fungus and whatnot, and noticing the similarities and differences. There's comparative biochemical and genetic studies, where the genes, DNA, and so forth of the different animals are compared for similarities and differences. There is the study of patters of biogeography, how species are different from one area to another. Then there's the fossil record, which goes back many millions of years.
Interestingly, species that look similar, that is, species morphologists suggest are closely related, happen to have very similar genetic sequences.
In fact, said similar seeming species are similar in ways that they don't need to be, if they were not related. As one source states, "often, the same codon specifies a given amino acid in two related species, even though alternate codons could serve functionally as well."
In other words, the species are similar in ways they need not be. In ways that could be arbitrarily changed with no effect. Why would they be the same in species that seem similar, which have very similar genetic codes?
Further, closely related species (using the above morphological and genetic similarities as guides) are usually found close together, geographically speaking. This is especially true if it's hard for the species to move far away, such as in islands or island continents.
Further, if species evolved from previous species, there would be hints of what we can call jury-rigged systems. Stuff that isn't needed at the moment, but may have by their ancestors.
A great example is this: "In lizards of the genus Cnemodophorus, females reproduce parthenogenetically. Fertility in these lizards is increased when a female mounts another female and simulates copulation. These lizards evolved from sexual lizards whose hormones were aroused by sexual behavior. Now, although the sexual mode of reproduction has been lost, the means of getting aroused (and hence fertile) has been retained. "
Though this particular quote assumes evolutio nto be true, the point remains: Why would this animal act like this? Why would intentional design make them this way?
Further. Dealing with fossils.
First of all, fossils found in one layer do not appear in lower or higher layers. However, other fossils appear, sometimes with very similar characteristics, or characteristics similar to multiple kinds of fossils found in later times, or with traits that exist in fossils found in lower layers, which share traits with other fossils found at the same place as the first.
The evidence suggests that the deeper layers are older than the layers closer to the surface. And, in fact, when you look at the fossils from the higher layers, multiple kinds of species do share traits from an earlier species of fossil, which possesses some traits from both fossils which are sopposedly later.
To the arguement that there are no transitional fossils? You should know that ALL fossils are transitional. And further, there have been multiple clear sequences found, of the sort I describe above.
Due to my growing tiredness, and fading ability to concentrate, I'll allow the next piece of evidence to be given as a cut and paste. Forgive this, but this person describes it better than I:
"The strongest evidence for macroevolution comes from the fact that suites of traits in biological entities fall into a nested pattern. For example, plants can be divided into two broad categories, non- vascular (ex. mosses) and vascular. Vascular plants can be divided into seedless (ex. ferns) and seeded. Vascular seeded plants can be divided into gymnosperms (ex. pines) and flowering plants (angiosperms). Angiosperms can be divided into monocots and dicots. Each of these types of plants have several characters that distinguish them from other plants. Traits are not mixed and matched in groups of organisms. For example, flowers are only seen in plants that carry several other characters that distinguish them as angiosperms. This is the expected pattern of common descent. All the species in a group will share traits they inherited from their common ancestor. But, each subgroup will have evolved unique traits of its own. Similarities bind groups together. Differences show how they are subdivided."
These large swathes of evidence, of which there are many, many individual pieces.
Millions of pieces of evidence. I've only seen a small amount of them, because I can't look at them all.
When you combine all those pieces of evidence with the facts of evolution as scientists define it, and the fact of speciation, it seems to me, at least, that the theory of common descent is a pretty darn good bet.
But that's just me.
So far, I haven't dealt with your challenge to KoM, about specific evidence for the evolution of the eye. I might deal with those things later. However, you said "there is simply no evidence for Macroevolution, and if you're honest with yourself, you will realize that"
Your statement is false! I've seen the evidence with my own two eyes. I've seen how science works, what science does, and knowing these things, I see that evolution and common descent is truly a good theory. (This means it both conforms to evidence, and makes accurate predictions. This theory does both.)
