quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: That's a premise I don't just blindly accept. Mutation may be the sole source of differences, but it may be because Adam and Eve were created with two different yet compatible sets of DNA, and all the male/female pairs on the Ark had different yet compatible sets of DNA.
Sigh.
There are some loci in the human genome with more than a hundred alleles.
How do you propose that two, or even eight people carried all those alleles?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:In all seriousness and no snideness intended - there's no trap, mate. There's just evidence. You make claims, they make claims and everyone provides evidence to back up their claims.
No-one's trying to trap you - even when we've been snide, we're genuinely interested in the evidence you do have and your interpretations of the evidence we provide.
Okay, my Aussie friend. Everyone on board! No assumptions about what the other person thinks, or what he fails to understand. Just the evidence, or from my perspective, the lack thereof.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh: It isn't possible for two humans to have all the variation we see in the human species entirely in their genomes. There are more gene variations than there are places to put them.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: That's a premise I don't just blindly accept. Mutation may be the sole source of differences, but it may be because Adam and Eve were created with two different yet compatible sets of DNA, and all the male/female pairs on the Ark had different yet compatible sets of DNA.
Sigh.
There are some loci in the human genome with more than a hundred alleles.
How do you propose that two, or even eight people carried all those alleles?
I'm including you in my invitation, but the key here is civility. You could have left out that little "sigh." Until you do, I'm ignoring you.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"the person died because the flow of oxygen to his lings was cut off" actually does not have explanatory power.
Resh, I think this sentence, in a nutshell, helps to explain why so many people who know more about science -- and the scientific method -- than you do get frustrated with your argument. Do you understand why that sentence is ridiculous?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: That's a premise I don't just blindly accept. Mutation may be the sole source of differences, but it may be because Adam and Eve were created with two different yet compatible sets of DNA, and all the male/female pairs on the Ark had different yet compatible sets of DNA.
There is nowhere near enough variation within the genotypes of two individual humans to account for the vast array of phenotypes we see in humans today. Even if Adam and Eve were each heterozygous at every single locus for different alleles (i.e. 4 alleles per locus), that wouldn't be anywhere near enough. Without mutation, your model implies that for any given gene, there are can be at MOST four different alleles. We know of individual loci with hundreds of alleles all by themselves. It is physically impossible for all of that variation to have come into being without some sort of mutation occurring.
Edit: Ahh, too slow again. That's what I get for double-checking my sources.
quote:I'm not saying that this is what happened, by the way. But I find it more likely to have happened than Evolution. [/qb]
That's because you neither understand evolution nor have knowledge of the evidence. Both are readily corrected, but you have thus far proven unwilling.
Oh. Was that not civil enough for you? Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Resh: It isn't possible for two humans to have all the variation we see in the human species entirely in their genomes. There are more gene variations than there are places to put them.
I know that. First let me say that I do not subscribe to the notion that I can only discount the validity of Evolution if I have a viable theory that can replace it. Even so, I'm just going to say that I don't think mutations don't happen. This is the argument that is put out by Creationists: that the original two human DNA pairs were perfect, without any flaws. Therefore their children were born with perfect DNA, and so they could interbreed without worry about deformities. However, after the Flood the firmament which blocked so much of the harmful rays of the sun fell, and mutations began occurring with some frequency. One consequence that the Bible describes and might have been predicted by a theory based upon Creation-science is that within a few generations life spans would have been severely reduced, from thousands of years to no more than 120 or so.
Again, I'm not saying I think this is what happened, but I'm not ruling it or something similar from happening.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh, you need to get off the hair trigger. People are willing to answer your questions, but when you make blind assertions that are indisputably impossible and propose that they are the most likely explanation, then you might just get a *sigh* or two in response.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not saying that this is what happened, by the way. But I find it more likely to have happened than Evolution.
That's because you neither understand evolution nor have knowledge of the evidence. Both are readily corrected, but you have thus far proven unwilling.
Oh. Was that not civil enough for you? [/QB]
No, and if you have to ask then you should already have known.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, I'm not saying I think this is what happened, but I'm not ruling it or something similar from happening.
Someone said that without mutations, we'd all be clones. You countered by stating that perhaps all of the variation for creating the diversity we see in humans today was part of Adam and Eve's DNA. Now it seems that you're agreeing with the original statement that mutations must have occurred.
I find this very confusing.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Resh, you need to get off the hair trigger. People are willing to answer your questions, but when you make blind assertions that are indisputably impossible and propose that they are the most likely explanation, then you might just get a *sigh* or two in response.
Maybe, but I'm not sure how much leeway I can allow, considering how quickly things degrade. I mean, it's already happening, even with you. I don't want to hear that I made "blind assertions that are indisputably impossible and propose that they are the most likely explanation." First off, I didn't say it was the most likely, I just said I find it more likely, by simple virtue of the fact that I find Evolution to be nigh impossible. Second, don't just tell me something is indisputably impossible, tell me why you think so.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, I'm not saying I think this is what happened, but I'm not ruling it or something similar from happening.
