I'm not sure how to characterize your position on evolution. You think that evolution couldn't have produced a digestive system? nice bird plumage? I asked you quite honestly what you would consider evidence of evolution, since the visible changes in populations and genetic links among organisms seem inadequate to you. In fact, I do see evidence of a common designer for horses, trees, eyes, flagella, and nice bird feathers: the variation and selection machine of evolution. Evidence from fossils, morphology, molecular biology, genetics, and other sources lead me to believe that all life shares ancestry. You claim that you're persuaded by inductive inference too, but you won't conclude that species evolve? You haven't shown that evolution is based on unfounded assumptions, just that you don't understand the basis of the theory of evolution by natural selection.
There's discussion on this thread concerning differences in chromosome counts, another thing you're using to debunk evolution. Did you realize some species contain members with varying chromosome counts? Why do you think this somehow invalidates evolution? Now you think rib counts in horse fossils means that modern horses did not evolve from earlier species of horses?
You keep talking about genes, but refuse to listen when Mammuthus argues his area of expertise. I think what we know about genetics is strong evidence in favor of common ancestry, and you seem to argue that what you don't know about DNA is evidence against evolution.
You haven't answered any of my questions, but for what it's worth I don't depend on evolution for my livelihood. I'm just fascinated by natural history and I think evolution is a rational theory that explains the vast majority of available observations. It proposes testable mechanisms and has contributed to further research into the development of life on Earth.
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed. Brad McFall
quote:You keep talking about genes, but refuse to listen when Mammuthus argues his area of expertise. I think what we know about genetics is strong evidence in favor of common ancestry, and you seem to argue that what you don't know about DNA is evidence against evolution.
I actually don't see it as a problem that he refuses to listen to me. I encourage people to not be swayed by argument from authority. How many of us really think that Fretwell's arguments are any more valid because he was once an ecologist? However, at any point that I or Loudmouth present the reports of scientific studies, Skeptic whines that it is too technical, that he has no way of evaluating anything that is being said since he is not an expert, and that he wants us to make up some kind of scenario independent of the hypotheses that are already supported by evidence such as the evolution of vision, digestion, and reproduction. I could present specific data points from my own research but what for? They would be over his head as well. Ultimately, he is asking us to not present the evidence for evolution from our respective specialities (Loudmouth is studying zoology and I am a human geneticist by training) but rather to spoon feed him some dumbed down kindegarten version of science that he might understand and then rip into because we are not presenting the actual detailed experimental evidence. It is a little troll game. Attempt to dumb the argument down and then claim that we have no evidence for our hypotheses. When the evidence is presented, claim that it is not understandable to someone with a Dragonball-Z level science education and therefore not valid. The worst part is, he could go out and read about any of this without taking our word for it. He could take a biology course or some basic genetics. He could even go so far as to do some experiments himself such as the bacterial evolution experiment that RrHain always brought up in such cases..would take him a week of his time. But it is far easier to be confidently ignorant than tentatively informed.
quote:Could you have predicted the number of chromosomes in various forms of life as they evolved? For example:
Chromosome number and evolutionary pathways are independent of each other. Polyploidy is quite common in plants (do you know what polyploidy is?) and shifts in chromosome number can not be predicted, just as mutations can't be predicted.
quote:As for your trusty DNA evidence, chimps and humans are about 98.4% similar. You know this. The human DNA has indeed been "mapped" but take a wild guess as to what percent of DNA "FUNCTION" has been determined? (hint: 1 or 2%). But yet we make wild claims about what DNA reveals about our common ancestor from millions/billions of years ago.