Being honest with myself, I see evidence so much stronger than the evidence we people normally use to believe something is true, that it's rediculous. Millions of pieces of mutually supporting evidence, from many different and in some cased unrelated fields of science. The evidence is absurdly strong, and would be even if you got rid of either the genetic or the fossil evidence. Having both, along with the other evidence, simply makes it even more certain.
How can you, in a blanket statement, dismiss all of this, and dismiss the very underpinnings of the scientific method?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
"Extrapolating the results of natural section within a species to a chance process that would have to take millions of years is not science. It's mythology."
You don't understand science.
Extrapolating the results of natural selection within and between species, observing the differences over both space as well as time, observing the genetic codes and the similarities, and all the fossil evidence, and deducing from all of that and many other things that living things change through time through the observed phenomenon of mutation, over millions of years, of which we have records of, is not mythology at all, but what science is.
Simply put, Resh, you're not showing, in your arguements, any evidence of understanding what science is.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I despise the willful ignorance shown here.
But I can't seem to come up with any way to prevent people from talking about subjects that are far beyond their comprehension that doesn't violate our Constitution is some serious ways.
Stupid Bill of Rights.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In two other threads I have linked Reshpeckobiggle to explicit documents showing how speciation has been recreated in labs. Multiple times. I have linked Reshpeckobiggle to lists of recorded speciations witnessed by humans, both inside and outside of laboratory conditions, both created and observed. Other people did too. There was even the use of bolding and ALLCAPS! to do everything that is possible in this text-based medium to assure Resh that a distinct and incontrovertible counterpoint to his positions existed and that he had to account for them.
I note that we are here again in the exact same spot and that Reshpeckobiggle is not actually progressing, but in fact he is regressing, which is an insane concept that I can hardly believe but it's really true, right here, we found it, the holy grail of willful ignorance, with Reshpeckobiggle retreating into basic long-discredited concepts such as how 'entropy renders evolution impossible' or 'Behe and Dembski are credible and the rest of the scientific institutions are not' and so on so forth.
You don't see this. Not normally. This is the stuff of legend, right here, and while I grew up in a sophomoric, rowdy e-culture that was more than capable of enjoying a good ol' creationist roast we've all sort of (partially) grown up at least enough to feel horrified on behalf of all the Christians who end up being unintentionally represented by this, the squeakiest and most obnoxious wheel, impervious to grace or grease.
Reshpeckobiggle may be the most unintentionally effective argument against creationism that I have ever seen, since his attempts to argue in favor of it are inexorably associating it as being reliant on violently willful ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, copious fallacy, and base scientific illiteracy.
Some people are so talented at debate that they can make something totally wrong seem very compelling. Others, like Resh, are so inept at debate that they can make a faith dear and intrinsic to our country's history seem like Timecube.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Hopefully, King of Men, you can provide said evidence of eyes and whatnot.
This is gonna take me awhile to complete.
I wish you happiness therewith, but as for me, I'm not going to bother with Resh until he shows some signs of honest debate. Starting with acknowledging what possible argument would overturn his position if shown to be true, even if he doesn't believe that they actually are true. And because he is Resh, I want it in writing.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Megabyte, I want to express my thanks to you for make a true effort to explain something as best you can to someone who you believe does not or will not understand. I'm certain it is out of a sincere desire to enlighten someone, and it is a noble effort.
I don't want to take away from what you are attempting to do here, and I definitely don't want to imply that you wasted your time writing all of that (although the guys jeering from the sidelines right now most assuredly think that you are). However, you have not told me anything that I did not already know, nor am I forgetting any of these things when I write my posts.
What you are unfortunately unable to do (so far) is imagine yourself as someone like me who understands all these things (and more), and yet still does not believe any of it. What's missing? What more do I need? Well, I'll show you, by quoting you:
"So far, I haven't dealt with your challenge to KoM, about specific evidence for the evolution of the eye. I might deal with those things later."
That's it. No one has. Not in any book, on any website, ever. And I'm not talking just about thee eye here. This is our major complaint. We constantly hear about all the hard evidence, but then it's never presented.