Someone said that without mutations, we'd all be clones. You countered by stating that perhaps all of the variation for creating the diversity we see in humans today was part of Adam and Eve's DNA. Now it seems that you're agreeing with the original statement that mutations must have occurred.
I find this very confusing.
That's because you've got it wrong. I wasn't countering the fact that mutations occur, I was countering the notion that only through mutations may variations arise. I've said this before: I think it may be possible that there were many different kinds of animals and because of mutations all those different kinds have devolved into all the very specialized species. Like, there used to be only one kind of sqirrel, and now all the different types of squirrels out there came from them.
Once more, I allow for the possibility, this is not a theory of mine.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I find you to be insincere and I think you have only one goal in mind: to catch me in a trap. I'm sorry, but I'm not interested."
Insincere? Perhaps my posts on the subject have degenerated, after the earlier times when I put a lot of effort into it didn't turn out so well. It's not fun, and definitely gives me less incentive to be as rigorous as I should be, and for that I'm sorry. But insincere? No... well. My questions aren't. I'll admit I've been less than respectful, but this has not been a one way street, friend.
I'm not trying to trap you. Defining your terms isn't trapping you. Asking you questions, asking you to back up your statements, asking you your rationale, and the difference between your beliefs and others... these aren't traps. These are not insincere questions.
They're only the kinds of questions I ask myself, every day. And they're only the kinds of questions you'd be expected to answer in science, as well as in life. How you know something, what evidence you have, what your theory predicts, and how does that precition relate to the existing data, what data would you need to know to be certain more certain, what you mean precisely by a word or concept, etc.
These kinds of questions are vital in life. Certainly you ask questions about a used car, and try to figure things out. Same with diseases. And in school, unsubstantiated statments get an F for a reason. My questions, if not my tone, are quite sincere, and quite honest, and are the sorts of things anyone trying to do science should have to answer. (should is key word. Not that things are perfect, of course.)
As for questions... we'll see. I won't say no, and I doubt I'd be able to hold out on a no. But even so, forgive me for being wary.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Second, don't just tell me something is indisputably impossible, tell me why you think so.
You were told by a couple different people. You just weren't happy with their attitude.
I'll stay off the thread to avoid making any further comments that you might interpret as uncivil.
No, come on, don't do that. We just need to stay focussed, and this sort of thing is distracting. You'll notice that when someone told me why it was impossible, I addressed the problem.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Resh, you need to get off the hair trigger. People are willing to answer your questions, but when you make blind assertions that are indisputably impossible and propose that they are the most likely explanation, then you might just get a *sigh* or two in response.
Maybe, but I'm not sure how much leeway I can allow, considering how quickly things degrade. I mean, it's already happening, even with you.
If people seem hostile, that's entirely because of your own attitude. Perhaps you should pull out that giant honkin' log in your eye before you start tweaking others about the splinters in theirs?
quote:I don't want to hear that I made "blind assertions that are indisputably impossible and propose that they are the most likely explanation."
If that is what you did, how is it "uncivil" to point it out?
quote:First off, I didn't say it was the most likely, I just said I find it more likely, by simple virtue of the fact that I find Evolution to be nigh impossible. Second, don't just tell me something is indisputably impossible, tell me why you think so. [/QB]
That's exactly what people have been doing. You just choose to imagine some sort of intended offense against your delicate disposition rather than address the substance of our responses. swbarnes, for example, has addressed virtually every one of your points in both this thread and the last one, only to be shot down with a simple "la la la I'm not listening because you're so MEAN!"
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tarrsk, that's exactly what fugu did, telling me why he thought I was wrong and he was the one who got an answer from me, even though you and swbarnes made essentially the same point. On the last thread I was enjoying the conversation with him, Matt, suminon, and some of the others. But a few of the others (not you then, but you now) were ruining the experience. I don't have delicate sensibilities, I just don't feel like wasting my time, which is what I'm doing now.
I'm not officially ignoring anybody, I'm just not responding to posts that are intentionally insulting.
Go for it Megabyte. I understand your concerns and I'll keep them in mind.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm just not responding to posts that are intentionally insulting.
Resh, you are insulted when people call you wrong. In cases like this, in which you're manifestly wrong, it is impossible to communicate the reality of the situation to you without insulting you.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Megabyte, you don't have to start by asking me questions. You can just jump in with an answer to one of mine (and so can everyone else if they feel so inclined): How much of the evidence for evolution is actually just conceptualizations, and not actual empirical evidence? If all the conceptions about evolution were inadmissible as evidence, how much of the theory would be left?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Tarrsk, that's exactly what fugu did, telling me why he thought I was wrong and he was the one who got an answer from me, even though you and swbarnes made essentially the same point. On the last thread I was enjoying the conversation with him, Matt, suminon, and some of the others. But a few of the others (not you then, but you now) were ruining the experience. I don't have delicate sensibilities, I just don't feel like wasting my time, which is what I'm doing now.