Judging by this post and your inability to understand the abstracts that have been posted for you, you still don't understand how damning the relationships between chimp and human DNA is. For comparison, if I turned in a thesis project and it was 1.6% different than another thesis, on a word by word basis, I would be accused of plagarism. And rightly so. Unless you can correctly explain to me your understanding of HERV's and pseudogenes there is no reason to keep going along this vien. At this time you simply don't have the background for understanding the implications of genetics in constructing phylogenies or establishing common descent. If you can show me that you do understand these principles, I will gladly debate them with you. Right now it is like discussing the beauty of Mozart with a deaf person.
quote:The crazy thing about this whole DNA reseach is what Dr. Barney Maddox, a leading genetic genome researcher, said about the genetic difference between humans and chimps; the difference is about 1.6%, which he claims is "a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides,
Correct so far, 48 million is 1.6% of a 3 billion base genome.
quote:and a change in only three (3) nucleotides is fatal to an animal." Dr. Maddox also stated that, "science has now quantitated that a genetic mutation of as little as .0000001% of an animal's genome is relentlessly fatal".
Absolute and total poppycock. Have you ever heard of neutral mutations. How about mutations that do not even result in a change in amino acid sequence? Do you even know what you are talking about. Mutational changes per generation in humans is around 5-20 bases. During your lifetime you will acquire more mutations, although you may or may not be able to pass those on. Your Dr. Maddox is a quack and not to be trusted.
quote:You do know, that we could go on for quite some time with many examples. You see, your camp just claims victory by proclamation.
Blah, blah, blah. Whatever. Your total lack of knowledge in the relevant scientific fields does not even allow you to recognize supporting data. Until this changes you have no room to judge. We could show you data till the cows come home, but to you it is just proclamation. It kind of makes me sad in a way, it is like the education system has not prepared you for the real world, or at least the scienctific world. To get back in my good graces, do the following. If common descent is incorrect, what interspecies DNA testing can we do to falsify this assumption? What line of reasoning are you using? What type of DNA data would SUPPORT common descent? Until you can do this I will not debate you on DNA evidence/non-evidence.
quote:Not afraid; it's just that drawings from the evolutionist camp have been suspicious in the past, and I don't have the experience to interpret them. Guess what, neither do you. I could say anything, and you wouldn't know the difference. I have other another source that speaks AGAINST what you think you see on your drawings, but I can't make heads or tails out of why two experts have different opinions of the same data.
So your best defense is that evolutionists are liars? Sorry, that doesn't work. Nice try, but utterly baseless. The actual fossils are available for inspection by other scientists. Maybe the folks at ICR can debunk these drawings? They can inspect the fossils themselves. Secondly, your lack of knowledge is duly noted. You seem to think that you can argue against something that you have no clue about and still carry on a meaningful debate. Sorry, this doesn't work either. Not to sound to childish, but I asked first. As soon as you can argue coherently and with evidenciary support on the drawings of the jawbones I will not argue about the complexity of any other system. This is your test. If you pass we will move on to other topics. Since we are drifting away from the original topic, I have started a new thread for you. See Behe's Irreducible Complexity Is Refuted.
A single base change in a critical amino acid can cripple a protein. A mutation in a piece of non-coding DNA is irrelevant phenotypically. Why is this concept over your head...oh wait..forgot who I was talking to
As you already pointed out, you're almost infinitely ahead of me on this stuff.
So, what percentage of DNA is "non-coding"? Also, what percentage of DNA has been identified as functional?
Just short, simple, and direct answers are fine. I'm not nearly as smart at noseyned, so please work with me here.
Dr. Barney Maddox is NOT a genetic genome researcher, he is a urologist creationist from Texas.
"Dr. Barney Maddox holds a B.S. in biology from Texas Christian University and an M.D. from UTSW Medical School in Dallas."
So, since he doesn't have a PHD in DNA studies, are you insinuating that we should just discard his views/reviews? Should we use YOUR level of education instead?
The information he presents has been around (now) for a long time, but evolutionists act is if the info is long forgotten. Just like many of the frauds, hoaxes, and forgeries that evolutionists have produced over the last 100+ years.
quote:So, since he doesn't have a PHD in DNA studies, are you insinuating that we should just discard his views/reviews?