I understand speciation. In fact, I believe that it explains the vast diversity of flora and fauna on this planet. But I don't believe in it the same way you do. I believe that there were originally many different types ---let's call them "kinds"--- of animals as little as a few thousand years ago, though possibly as much as millions of years ago, or more. Now something happened, maybe some sort of canopy in the atmosphere, fell to earth and now none of these species were protected from all the harmful rays of the sun. Or maybe something else happened. Or maybe nothing happened. Whatever, but now these different kinds of life start incurring mutations in their DNA. This, coupled with natural selection, caused a massive across-the-board speciation event that resulted in far more specific types of animals than, say, one could fit on a big-ass boat. I'm leaving out a lot of details here, but hey, it's my own personal theory, and I'm still developing it.
Here's the thing about what I think may have happened. All the things that evolution looks at as evidence, like about similarites in structures and DNA code, and natural selection in isolated populations, and the tired old moth example, this is all perfectly compatible with my theory. However, I don't have the burden of trying to show how all this complexity came about in the first place, which is something that is incumbent upon the evolutionists, and quite frankly, can not be explained no matter how creative one tries to be in weaving the story. That is why the claims of "here comes the evidence" for evolution always falls just short of actually producing said evidence.
Be serious here. Take take these two possibilities as equal in the absence of any evidence whatsoever: Unguided, random occurrences resulted in the incredible complexity that is life, or that complexity was designed in some way. NOW add the evidence. Is not the second option much more likely?
As for all the old earth stuff, I posted something about this elsewhere, but it wasn't really related to the thread topic. This should definitely go on the Young earth thread, so I'm gonna post it over there also. They found a dinosaur bone with soft tissue in it. How has that been explained?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh, what do you consider "specific evidence" on the eye? I ask because the evolutionary mechanism of the eye is actually very well understood, so I want to make sure that my selection of links will be useful to you.
quote:Unguided, random occurrences resulted in the incredible complexity that is life, or that complexity was designed in some way. NOW add the evidence. Is not the second option much more likely?
Are you saying that you have scientific evidence of the second option? Actual scientific proof of a designer or design method? Show me.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jeez, I don't know, Tom. I actually don't know that much about the eye. I do know that a bunch of nice little stories that explain how a little patch of photo-receptive cells on a worm could have turned into the human eye does not equal a scientific explanation of how it actually happened. So if you've got links that show how the process actually occurred, well, I'd love to see that.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Resh, what do you consider "specific evidence" on the eye? I ask because the evolutionary mechanism of the eye is actually very well understood, so I want to make sure that my selection of links will be useful to you.
quote:Unguided, random occurrences resulted in the incredible complexity that is life, or that complexity was designed in some way. NOW add the evidence. Is not the second option much more likely?
Are you saying that you have scientific evidence of the second option? Actual scientific proof of a designer or design method? Show me.
Of course not. Do you have evidence that all of this came about by accident? I think that's the whole debate here. You claim that you do, I say I don't think your claim is valid. But you're missing the point. I'm saying that if you start with the presumption that both possibilities have equal weight, and then you apply the evidence, I'm sure the design option would be WAAAY in the lead. In fact, I believe that the only people who would take the side of randomness would be the people who were dead set against the design possibility from the get-go.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
I know Resh won't read it, of course, but at least he can't accuse me of ignoring him. Hmm, I wonder what would happen if I just started spouting random lolcat links in these debates? Would anyone notice?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do know that a bunch of nice little stories that explain how a little patch of photo-receptive cells on a worm could have turned into the human eye does not equal a scientific explanation of how it actually happened.
Resh, I'll be clearer: what is your definition of a "scientific explanation?"
-------
quote:I'm saying that if you start with the presumption that both possibilities have equal weight, and then you apply the evidence, I'm sure the design option would be WAAAY in the lead.
I'm not sure I understand how that's possible, since there's no actual evidence for design. Which evidence would you apply to these two possibilities of equal weight that puts design over the top, given that you do not have -- as you just admitted -- any evidence for a designer or the method of design?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I don't need evidence for a designer, here, Tom. Just the design. If the SETI guys pick up a steady stream of prime numbers from outer space like in Contact, are they required to dismiss it because they don't know what sent it? Or can they assume that some extra-terrestrial intelligence sent it?