I have to admit, I don't really give a damn whether you personally think I'm being uncivil. I think I'm being perfectly civil, as are swbarnes and MattP, and I suspect that other people reading this thread (including the mods) would concur. Nobody has done the internet equivalent of raising their voices here. We just don't see any point in sugar-coating our phrases, especially when doing so would actually obscure what we are trying to say.
quote:I'm not officially ignoring anybody, I'm just not responding to posts that are intentionally insulting.[/QB]
Again, nobody is being intentionally insulting. Some of us are exasperated, sure, but if that's enough to turn you into Little Miss Junior Mod, then that's your own lookout, not ours.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Resh, you are insulted when people call you wrong. In cases like this, in which you're manifestly wrong, it is impossible to communicate the reality of the situation to you without insulting you.
Exactly my point, but better stated. Thanks, Tom.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm just not responding to posts that are intentionally insulting.
Resh, you are insulted when people call you wrong. In cases like this, in which you're manifestly wrong, it is impossible to communicate the reality of the situation to you without insulting you.
Tom, I'm not insulted when people call me wrong, though I would prefer that people say that my belief or understanding is wrong. I only have a problem when people just come out and tell me I'm wrong without bothering to explain why. This is why it seems to be, however erroneously) that Evolutionists seem to believe that doubting the theory automatically implies ignorance.
An example would look something like "in cases like this, in which you're manifestly wrong, it is impossible to communicate the reality of the situation to you without insulting you."
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay Tarrsk, but have you noticed that because of all this (everyone being insulting, me being hypersensitive, or whatever combination of the two), we aren't talking about Evolution? Seriously, I'm just asking that people stay focused and avoid name-calling, unfounded assumptions about the other person's motive, condescending language, that sort of thing. Can we agree on that? I disagree with you that you have-to sugarcoat anything in order to be civil, not if you stick to talking about the theories and ideas that get thrown about. Refraining from saying things like "Little Miss Junior Mod" is not going to hurt your ability to defend the theory of evolution.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: What if they gave an evolution thread, and nobody came?
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: All we're sayin' is, give shuttin' up a chance!
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Hell no, we won't post!
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: This thread is a quagmire. I think we should pull out all our posters from it right now.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: No blood for debate! Posters home now!
This may be a sign of the apocalypse, but I agree with every post of KoM's in this thread so far.
I sort of understand why people keep engaging Resh. Every so often, it looks like some headway might actually be possible. It's always illusory, but I understand the hoping.
But engaging him in a thread he can delete any time (and I think the odds are better than even that he will), when there's already a perfectly good one that he has chosen to ignore? Color me bewildered.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Okay Tarrsk, but have you noticed that because of all this (everyone being insulting, me being hypersensitive, or whatever combination of the two), we aren't talking about Evolution? Seriously, I'm just asking that people stay focused and avoid name-calling, unfounded assumptions about the other person's motive, condescending language, that sort of thing. Can we agree on that?
Sure, I'd be happy to. Of course, it does require you to stop whining about how people are being "uncivil." Can you do that?
quote:I disagree with you that you have-to sugarcoat anything in order to be civil, not if you stick to talking about the theories and ideas that get thrown about. Refraining from saying things like "Little Miss Junior Mod" is not going to hurt your ability to defend the theory of evolution. [/QB]
I like how you plead that we on the other side get back on-topic, and then continue to perpetuate the off-topicness yourself. Way to lead by example!
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, consider the previous sentence I highlighted for you. You wrote, in response to someone else's generous explanation of why Natural Selection is not a mere tautology, the following:
quote:"the person died because the flow of oxygen to his lungs was cut off" actually does not have explanatory power.
This is untrue. This is, in fact, blatantly untrue. While the statement does not provide a full and detailed explanation of all the various mechanisms that produce death, it is otherwise an accurate explanation of death: the person died because the flow of oxygen to his lungs was cut off. We can investigate why his lungs were deprived of oxygen; we can investigate why people require oxygen. But that's not necessary for the statement you quoted to, in and of itself, to have some explanatory power.
In the same way, "those who survive to breed are more likely to breed" is not a tautology; it helps to explain why desirable genotypes are more likely to occur over the long term.
Do you understand this now?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I promise I will not delete this thread, to anyone who is wondering.
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte (elsewhere): " 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?
I would say that "fully-developed" could describe a great many things. For instance, one might consider a penguins wing fully developed even though it doesn't confer upon the bird the ability to fly. On the other hand, if you consider all species as being in a transitional state, then an eagle's wing might not be fully developed.