Since what he says can be refuted with even a cursory knowledge of biology and genetics, his distortions should be thrown out. One amino acid change could be lethal for a human, if it is in the catalytic center of cytochrome B for example. However, any organism with this mutation probably won't make it past the single cell stage, if it is a human that is. He takes this distortion and says that any mutation will cause death. Completely and utterly false. Mutations to the gene that controls vitamin C synthase resulted in a non-functional protein millions of years ago. Humans seem to be fine, except when going to sea for months at a time without any fresh fruit (this is how the Brits came to be called "Limeys", just an interesting side note). In fact, the human genome contains about 30,000 (Mammuthus probably has a more accurate number) functional genes and 8,000 broken genes (pseudogenes). Quite amazing, and completely understood in the framework of the theory of evolution.
As soon as you can argue coherently and with evidenciary support on the drawings of the jawbones I will not argue about the complexity of any other system.
Ah, yes. You seem to have run into some difficulty, eh? We must play a game which deals in drawings that the average person can't make heads or tails of, but must be reviewed by "by other scientists", as you say? And to play the "childish" (your word) "I asked first" card, is indeed, as you say, childish.
But since I have now been brilliantly discredited, and proven to lack knowledge, let's score points for you (as many points as you'd like) so you have an extremely comfortable lead in this discussion. Now that I admit that I can't make heads or tails out of your "jaw drawings" (that help prove a common ancestor), will you please help my pitiful existence and answer just a couple of questions? I've already asked them, in post # 116 in this topic. You ignored them once, but now I understand that you did so rightfully, but I had no idea it was because of my abysmal level of knowledge that you were so disgusted.
For your convenience, here are the questions once more:
I wrote: While we're looking at processes of evolution, could you take a look at these three creatures that appear to have been handpainted by a master artist:
And explain to me what processes of evolution were at work to develop these color schemes? My imperceptible level of knowledge and understanding in this topic just made it seem to me that Darwininan evolution would be more likely to produce something like this:
Please, oh, please help with my difficulty in understanding evolution. Feel free to use any level of imagination that you'd like; I don't need fossil evidence. Just a quick theoretical explanation. Of course, if these questions are too lowly and simple for someone of your intellect, please feel free to delegate to someone else in your camp so you're not overburdened. Thank you for taking time out of your day to help me with my problem.
[This message has been edited by Skeptick, 02-10-2004]
quote:Ah, yes. You seem to have run into some difficulty, eh? We must play a game which deals in drawings that the average person can't make heads or tails of, but must be reviewed by "by other scientists", as you say? And to play the "childish" (your word) "I asked first" card, is indeed, as you say, childish.
If you can't see the evolutionary processes that lead to the mammalian middle ear, then my other efforts in other areas are going to fall flat because you don't understand them. This is not childish, this is saving my time for posters who will actually comprehend the implications of fossil evidence.
quote:But since I have now been brilliantly discredited, and proven to lack knowledge, let's score points for you (as many points as you'd like) so you have an extremely comfortable lead in this discussion. Now that I admit that I can't make heads or tails out of your "jaw drawings" (that help prove a common ancestor), will you please help my pitiful existence and answer just a couple of questions? I've already asked them, in post # 116 in this topic. You ignored them once, but now I understand that you did so rightfully, but I had no idea it was because of my abysmal level of knowledge that you were so disgusted.
So you agree that Behe has been refuted. Good, we can move on.
quote:I wrote: While we're looking at processes of evolution, could you take a look at these three creatures that appear to have been handpainted by a master artist:
This is a subjective statement that has no place in science (master artist vs natural process). However, getting to the point, sexual selection plays an important role, especially in bird species. In other words, mates are selected for their markings. This causes genetic isolation and leads to speciation. So, the answer is they look like that because it attracts more mates. That is, unless you can find a diety painting chicks while they are still in the nest.
A more fanciful color scheme is more likely to be noticed by a potential mate.
Thank you so much. I feel so excited with this increased knowledge. I must have totally misunderstood this in the past, because I thought natural selection was more of a "the strong" versus "the weak". Thank you for clearing this up for me.
But help me more: How long do you think it took before the evolutionary process was able to devolep and arrange the colors of, say just the woodduck's HEAD and NECK, before the female woodducks would have noticed and started selecting the more handsome wooducks?
Also, what dynamics of natural selection were at work to help the woodduck survive until this beautiful color scheme was able to arrange itself?