The evidence for design lies in what you evolutionists call "apparent design." I'm saying it's not just apparent, it is.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't need evidence for a designer, here, Tom. Just the design.
And...? Where's your evidence for the design of the mammalian eye, then? By what method was it designed? Who designed it? Can we duplicate this method?
What you're saying is that "I don't know how this happened" constitutes evidence for design. Which is pretty ridiculous. Consider the "Giant's Steps" in Ireland. They certainly look manmade, and lots of legends indicate that they were manmade. Should we have assumed, based on their look, that the legends were true?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My evidence? If you were to encounter anything approaching the complexity found in biology, outside of biology, like a space shuttle or a supercomputer (which do not even approach the complexity of the simplest life form), you would not need to try very hard to prove that it was designed. So when I point to DNA, I don't think I need to try very hard to prove it was designed. No, one must try very hard to prove that is was not.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't need evidence for a designer, here, Tom. Just the design. If the SETI guys pick up a steady stream of prime numbers from outer space like in Contact, are they required to dismiss it because they don't know what sent it? Or can they assume that some extra-terrestrial intelligence sent it?
We would recognize it as being from sentient beings with some attributes in common with ourselves because we know enough about ourselves to know that we would send something like that.
The "design inference" there is based on familiarity with the capabilities and nature of a specific designer - us, not with any kind of rigorous method of detecting "design" absent knowledge of the designer. If the aliens are communicating in a way that we have not anticipated, then we will not recognize the communication.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
New perspectives on eye development and the evolution of eyes and photoreceptors.
The genetic control of eye development and its implications for the evolution of the various eye-types.
Cubozoan jellyfish: an Evo/Devo model for eyes and other sensory systems.
Pax genes in eye development and evolution.
Eye evolution: a question of genetic promiscuity.
That took me a total of two minutes to find those papers. Surely someone spending a little more time will find many more.
So what should a person believe, your claim that these papers simply don't exist, or our lying eyes?
quote:Now something happened, maybe some sort of canopy in the atmosphere, fell to earth
Okay, so what was the canopy? What was it made of?
And did it fall to earth thousands, or millions of years ago?
quote:Or maybe something else happened. Or maybe nothing happened.
Or maybe the tooth fairy happened?
quote:Whatever, but now these different kinds of life start incurring mutations in their DNA.
So where is the evidence that the non-environmental forms of mutations (transposons, gene duplication, polymerase mistakes, etc) weren't happening up to this point?
quote:This, coupled with natural selection, caused a massive across-the-board speciation event that resulted in far more specific types of animals than, say, one could fit on a big-ass boat.
Your post appears to have been cut off. This was where you were supposed to link to papers with evidence describing how a scant few million years ago, there was a massive increase in speciation.
We expect that you will fix this oversight quickly.
quote:I'm leaving out a lot of details here, but hey, it's my own personal theory, and I'm still developing it.
Well, if you provide everyone to the links where the physical eidence supporting your theory can be found, then everyone can help, and your "theory" will be completeed much sooner.
It is, after all, one of the classic signs of crackpottery that the lone innovator absolutely refuses to share their data with their scientific peers.
quote:However, I don't have the burden of trying to show how all this complexity came about in the first place, which is something that is incumbent upon the evolutionists, and quite frankly, can not be explained no matter how creative one tries to be in weaving the story.
Sorry, but complexity isn't a problem for evolution. Eyes are pretty complex, and there are a whole lot of papers explaining how they came to be that way. Step by step, over lots of time.
quote:That is why the claims of "here comes the evidence" for evolution always falls just short of actually producing said evidence.
Hardly. You ask for evidence of eye evolution, you will get it. Then you will complain that its not evidence for something else, like the origin of life.
quote:Be serious here. Take take these two possibilities as equal in the absence of any evidence whatsoever: Unguided, random occurrences resulted in the incredible complexity that is life, or that complexity was designed in some way. NOW add the evidence. Is not the second option much more likely?