I think the more important thing to focus on is that there is nothing that one could consider "half developed" in the fossil record. Like, there are no fossils of reptiles with some of their jaw bones moved up closer to where they need to be to form a mammalian ear, but not quite there yet. There are not flying mammal fossils that show evidence of organs that might at some point become a sonar system, but they haven't made it there yet.
According to the theory, the animals that filled that intermediate space between those specific feature would have made use of those intermediate stages to their advantage, and so they would have just looked like fully developed features all by themselves. But no such creatures have ever been found.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: We just need to stay focussed, and this sort of thing is distracting. You'll notice that when someone told me why it was impossible, I addressed the problem.
Fine, then focus.
You said that you believed a genome contains all the information it needs to generate a wide variety of phenotypes.
Well, you've got a whole genomes for a fair number of organisms at your fingertips. Human, mouse, rat, dog, zebrafish...etc.
So pick one varying trait, like fur color in mice, and show us in the genome of C57L/B6 where all the information for all the other fur colors are kept.
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: [QB]
I think the more important thing to focus on is that there is nothing that one could consider "half developed" in the fossil record. Like, there are no fossils of reptiles with some of their jaw bones moved up closer to where they need to be to form a mammalian ear, but not quite there yet.
"The transition from reptile to mammal has an excellent record. The following fossils are just a sampling. In particular, these fossils document the transition of one type of jaw joint into another. Reptiles have one bone in the middle ear and several bones in the lower jaw. Mammals have three bones in the middle ear and only one bone in the lower jaw. These species show transitional jaw-ear arrangements (Hunt 1997; White 2002b). The sequence shows transitional stages in other features, too, such as skull, vertebrae, ribs, and toes.
Sphenacodon (late Pennsylvanian to early Permian, about 270 million years ago (Mya)). Lower jaw is made of multiple bones; the jaw hinge is fully reptilian. No eardrum. Biarmosuchia (late Permian). One of the earliest therapsids. Jaw hinge is more mammalian. Upper jaw is fixed. Hindlimbs are more upright. Procynosuchus (latest Permian). A primitive cynodont, a group of mammal-like therapsids. Most of the lower jaw bones are grouped in a small complex near the jaw hinge. Thrinaxodon (early Triassic). A more advanced cynodont. An eardrum has developed in the lower jaw, allowing it to hear airborne sound. Its quadrate and articular jaw bones could vibrate freely, allowing them to function for sound transmission while still functioning as jaw bones. All four legs are fully upright. Probainognathus (mid-Triassic, about 235 Mya). It has two jaw joints: mammalian and reptilian (White 2002a). Diarthrognathus (early Jurassic, 209 Mya). An advanced cynodont. It still has a double jaw joint, but the reptilian joint functions almost entirely for hearing. Morganucodon (early Jurassic, about 220 Mya). It still has a remnant of the reptilian jaw joint (Kermack et al. 1981). Hadrocodium (early Jurassic). Its middle ear bones have moved from the jaw to the cranium (Luo et al. 2001; White 2002b)."
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, Tom, I think you missed the point. I was drawing an analogy there. Saying that oxygen was cut off from the person (however that happened) is the cause of death in a very superficial sense. Saying that humans need oxygen to live, and so humans without oxygen do not live is the equivalent to natural selection. Saying this person died because oxygen was cut of is the equivalent to Life evolved because of natural selection. Neither are really an explanation of anything. The major difference here is that we can observe lack of oxygen killing people, but we cant observe natural selection creating new species (beyond the very small changes I talked about earlier.)
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's silly to expect us to find transitional fossils for every single transitional creature that could have existed. Fossils only form under specific conditions and are prone to being destroyed by natural events. In the previous thread I provided a link to a page that cited hundreds of different transitional species that have been found.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: It's silly to expect us to find transitional fossils for every single transitional creature that could have existed. Fossils only form under specific conditions and are prone to being destroyed by natural events. In the previous thread I provided a link to a page that cited hundreds of different transitional species that have been found.
Furthermore, as has already been pointed out here and elsewhere, even if the fossil record didn't exist, there is more than enough genetic data at this point to fully support evolutionary theory by itself. The fact that the fossil record also supports evolution (along with every other field in biology) is just delicious creamy icing on the phylogenetic cake.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: You said that you believed a genome contains all the information it needs to generate a wide variety of phenotypes.
Well, you've got a whole genomes for a fair number of organisms at your fingertips. Human, mouse, rat, dog, zebrafish...etc.
So pick one varying trait, like fur color in mice, and show us in the genome of C57L/B6 where all the information for all the other fur colors are kept.
Or admit that you can't find any evidence to support your supposition.
Willful misinterpretation of what I said? I didn't say I believed that is what happened. I just said that I haven't ruled it out as a possibility. And with my limited technical knowledge of genetics, I still haven't. You're insisting that I go and do something that I can't do, because I don't have the training required to do it. Somehow this is supposed to show that I have no right to doubt the theory of Evolution.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm disappointed that you haven't seen fit to address the video I saw of a dog wearing scuba gear. I mean, I get that the example I gave of how macro-evolution can be demonstrated through the fossil record of a land mammal evolving into proto-whales didn't fit your criteria, but, for Pete's sake, that dog was wearing scuba gear!
