Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Key points of Evolution
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 284 of 356 (467113)
05-19-2008 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Wumpini
05-19-2008 3:31 PM


Re: Lateral Gene Transfer
Are there not many instances in the fossil record where organisms seem to appear without significant fossil evidence of the transition? Maybe I am misinterpreting some (or a lot) of the things I am reading.
There are certain transitions without fossil evidence (yet) and if you think about it, there must always be if you look on a small enough scale.
However, we have precursors and transitional forms to modern birds; whereas if they just climbed fully formed out of the primordial soup, these wouldn't exist and we'd have bird fossils from the earliest rocks onward.
This is probably my lack of scientific understanding also. There seems to be an endless supply. I was under the impression that these genes were coded information. A specific arrangement of DNA that tells the organism what it is and how to become that organism. So, when someone argues there is no difference between living matter and non-living matter (only arrangement), could you argue there is no difference between bird genes and other genes (only arrangement).
Only in the same sense that there is no difference between Oliver Twist and Moby Dick except the arangement of the letters; or no difference between two melodies in the same key except the arrangement of the notes.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Wumpini, posted 05-19-2008 3:31 PM Wumpini has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 286 of 356 (467121)
05-19-2008 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Wumpini
05-19-2008 3:51 PM


Re: A Bit of Confusion
I wonder if this process is continuing today? I think this is where I need to look next.
If you mean evolution from single-celled to multi-celled, we can see that happening in the lab.
Of course, we don't know if the particular mechanism discovered was how it started in nature, hence the use of the word "possible" in the title:
Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: A possible origin of multicellularity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Wumpini, posted 05-19-2008 3:51 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Wumpini, posted 05-19-2008 5:21 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 293 of 356 (467154)
05-19-2008 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Wumpini
05-19-2008 6:27 PM


Re: I hope this clears things up
The website wants $32 for me to download the file. I don't think I need it that bad.
Well, just read the abstract, then. Unless you want to be able to reproduce the experiment yourself, you can probably dispense with the rest of the paper. The point is that people have seen it happen.
One interesting thing to note about that paper is that we would probably have imagined that the next step from a one-celled organism would be a two-celled organism. But no, the mutation that brought about multicellularity did so by causing incomplete cell division, so that it went from single-cell to globs of hundreds of cells, before further mutations brought the size down to the stable eight-celled structure.
---
The close to impossible was science's view of a complex muti-cellular organism such as a bird being formed randomly from single-cell organisms.
If I've understood the scenario you're proposing involving lateral gene transfer, that does seem impossible for about the same reason that you can't go to your local pizza parlor, order just the right combination of toppings, and wind up with chocolate cake; or shuffle two hands of ordinary playing cards together and get the Tarot pack.
For example, single-celled organisms have no Hox genes, which are important genes controlling the development of the body plan of a bird (or other "higher" life-forms) from fertilized egg to adult. A mere pick-and-mix from the genes of things that don't have Hox genes isn't going to give you something that does have Hox genes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Wumpini, posted 05-19-2008 6:27 PM Wumpini has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 331 of 356 (501976)
03-09-2009 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by alaninnont
03-04-2009 7:17 PM


I've been trying for the last couple of months to get a handle on the issue. I been reading some books, thinking, and visiting evolution and ID sites and am right now tending toward the existence of a creator as more probable than complete chance.
So apparently after a couple of months' research into the topic you haven't managed to find out what the theory of evolution is.
Shouldn't that be the first thing you find out about evolution?
What have you been doing instead?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by alaninnont, posted 03-04-2009 7:17 PM alaninnont has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by alaninnont, posted 03-10-2009 4:21 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 333 of 356 (502286)
03-10-2009 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by alaninnont
03-10-2009 4:21 PM


I have found out that the dictionary definition of evolution is quite different than the atheist's.
Why are you pretending that atheists have a special definition of evolution?
What do you claim that the difference is between that which an atheist would give and that which a dictionary gives? (Hint: I just checked in my dictionary and there isn't one.)
Why did you not notice that no definition of "evolution" involves the words "complete chance" in any way?
Why did you not try looking in a biology textbook to find an authoritative definition?
I have found out that a lot of the discussion is about semantics.
Yeah, that's creationists for you.
I have found out that a center of the fight is not for or against evolution but between atheists and fundamentalist Christians.
No, it's between fundamentalists of all religions and non-fundamentalists.
I've found out that the fight is largely a political one.
Yes. The fundies have nothing else.
And I've found out that I rather enjoy the intellectual stimulation.
You might find a biology textbook stimulating. You never know.
Now a bad harvest for two months of thinking.
Where did the thinking come in?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by alaninnont, posted 03-10-2009 4:21 PM alaninnont has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 339 of 356 (502524)
03-12-2009 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 336 by alaninnont
03-11-2009 5:28 PM


