Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Teaching the Truth in Schools
Spofforth
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 169 (33018)
02-24-2003 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by John
02-23-2003 10:18 PM



Although rarely fatal by themselves, Most of these mutations reduce the probability of surviving or producing offspring, Eyre-Walker says.
http://abcnews.go.com/...ience/DailyNews/mutation990127.html

Many copy errors are still not going to lead to new amino acids, let alone new proteins. The vast majority of organisms that do survive the embryo development with a mutation are weakened in the grand picture. They are producing something that is unnecessary or unuseable, at which point they are using valuable resources and weakening their position within the species. They are weeded out. Even if they do develop a component that we would see as useful, the odds of it developing with proper timing or function are negligible. I still do not find mutation effective in terms of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by John, posted 02-23-2003 10:18 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by John, posted 02-24-2003 11:09 AM Spofforth has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 47 of 169 (33052)
02-24-2003 10:48 AM


Topic Drift Warning
The mutation example is a relevant part of the discussion but should not become the main issue.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 169 (33054)
02-24-2003 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Spofforth
02-24-2003 5:57 AM


So, it seems that you now admit that mutations occur very frequently and that the critters with the mutations survive. As for the quoted passage, this is an atypical opinion. Most people tend to agree that most mutations are pretty neutral, a few are harmful and even fewer are actually beneficial. You might note that few people dispute the idea that few mutations are helpful. It is part and parcel of the ToE, and is exactly what one would expect in the absense of some guiding force.
quote:
Many copy errors are still not going to lead to new amino acids, let alone new proteins.
Who said anything about a new amino acid or protein? A slight modification of existing structures is perfectly adequate for producing significant change in the organism. This has been shown repeatedly.
quote:
The vast majority of organisms that do survive the embryo development with a mutation are weakened in the grand picture. They are producing something that is unnecessary or unuseable, at which point they are using valuable resources and weakening their position within the species. They are weeded out.
hmmm.... sounds like natural selection.
quote:
Even if they do develop a component that we would see as useful, the odds of it developing with proper timing or function are negligible.
How did you calculate these odds? Did you consider that there are hundreds of billions of organisms which have been reproducing for several billion years-- and for most of that time reproducing several times a day, being bacteria-- and introducing copy errors at every turn? In short, it happens.
In humans: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html
In bacteria: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
A component would not be useful except in the context of environment. Consider the nylon eating bacteria ( No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm ). The bacteria's ancestors eat carbohydrates. The nylon bug metabolizes nylon waste, albiet poorly. But consider, nothing competes with the bacteria for nylon waste while there is stiff competition for other foods. Thus, even though the nylon metabolism is only 2% as efficient as carbohydrate metabolism, it is still advantageous.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Spofforth, posted 02-24-2003 5:57 AM Spofforth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Spofforth, posted 02-24-2003 3:38 PM John has replied

  
Spofforth
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 169 (33074)
02-24-2003 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by John
02-24-2003 11:09 AM



How did you calculate these odds? Did you consider that there are hundreds of billions of organisms which have been reproducing for several billion years-- and for most of that time reproducing several times a day, being bacteria-- and introducing copy errors at every turn? In short, it happens.
In what population of organisms, except bacteria which I am guessing that you are not making the assumption that they can evolve immediate multicellular and complex capabilities, are there hundreds of billions of organisms? If evolution can only happen at the population level, there still is not the grand scale number of organisms necessary fro mutation to be the driving factor. Since this is what is being taught in the science classroom today this is the contradiction. Maybe the whole topic should not be taught in a science classroom at all, but in a philosophy of science class? Only the students that have demonstrated an understanding of biological systems and the scientific method should be allowed to investigate further. Those would be the students that would understand the issues and put in the time in any event.

Who said anything about a new amino acid or protein? A slight modification of existing structures is perfectly adequate for producing significant change in the organism. This has been shown repeatedly.
What do you think a modification in the genetic code is doing? It is coding for a new amino acid which is coding in turn for a new protein. If the protein happens to fit with the other proteins that are present in the organism that organism might survive the mutation. Although the mutation is present it may not even get the chance to thrive in an environment and the organism may never pass it on to the next generation. If we do not know the origination of the original genetic code we cannot teach that all organisms originated from the same lineage despite the fact that some evidence might point in that direction.
If you want to be truly neutral in the science classroom no theories can be taught, just the scientific fundamentals that would allow the student to investigate further on his/her own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by John, posted 02-24-2003 11:09 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by John, posted 02-25-2003 4:12 PM Spofforth has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 169 (33171)
02-25-2003 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Spofforth
02-24-2003 3:38 PM


My reply is in a new thread, in a more appropriate Forum.
EvC Forum: mutation and evolution
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Spofforth, posted 02-24-2003 3:38 PM Spofforth has not replied

  
bardus lux
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 169 (36253)
04-04-2003 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by gene90
11-21-2002 10:43 PM


Brilliant example and lets not forget those pesky roaches who's progeny develop immunity to pesticide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by gene90, posted 11-21-2002 10:43 PM gene90 has not replied

  
Atapuercan Zusayan 
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 169 (70110)
11-30-2003 6:04 PM