---
edit: Here's irrefutable proof that evolution is real. I defy you to tell me that dog isn't wearing diving equipment.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: You said that you believed a genome contains all the information it needs to generate a wide variety of phenotypes.
Well, you've got a whole genomes for a fair number of organisms at your fingertips. Human, mouse, rat, dog, zebrafish...etc.
So pick one varying trait, like fur color in mice, and show us in the genome of C57L/B6 where all the information for all the other fur colors are kept.
Or admit that you can't find any evidence to support your supposition.
Willful misinterpretation of what I said? I didn't say I believed that is what happened. I just said that I haven't ruled it out as a possibility. And with my limited technical knowledge of genetics, I still haven't. You're insisting that I go and do something that I can't do, because I don't have the training required to do it. Somehow this is supposed to show that I have no right to doubt the theory of Evolution.
Of course it does. Do you really think that expertise means nothing? If there was a thread on the engineering of spaceflight-capable rockets, would it be intellectually valid for someone who never got through high-school geometry to wander in and casually dismiss everything being said because he can't understand calculus?
We've said it over and over again: unless you are willing to put in some effort to learn the science, you will never be able to convincingly argue your case. This doesn't mean you need to go out and get your PhD in genetics before posting at Hatrack again. And we are happy to describe evolutionary theory as best we can considering your level of knowledge on the subject. But just as you need some knowledge of advanced mathematics to weigh in on space shuttle design, you really need to know the basics of biology before you are qualified to talk about the merits (or lack thereof) of evolutionary theory.
Edit: Just to be clear, I am NOT saying that people without science backgrounds are somehow inferior or less-intelligent than those who have had advanced training the subject. I wouldn't presume to tell a rocket scientist how he should be designing his rockets; nor would I presume to tell a plumber the correct way to fix my sink. In both cases, there is technical knowledge that they have and I do not. If I were to spend the time and effort necessary to learn rocket science or plumbing, then I would feel confident talking to them at their own level- but only then.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, swbarnes, the reptilian jawbone thing looks convincing. I was using that example because it was just something I read a while ago. The book didn't give any examples, it just said that that was what happened. However, it looks like there is quite a jump between the Biarmosuchia and the Procynosuchus. Is not the Procynosuchus actually just a mammal? I actually don't know, I'm just asking.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, MrSquicky. I actually want to see that. I'll report back soon.
A valid point, swbarnes. The difference is that rockets don't imply a negation of ones religious beliefs (not that Evolution necessarily does, but it sure seems to; ruling out the need for a Creator pretty much rules out the possibility of a Creator for a skeptic.) Moreover, they don't imply that I must ignore some very basic concepts that I can reasonably hold without an advanced degree. Not only that, but you can show me what rockets can do, but you can't show me what Evolution can do (beyond varying beak sizes and moth colorings.) Instead, you are trying to convince me that all this came from chaos based on some natural law that says random matter has some self-ordering properties to the degree of creating the most inconceivably complex structures ever known.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How much of the evidence for evolution is actually just conceptualizations, and not actual empirical evidence?
I'm not sure you what you mean by "conceptualizations". That is not a term that commonly used in science.
In science, we look at the empirical evidence. From that evidence we develop a hypothesis that fits the observed evidence. The hypothesis must be predictive. Experiments are then designed to see whether the hypothesis can accurately predict stuff that no one had previously observed. If it can't accurately predict the new data, then we have to come up with a new hypothesis to fit all the empirical evidence. Once a hypothesis has accurately predicted the outcome of numerous experiments, it is called a scientific theory.
Evolution is a theory that accurately fits a very large amount of empirical evidence. For example:
We know by empirical observation of fossils that life has existed on this planet for ~225 million years.
We know by empirical observation of the the fossil record that life began as simple single celled organisims and the over time increasingly complex life forms appeared.
We know from the fossil record that some species went extinct and other new species appeared.
We know from the fossil record that many characteristics appeared in a step wise fashion. That is the fossil record shows a progression of small changes which over time add up to big changes.
All of that is empirical fact. No theories involved. No conceptualization.
We know from studies of wild currently living species and from laboratory studies of simple organisms that mutations and natural selection occur. Once again this is not conjecture or theory, it is empirically observed.
We know that traits are passed from one generation to the next via DNA. We know that changes in the DNA result in changes in the behavior and function of the organisms. We know that changes in the DNA can occur through a variety of random natural processes including (but not limited to) point mutations, gene exchanges, and gene splicing. All that has been empirically observed.