Your first option is your own pig-ignorant understanding of evolution, not the real scientific theory that everyone else is talking about. And your second...well, show us a designer, (and not in the Bible, but evidenced in the scientific literature) then you'll have an argument.
quote:They found a dinosaur bone with soft tissue in it. How has that been explained?
Ah, your post got cut off again. Surely you intended to include a link to the orignal report:
Tell us, how many fossils with intact soft tissue have YECs dug up? If the world really is only a few thousand years old, shouldn't all fossils have soft tisue like that? How many more do they intend to dig up in the future? When can we expect to see them publish their scientific evidence in Science?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thing is, if you start from the assumption -- possibly so bone-deep that "assumption" is a pale definition -- that there is an assigned purpose to our lives, the "it just happened" theory is maddening.
Say you're exploring new territory down by a river untouched by man and you find a stone wedged into a crack in a larger rock. The size and shape of the stone are perfect. The odds of that specific stone happening to hit that specific crack are astronomical. Someone believing in evolution and natural selection would assume that thousands, million of rocks have hit the crack over the years and this is just the one that stuck, having no other significance than that. In fact, it may have stuck out more initially but countless years of water working at it may have eroded it into that perfect shape. You could do experiments and speculate, but you couldn't determine exactly what happened and you may not be able to duplicate it by throwing rocks at cracks yourself. Still, it seems pretty obvious what happened, and while you're investigating it you might discover a few things about geology that seem to work even if that don't tell you when and how the stone got there.
If, however, you assume that the purpose of that particular stone was to fill that particular crack, your mind boggles at how it could have come about and the idea that someone clearly must have carved the stone to precisely the right shape and placed it there seems plausible, even necessary, if a bit baffling.
Or, a bit more succinctly: the odds that I will win the lottery are vanishingly small, but the odds that someone will win the lottery are closer to even. If I did win, an evolutionist would know that it was pure chance it happened. An IDer would "know" that it was God's will for me to have the money, because how else could I have beaten the odds like that?
[ September 04, 2007, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
What WOULD you consider evidence? What is your definition of decent, convincing evidence of evolution?
Give it to me precisely. I'm very interested how you define the term. I'll respodn to the rest later. But I really, really want to know how you define evidence, and the way your theories fit this definition of evidence, the way my evidence does not.
You say that there's absolutely no evidence for evolution. Obviously, we have different definitions of the word. Enlighten me, please.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
"That's it. No one has. Not in any book, on any website, ever. And I'm not talking just about thee eye here. This is our major complaint. We constantly hear about all the hard evidence, but then it's never presented. "
You jerk! You ask, specifically for an arguement in my own words, without links to anything else, which is the only way to bring evidence as I can't walk over to your house and SHOW you and you then dare to use this as ammunition against my arguements!
And, further, you use the fact that I intend to bring evidence later, and twisted that intention into a rhetorical attack against me.
How dare you. You twist my words, and use them to support a lie, and disregard four hours of carefully (not pefectly at the end, though) crafted arguements based on data, due to said lie.
Since you complain about evidence, I think it's fair to say I will too. Of course, remember, please answer my question as to what you consider evidence before dealing with this, as it's important.
" But I don't believe in it the same way you do. I believe that there were originally many different types ---let's call them "kinds"--- of animals as little as a few thousand years ago, though possibly as much as millions of years ago, or more."
Based on what genetic, fossil and morphological evidence? Further, how does this account for the similarities and apparent ancestral connections which continually go back, without stopping, hundreds of millions of years into the past?
" Now something happened, maybe some sort of canopy in the atmosphere, fell to earth and now none of these species were protected from all the harmful rays of the sun."
Is there any geological evidence from which this claim is founded? Any astronomical evidence, or evidence in the laws of physics? Where is the evidence for this? What observations support it?
"Or maybe something else happened. Or maybe nothing happened. Whatever, but now these different kinds of life start incurring mutations in their DNA."