"No, no, you misunderstand gene. Evolution is a conspiracy which has deliberately and with malice aforethought produced tens of thousands of scientific papers by thousands of scientists from around the world over the last couple hundred years and published in dozens of obscure journals like "Science" and "Nature" all for the express purpose of corrupting one high school student in the US and convincing them that there is no God.
See, it all makes sense in context, doesn't it? "
Yes. But do you know why, or even what it is called?
That is, its source?
I have read some absolute rubbish from the Darwinists in this thread.
Evolution contributes nothing useful to biology.
And drug resistance contribues nothing to evolution.
------------------
Oinkus Erectus

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by nator, posted 11-30-2003 8:56 PM Atapuercan Zusayan has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 53 of 169 (70156)
11-30-2003 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Atapuercan Zusayan
11-30-2003 6:04 PM


quote:
I have read some absolute rubbish from the Darwinists in this thread. Evolution contributes nothing useful to biology.
And drug resistance contribues nothing to evolution.
I strongly suspect you are a common troll and not interested in actually engaging in debate on any subject.
However, I'll respond just now despite my reservations.
What, precisely, do you consider the "rubbish" spoken in this thread? Please cut and paste your examples, and explain exactly why you think the statements are rubbish.
Can you please explain your understanding of exactly what the Theory of Evolution states?
Additionally, can you please explain how the Theory of Evolution is, according to you, somehow not useful to Biology, and also please explain how drug resistance in bacteria does not support evolutionary theory.
Eagerly awaiting your substantive, evidence-laden response.
------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Atapuercan Zusayan, posted 11-30-2003 6:04 PM Atapuercan Zusayan has not replied

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 169 (70162)
11-30-2003 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by gene90
11-21-2002 10:43 PM


Yes: theory, fact; yes: but not true. And its being taught as the truth without necessarily using the term (truth).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by gene90, posted 11-21-2002 10:43 PM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by nator, posted 11-30-2003 9:19 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 55 of 169 (70163)
11-30-2003 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Martin J. Koszegi
11-30-2003 9:15 PM


I would say that the fact of evolution is true.
It is not, however, ultimate "Truth" in the philosophical sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 11-30-2003 9:15 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 12-01-2003 2:23 PM nator has replied

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 169 (70311)
12-01-2003 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by nator
11-30-2003 9:19 PM


If by "the fact of evolution is true" you mean that sociologiical (and other like) forces have established the belief in peoples' minds to the point that such affected people actually accept evolution as the accurate assessment of WHAT IS, then I would agree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by nator, posted 11-30-2003 9:19 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by zephyr, posted 12-01-2003 2:25 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied
 Message 58 by MrHambre, posted 12-01-2003 2:30 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied
 Message 71 by nator, posted 12-07-2003 4:26 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 57 of 169 (70312)
12-01-2003 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Martin J. Koszegi
12-01-2003 2:23 PM


Are you claiming that mutations do not occur, or are not fixed in populations by natural selection? Claiming that new species have not been formed by the dozens in your lifetime alone?
I'm somewhat confused, since you just said evolution was theory and fact and now seem to say it only exists in people's minds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 12-01-2003 2:23 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 12-01-2003 2:52 PM zephyr has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 58 of 169 (70314)
12-01-2003 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Martin J. Koszegi
12-01-2003 2:23 PM


Martin,
We have all been brainwashed to accept that whatever is scientifically effective is what should be taught as science. Sorry, your dogma doesn't produce the results ours does.
------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 12-01-2003 2:23 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 12-01-2003 3:11 PM MrHambre has replied

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 169 (70321)
12-01-2003 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by zephyr
12-01-2003 2:25 PM


As for something being categorized as theory and fact and existing only in peoples' minds, I'm sure you can think of examples of this from your own knowledge of history, right(?): erroneous ideas that became established beliefs (theory/fact), but that were later found to be erroneous (existing only in peoples' minds from the earlier time). That was all I meant.
I don't think that mutations are very good vehicles to look to in order to explain the development of life. Is the net result of mutations, improvement and expansion of genetic possibilities?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by zephyr, posted 12-01-2003 2:25 PM zephyr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Rei, posted 12-01-2003 3:57 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

  
Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 169 (70328)
12-01-2003 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by MrHambre
12-01-2003 2:30 PM


MrHambre,
Is it scientific to leave the conceivability open that nature itself could yield evidence that could suggest a supernatural origin (complexity, order, etc., seemingly beyond statistical explanation for the time alotted), or more scientific to, at the onset, predetermine that the vehicle we must use to establish our ideas, i.e., nature, is all there is? If you contend that the latter is more rational, or scientific, as I suppose you do, then I further suppose that we just disagree about how to conduct investigations. Do you see, to ANY degree, any rational flaw to the ruling out of such conceivabilities at the onset as I've indicated, or are you simply that convinced to the point that you're so sure of the non-existence of the supernatural, that you don't think there's any harm to automatically deleting it from the equation before you start your assessment of the evidence? And, as Phillip Johnson asked (in Darwin on Trial), "Does non-science necessarily mean nonsense?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by MrHambre, posted 12-01-2003 2:30 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Rei, posted 12-01-2003 3:33 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied
 Message 62 by MrHambre, posted 12-01-2003 3:47 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024