Although most mutations in the DNA are detrimental to survival, mutations that actually favor survival have been empircally observed. In laboratory experiments, we know we can manipulate the environment to select for a particular mutation. For example, by growing bacteria in an environment where antibiotics are present we can select for bacteria which by random mutation are resistent to the antibiotic. By gradually increasing the level of antibiotic in the environment, we can cause the evolution of bacteria that are resistent to higher and higher levels of antibiotic. There are many many examples.
Because it takes many generations for a significant change to occur through these mechanisms, laboratory observation of evolution has been limited to organisms that reproduce very fast so that we can observe many generations in the the course of a few days to years.
That is just the briefest summary of the empirical evidence which fits the theory of evolution. As we learn more and more about fossils, genes, proteins and so on, we come up with better and better experiments to challenge this theory. So far, the more evidence we accumulate the better the theory looks.
For most scientists the acid test of any theory is that it is useful in leading to new discoveries, better understanding of the natural world and solving problems. The theory of evolution passes that test. Its led to many hypotheses that have in turn led to really important discoveries in biology that have helped us treat diseases, grow better crops, and resulted in valuable technologies.
This is not to say that evolution is the only hypothesis that could possibly fit all the data. To this point, however, the competing hypothese that fits the data is the hypothesis that God created everything with the features we observe. Unfortunately, that theory is very uninteresting from a scientific point of view because it isn't predictive in nature so it doesn't tell us what kind of experiments we should be trying. As a result it just isn't useful for helping us better understand the natural world or solving problems.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well put Rabbit. By conceptualizations, I mean stories about how all sorts of developments occurred based upon the necessity of them occurring. For instance, we all know the different stages of evolution that they human eye had to go through in order to get to its current level of development. But how many of those stages are implied by the necessity of their existence, and not because we've actually seen proof of their existence? This is not to say it didn't happen, just that it can't be shown that it did aside from a range of complexity in eye types and a requirement by the theory that says it must have. This is one example.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm disappointed that you haven't seen fit to address the video I saw of a dog wearing scuba gear. I mean, I get that the example I gave of how macro-evolution can be demonstrated through the fossil record of a land mammal evolving into proto-whales didn't fit your criteria, but, for Pete's sake, that dog was wearing scuba gear!
---
edit: Here's irrefutable proof that evolution is real. I defy you to tell me that dog isn't wearing diving equipment.
That image was faked. Therefore Evolution is false.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I'm sorry, MrSquicky. I actually want to see that. I'll report back soon.
A valid point, swbarnes. The difference is that rockets don't imply a negation of ones religious beliefs (not that Evolution necessarily does, but it sure seems to; ruling out the need for a Creator pretty much rules out the possibility of a Creator for a skeptic.)
It seems to me that if your faith is shaken by some simple facts, then it's not a terribly strong faith. But I'll leave you to figure that out, it's not really my business.
quote:Moreover, they don't imply that I must ignore some very basic concepts that I can reasonably hold without an advanced degree.
Hate to break it to you, but being simple enough for a non-advanced degree holder to understand is not a prerequisite for something to be true. It is indisputable that rockets have been designed that can reach escape velocity and enter orbit around the Earth. You and I might understand the basic physics of motion, but there is certainly plenty about rocket design that we do not understand- the chemistry of the fuel, the complex aerodynamics that minimize drag from air. Are you saying that the rocket would still be able to fly without its designers knowing these things?
quote:Not only that, but you can show me what rockets can do, but you can't show me what Evolution can do (beyond varying beak sizes and moth colorings.)
How about virtually every single medication produced in the last twenty years? Those gene sequence databases which you so casually dismissed in the previous thread have been critical to the development of modern biotechnology. Molecular phylogenies allow us to target genes that are evolutionarily conserved between humans and mice, so that we can test new therapies in the mice before moving into human subjects. If evolutionary theory wasn't true, then this approach would be fundamentally flawed, and we should be seeing the majority of human tests fail miserably as drugs that did the trick in mice either do nothing in humans or are actively deleterious. This does not happen.
Heck, I just spent last night reading all about how the cancer drug Glivec was developed. Every bit of science in those papers was based in evolutionary theory- if Darwin's idea was wrong, none of the experiments described would have worked. And yet, amazingly, all of them did. And now we have a powerful way to combat a particular form of leukemia.
Incidentally, cancer itself is a form of evolution in action. Mutations in your cells lead to some cells losing their normal inhibition against unwanted growth and division, and eventually these cell populations begin to grow vociferously. They have developed what from their perspective is a highly beneficial set of mutations that allow them to rapidly expand their population. Of course, in the long run, this ends up killing the host person, but again: evolution doesn't think ahead. From the perspective of that newly mutated cancer cell, it is absolutely beneficial for it to grow and spread its now slightly-different genetic code as much as it can. That this will inevitably lead to its own doom is irrelevant from the perspective of natural selection.
quote:Instead, you are trying to convince me that all this came from chaos based on some natural law that says random matter has some self-ordering properties to the degree of creating the most inconceivably complex structures ever known. [/QB]
Someone's edging dangerously close to the thermodynamics fallacy again. There is nothing inherently impossible about complexity arising from disorder, so long as there exists a source of free energy to power it. Which we do- the sun.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tarssk. I'd love to see that information about that cancer drug. You said you read it last night? Where? I want to see!