How do you account for the fact that the mutations show evidence of occuring before the time you suppose? That is to say, the changes in fossils over millions of years? The species did not stagnate, you know.
"This, coupled with natural selection, caused a massive across-the-board speciation event that resulted in far more specific types of animals than, say, one could fit on a big-ass boat."
But I TOLD you the recorded measurements of rate of mutation. At that rate, which has stayed constant for a whole century, it is impossible for your claim to have happened in the time you give it.
Further, where is your evidence of a massive explosion of speciation recently?
Can you show me where it shows this? If there is, in fact, physicl evidence of such a thing, it might at least help a bit, wouldn't it?
Really, you demand evidence, but do you have any for your own claims?
"Here's the thing about what I think may have happened. All the things that evolution looks at as evidence, like about similarites in structures and DNA code, and natural selection in isolated populations, and the tired old moth example, this is all perfectly compatible with my theory. "
Maybe it's compatible, if you can pony up the archeological evidence, DNA evidence, geological evidence and evidence in the laws of physics to support your claim.
But even if your theory Is compatible with everything, and this is the key part, does it predict it?
You say to look at your theory and common descent, and then look at the evidence.
Historically, the theory of common descent predicted the similarities of DNA among morphologically similar creatures, predicted]/i] the fossil similarities, [i]predicted mutations, and all the rest.
If we go by just your theory, and pretend, honestly, that we were back in 1850... would your current theory have predicted, and DOES it in fact predict, any of the evidence found?
It's all well and good to say something accounts for the current evidence. Fine. But a scientific theory predicts.
What does your theory predict? I'd love to know. Because then, we could go out and test it.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Megabyte, I'm finding your posts extremely interesting to read, even though I'm personally acquainted with a good bit of the knowledge within them. But seriously, stop wasting your time putting so much effort into conversing with someone who is at best willfully ignoring everything you have to say, if he's even bothering to read it.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't matter, honestly. My discussion has improved my understanding a little bit, and I even learned a few new things from looking information up. Describing evolution and the reasoning for believing it step by step is incredibly valuable. And now, I'll never have to do it again in my own mind, as, darn it, I've made my case explicit in my own mind.
It's been valuable, at least to me. And, further, I'm hoping at least some other people enjoy them, if not the person I intend them for.
Also, I appreciate your statements, Strider. I'm hoping that I understand the concepts well enough. I'm just an amateur, after all.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
well, me too, so if you're wrong about something in particular I wouldn't know it.
But I agree with you. I find having repeated conversations about something I believe, or some theory or piece of knowledge I'm familiar with, always helps me further cement and understand my thoughts on something, often causing me to question "why" I think something or "how" I know something. So in that since, even if you get no response, or an ignorant response, it's still helped you in the long run.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will. I just briefly scanned through everything, but I'm between classes right now. I might not get back to you for a while though. Hang in there!
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh. So I was re-reading the Darwin text I linked to above, and found a place where the poor guy was in the wrong! He says:
quote:But it may be urged that when several closely-allied species inhabit the same territory we surely ought to find at the present time many transitional forms. Let us take a simple case: in travelling from north to south over a continent, we generally meet at successive intervals with closely allied or representative species, evidently filling nearly the same place in the natural economy of the land. These representative species often meet and interlock; and as the one becomes rarer and rarer, the other becomes more and more frequent, till the one replaces the other. But if we compare these species where they intermingle, they are generally as absolutely distinct from each other in every detail of structure as are specimens taken from the metropolis inhabited by each. By my theory these allied species have descended from a common parent; and during the process of modification, each has become adapted to the conditions of life of its own region, and has supplanted and exterminated its original parent and all the transitional varieties between its past and present states. Hence we ought not to expect at the present time to meet with numerous transitional varieties in each region, though they must have existed there, and may be embedded there in a fossil condition. But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me. But I think it can be in large part explained.
His explanation isn't bad, but it's clear that he would have benefited from knowing about ring species, which weren't discovered until rather later. So this is a point where his theory has gotten stronger by the addition of evidence.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