Merriam-Webster’s - "a theory that the various kinds of plants and animals are descended from other kinds that lived in earlier times and that the differences are due to inherited changes that took place over many generations."
I get the sense that when atheists talk about evolution, they are defining it basically as change.
No.
I wasn't talking about the definition of evolution when I said "complete chance."
What were you opposing to creationism?
During one of my graduate courses in microbiology we went through an university level biology textbook with our supervisor specifically to evaluate it for errors. You would not believe....
I might. I've seen errors in textbooks too.
I know that's really not on the point but let me get back to what I said originally .... a lot of it is about semantics.
This is because the fundies find it even easier to twist words than to twist facts.
Could you eleborate? Do you mean non-fundamentalists in other religions?
Yes. I've seen fundamentalist Muslims and Hindus trot out the same rubbish as fundamentalist Christians.
Are you including atheism as a religion?
No.
I have not seen a lot of the bile of atheists directed at other religons. That is likely because this is an American site (isn't it?) and other religions are in the minority. I wonder if there are the same intense discussions in countries where other religions predominate. Anyone know?
I for one will point out the mistakes of Harun Yahya just like I'll point out the mistakes of Kent Hovind ... especially as they're the same mistakes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by alaninnont, posted 03-11-2009 5:28 PM alaninnont has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 342 of 356 (502793)
03-13-2009 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 341 by alaninnont
03-13-2009 9:37 AM


Re: Getting back to the original topic...
1)Yes, BUT with the inclusion of the point that the ideas in science are theories and are open to be evaluated and changed if necessary. I think that we are doing science a disservice by preaching the "atheistic evolution is the one true way and there are no others" doctorine. I include the word atheistic because I haven't heard of a curriculum in public schools that include a creator based evolution.
And I haven't heard of a curriculum in public schools that includes a creator-based periodic table.
So is it an atheistic periodic table?
How about the multiplication table? Electricity? Optics? Thermodynamics? Gravity? Are they all "atheistic"?
If so, I can only say ... man, those atheists are smart.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by alaninnont, posted 03-13-2009 9:37 AM alaninnont has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by alaninnont, posted 03-13-2009 4:34 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 346 of 356 (502862)
03-13-2009 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by alaninnont
03-13-2009 4:34 PM


Re: Getting back to the original topic...
By including these in the same category you are saying that there is a significant controversy over these ideas and that alternative explanations exist.
No, that is not what I am saying. That is why I didn't say anything remotely like that in any way.
I thought that my point was quite simple. The absence of "creator based evolution" from high-school curricula does not make evolution "atheistic" any more than the absence of a "creator based periodic table" from high-school curricula makes chemistry "atheistic".
---
I don't see how the existence of "significant controversy" changes that. If you think it does, here's some questions for you.
If some religious cult were to arise in the future that objected to the periodic table on religious grounds, would it as a consequence become "atheistic"?
Some people still object to Copernicanism on religious grounds. Is that "atheistic"? How about the proposition that the Earth is not flat? There are still some hold-outs, again on religious grounds --- so is it "atheistic"? And if so, will the round Earth stop being an "atheistic" concept with the death of the last Flat-Earther?
If that "controversy" isn't "significant" enough to make the round Earth an "atheistic" concept, then the question arises: how many religious kooks does it take to make a scientific concept "atheistic"?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by alaninnont, posted 03-13-2009 4:34 PM alaninnont has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by alaninnont, posted 03-14-2009 4:04 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 350 of 356 (502971)
03-14-2009 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by alaninnont
03-14-2009 4:04 PM


Re: Getting back to the original topic...
You missed my point. You are right. Evolution is not atheistic. There are some who believe that evolution happened with the aid of a creator and some who believe that it happened without. As far as I am aware, the evolution that is taught in school is without, atheistic evolution.
And there are some who believe that carbon dioxide reacts with water to form carbonic acid without divine intervention. And they are called chemists.
Is this atheistic chemistry?
If it is atheistic to ascribe natural effects to natural causes, then the whole of science is atheistic, by the very nature of the enterprise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by alaninnont, posted 03-14-2009 4:04 PM alaninnont has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 355 of 356 (503002)
03-15-2009 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 352 by Daniel4140
03-15-2009 12:34 AM


Re: Getting back to the original topic...
Divine intervention is scientific. Science means "knowledge", so if we reasonably find that God intervented, then it is scientific.
And since we don't, it isn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by Daniel4140, posted 03-15-2009 12:34 AM Daniel4140 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024