Also, unrelated:
That website is cool, but I can't yet make heads or tails of it. I'll figure it out eventually, after consulting someone who knows what it means, I'm sure. But it's not meant for me, I know that much. It'd definitely be cool if I could read it. I can sympathize with why Resh would have a worry about someone expecting something of him that most of the rest of us can't do.
I can't wait to figure this stuff out, and what it means!
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Saying that humans need oxygen to live, and so humans without oxygen do not live is the equivalent to natural selection. Saying this person died because oxygen was cut of is the equivalent to Life evolved because of natural selection. Neither are really an explanation of anything.
*blink* It seems to me that they're answers to the questions "why did life evolve" and "how did he die," actually. Why don't you think they answer those questions?
quote:This is not to say it didn't happen, just that it can't be shown that it did aside from a range of complexity in eye types and a requirement by the theory that says it must have.
So you concede that we have a) a range of complexity in eye types and b) a requirement by the theory that this complexity must exist. What else do you need?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have a problem with order arising out of imbalances in a closed system. It's the type of order and the amount. The fallacy lies in thinking that order is order, be it salt crystals or DNA.
Those developments would work even if Evolution is false because the vital aspect that Evolution plays in those developments is commonality, which Evolution says results from common descent. However, just so long as the commonality is true, the approach works.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Tarssk. I'd love to see that information about that cancer drug. You said you read it last night? Where? I want to see!
Yeah, it was a set of three papers I was reading for one of my classes. Unfortunately, I'm not sure they're available for free online unless you're at a university that has paid for access to the journals, but here are the citations if you want to try to find them:
Druker, B.J., Tamura, S., Buchdunger, E., Ohno, S., Segal, G.M., Fanning, S., Zimmerman, J., and Lydon, N.B. (1996) Effects of a selective inhibitor of the Abl tyrosine kinase on the growth of Bcr-Abl positive cells. Nature Medicine 2, 561-566.
Druker, B.J., Talpaz, M., Resta, D.J., Peng, B., Buchdunger,E., Ford, J.M., Lydon, N.D., Kantarjian, H., Capeville, R., Ohno-Jones, S. and Sawyers, C.L. (April 5, 2001) Efficacy and safety of a specific inhibitor of the BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase in chronic myeloid leukemia. New England Journal of Medicine 344, 1031-1037.
Gorre, M.E., Mohammed, M., Ellwood, K., Hsu, N., Paquette, R., Rao, P.N., Sawyers, C.L. (2001) Clinical resistance to STI-571 cancer therapy caused by BCR-ABL gene mutation or amplification. Science 293, 876-880.
The first paper describes how a highly specific inhibitor to the mutant BCR-ABL protein (generated by a chromosome fusion and the cause of chronic myelogenous leukemia) was discovered and tested in mice and in vitro. This inhibitor is the molecule that will eventually be renamed "Glivec" in its widespread use as a treatment for CML.
The second paper is a phase 1 clinical trial in human leukemia patients, out of which almost every single one showed remission from the cancer after treatment with sufficiently high doses of the inhibitor compound. Again, this is pretty unbeatable evidence that the bcr and abl loci are conserved between mice and humans.
The third paper goes deeper into the genetics of the cancer and how it interacts with the inhibitor- specifically, how the cancer actually evolves within patients to become resistant to the drug. It also makes some interesting predictions regarding cancer relapse in general.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Saying that humans need oxygen to live, and so humans without oxygen do not live is the equivalent to natural selection. Saying this person died because oxygen was cut of is the equivalent to Life evolved because of natural selection. Neither are really an explanation of anything.
*blink* It seems to me that they're answers to the questions "why did life evolve" and "how did he die," actually. Why don't you think they answer those questions?
Like I said, they are only superficial answers. Look at it like this: How did he die? Lack of oxygen. Why did that kill him? Ooooh... that's a bit more complicated.
quote:
quote:This is not to say it didn't happen, just that it can't be shown that it did aside from a range of complexity in eye types and a requirement by the theory that says it must have.
So you concede that we have a) a range of complexity in eye types and b) a requirement by the theory that this complexity must exist. What else do you need?
Nothing, if you already believe the theory in the first place. I should add to that though, that the range of eye types that we have are a small fraction of the eye types required by the theory.
I gotta go play poker, I'll be back later.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: By conceptualizations, I mean stories about how all sorts of developments occurred based upon the necessity of them occurring. For instance, we all know the different stages of evolution that they human eye had to go through in order to get to its current level of development. But how many of those stages are implied by the necessity of their existence, and not because we've actually seen proof of their existence?
Evolution of the eye in Wikipedia shows examples of organisms that exhibit many of the step proposed for evolution of the eye.
But in general, its impossible to answer your question first because the answer is constantly changing. The empirical evidence for evolution was extremely small at the time of Darwin but is extensive today. Second, the question of how much is empirical vs hypothetical is a moving target. Suppose for example someone proposes 10 steps for the evolution of the eye and 6 of them are empirical but the other 4 are only hypothetical. Well then people will start looking for examples of the other 4 steps. Maybe they find 2 of them. But those 2 aren't exactly what was originally proposed so we have to modify the original 10 steps. So then we might have 12 steps or perhaps only 9.
Then when we look further, we observe that those 10 steps represented macroscopic structures in the eye and that each of those structures involved half a dozen or more different proteins. At this level we might be looking then at 100 steps. Then we see that each of the proteins required a dozen mutations to get it from some other protein and we up to 1000 steps. Or we might find that insertion of a virus at one point in the DNA was enough to jump dozens of steps and so we are back down to a few dozen steps instead of hundreds. We might even find that a small change in one protein allowed it to interact differently with a whole host of proteins so that what looks like a big step at the macroscopic level, was only a tiny step at the molecular level.
If your question is, how close is science to understanding the details of the evolutionary process, the answer is far more is unknown than is known. But that is changing very rapidly. That is one of the cool things about science. A good theory, like evolution illuminates the pieces that we don't know. It tells us where to start looking. In this sense evolution is an excellent theory. Without it we wouldn't be making the revolutionary advances in understanding biology that we are making.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Willful misinterpretation of what I said? I didn't say I believed that is what happened. I just said that I haven't ruled it out as a possibility.
Why don't you try doing things forwards for a change?
Instead of making things up, and getting pouty when people point out that that everything that you invent out of your head contradicts the data, why don't you look at the data first, and then draw conclusions from that?
You've done this about 5 times in the last few days...said "The biology probably works like this", and then someone points out to you that it doesn't, and then you cry "Oh, I didn't say I was sure...I jsut said maybe, it's mean for you to hold me to something when I only said "maybe".
Why don't you "focus" on only making factual claims which you can evidence, rather than making up a lot of things that you can't?
quote:And with my limited technical knowledge of genetics, I still haven't. You're insisting that I go and do something that I can't do, because I don't have the training required to do it.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
If you are going to make factual claims that are false, you will be called on it. It's not our fault that you make claims that are wrong. It's not our fault that you make claims you can't defend. You are not the victim here. It is your responsibility defend your own statements.
Or, if you don't want to learn all this, you could learn what conclusions have been drawn by the community of experts who do know all this genetics stuff.
quote:Somehow this is supposed to show that I have no right to doubt the theory of Evolution.
You have all the right in the world to doubt whatever you want. And we have every right to point out that your claims are laughably false, and often ridiculously stupid.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I decided against quoting the Wikipedia article, because I think that Resh will have semantic problems with the terminology. Resh, that isn't an insult, I just think we need to be careful about how things are phrased.
Another article (which I think Resh will also take issue with) gives excellent evidence for a link between primitive and modern eyes.
I know Resh will say that it's only evidence for what could have happened, but it's extremely compelling nonetheless.
At some point tho, the weight of compelling 'could haves' backed by solid evidence should be enough for an impartial party to be convinced. Particularly considering the weight of actual empirical evidence.
Resh, as I've alluded to in previous posts, this is what happened to me - except I wasn't impartial. I was arguing your side of this debate. I was a radical hard-core young-earth creationist who had what I thought was solid evidence and enough of an understanding of scientific principles to successfully argue against just about anyone. My biology teacher and none of my peers could present an argument that I couldn't counter - and counter with specific examples and evidence.
It wasn't until I hit uni and met a particularly gifted and scientifically trained priest who could not only counter my arguments, but provide me with a spiritual framework for the co-existence of faith and evolution.
Sure, with faith, evolution is unnecessary - but many many Christians, particularly outside the US, are comfortable with evolution as a mechanism of God's will.
Anecdotal, I know, but hey - perspective.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: The tautology about oxygen is just a useless. "the person died because the flow of oxygen to his lings was cut off" actually does not have explanatory power. It doesn't explain why humans need oxygen, or why the oxygen source was cut off. You actually need to have some sort of explanation about how oxygen is used by the body, and what happens when it is cut off. That tautology explains why the person died just as accurately as Natural Selection explains how we evolved, which is to say, it doesn't.
It depends on what you are trying to explain, really. The over-simplified example of oxygen isn't useless if what you are trying to explain is why someone dies when submerged in water, or why someone dies when their airway is blocked.
At that point it is exactly the explaination needed.
You could go into details...how the lack of oxygen causes cell death, how oxygen is processed, how a fluid in the lungs can't be processed the same way as a gas even though both include oxygen....but none of that makes the first statement less true, or less of an explaination.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
