Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 161 (8146 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-01-2014 2:04 AM
59 online now:
granpa, NoNukes, Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 56 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: prof premraj pushpakaran
Post Volume:
Total: 739,104 Year: 24,945/28,606 Month: 2/2,244 Week: 461/647 Day: 2/64 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45678
9
Author Topic:   Arrogance of Elitism
Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 177
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 121 of 126 (503897)
03-23-2009 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by mike the wiz
03-23-2009 7:05 AM


A beneficial mutation, is beneficial by accident, according to a different environment.

Comes the dawn?

Nope:

If you get a mutation causing three fingers rather than five, and three is beneficial in an environment, then it's not a new morphology. Your claim is that it is. vacuously it is new in appearance, but the information is still for a finger. Your claim is that ab is new information. What you need to show LOGICALLY if you are going to claim ToE-proof, is the equivalent of your claims. The equivalent is a new type of finger.

No, the information is for a new type of hand.

You are playing with the level of abstraction to get the answer you want. Your line of argument could deny any morphological change by saying "but the information is still for cells".

Capt.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by mike the wiz, posted 03-23-2009 7:05 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 1206 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 122 of 126 (503932)
03-23-2009 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by mike the wiz
03-23-2009 7:05 AM


Mike,

mike the wiz writes:

Larger changes aren't shown to happen repeatabley. The fossils are the facts, not the theory.

As for 1+1 = 2, that is a lie if you think micro=macro, because natural selection, as you said - moves against mutation, and culls defective genes according to environment.

If you have a gene pool and you get an isolated population, the removal of information is negative. So you're going from 5, to 4, to 3, to 2.

So 5-1-1-1 doesn't = 8. It is a mistake in your thinking i'm afraid, because the facts only show a reduction of information. You still need what you try to hide, equivocate and fudge away. You still need morphological change. (physical appearance).

Untill you can SHOW ME those changes in real time, logically and technically, evolution is not proven.

Even the evolutionists have to agree with me on this, because they know logic.

Evolution can never be proven in the sense you are asking. It will not be possible to show you changes in real time leading to a major morphological change (I assume you mean a genuinely new feature and not a change in shape, which obviously can be seen in domestic dogs for example). If evolution is true, these events are very rare indeed.

Regarding your point about isolated populations - there is a reduction in gene diversity relative to a larger population when isolation occurs, but over time mutation does generate more diversity. Natural selection moves animals towards greater fitness - not necessarily eliminating all mutations. There is good evidence of this if you would like it.

Simulations have shown that a series of small changes can incrementally take a visual system through an evolutionary pathway from simple pigment cells / shadow detection through to something similar to a vertebrate eye, provided there is selective pressure for improved vision. Each individual step on the way increases fitness. There is no need to 'batch up' a whole series of changes before they have an effect. So logically in this case, evolution of the eye has been shown to be possible.

Evolutionists also believe that bacteria only reproduce to bacteria, cats to cats etc. There is never a point where monkey jumps to ape. Change is gradual.

There are many cases where mutation 'increases information'. A common mechanism is gene duplication followed by mutation. I'm told there are many papers demonstrating this.

Edited by Admin, : Add descent quoting. Rich, you might want to check out the help for dBCodes, click the link to the left of the message entry box.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by mike the wiz, posted 03-23-2009 7:05 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12881
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 123 of 126 (503977)
03-23-2009 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by mike the wiz
03-23-2009 7:05 AM


Larger changes aren't shown to happen repeatabley. The fossils are the facts, not the theory.

And the theory predicts the facts, which confirm it.

As for 1+1 = 2, that is a lie if you think micro=macro, because natural selection, as you said - moves against mutation, and culls defective genes according to environment.

If you have a gene pool and you get an isolated population, the removal of information is negative. So you're going from 5, to 4, to 3, to 2.

So 5-1-1-1 doesn't = 8.

Mutations increase diversity, selection reduces it. By ignoring the first of these two very obvious facts, you have managed to get the wrong answer.

Untill you can SHOW ME those changes in real time, logically and technically, evolution is not proven.

Bald assertion is no substitute for being right.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by mike the wiz, posted 03-23-2009 7:05 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 60 days)
Posts: 2812
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 124 of 126 (503988)
03-23-2009 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by mike the wiz
03-23-2009 7:05 AM


Arrogance of Ignorance
mike the wiz writes:

You should look to Modulous as your model. he doesn't mention one thing about the person!

You are BLINDED by your own personality. I only say you are determined because you are stubborn. You have knowledge but don't have wisdom. You are determined to be wrong, and there are more open-minded, honest, humble people on earth who deserve my time, which is why I am completely done with you forevermore. Goodbye Sir.

There's nothing like practising what you preach. ;)

mike the wiz writes:

I have never seen a new morphology in an organism...]

But others have. Sometimes interesting new features can appear surprisingly rapidly, like these cecal valves in a lizard population.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

quote:

Examination of the lizardís digestive tracts revealed something even more surprising. Eating more plants caused the development of new structures called cecal valves, designed to slow the passage of food by creating fermentation chambers in the gut, where microbes can break down the difficult to digest portion of plants. Cecal valves, which were found in hatchlings, juveniles and adults on Pod Mrcaru, have never been reported for this species, including the source population on Pod Kopiste.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by mike the wiz, posted 03-23-2009 7:05 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 5720
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 125 of 126 (504181)
03-25-2009 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by mike the wiz
03-23-2009 7:05 AM


mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:
Larger changes aren't shown to happen repeatabley.

Incorrect. Larger changes happen right before our eyes. They just take longer. You've been shown the studies. I've posted them here for you. Go to PubMed and look them up for yourself.

We have seen speciation happen both in the lab and in the field. Why would you have us deny that?

quote:
The fossils are the facts, not the theory.

Precisely. It is because the fossils show, for example, the bones of the reptilian jaw turning into the bones of the mammalian ear that we conclude that mammals are descended from reptiles.

quote:
that is a lie if you think micro=macro

What's the difference between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" except for the number of steps? You want ostriches from alligator eggs, but evolution doesn't work that way.

If 1 + 1 = 2, why can't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10?

quote:
because natural selection, as you said - moves against mutation

Incorrect. Natural selection moves toward fitness which necessarily requires mutation. In a changing environment, that means mutations that enhance fitness are selected over ones that aren't. And with no selective pressure, neutral mutations, which are the overwhelming majority of mutations accounting for over 90% of all mutations, simply drift and become fixed in the population.

Selection drives evolution.

quote:
So 5-1-1-1 doesn't = 8.

No, it equals 3. Which isn't 5. And is more fit in an environment where 5 is too big.

But 5 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 8. Which isn't 5. And is more fit in an environment where 5 is too small.

You're stuck in this idea that mutation is bad. Until you get past this error, you will continue to fail. You, personally, have about 3 to 6 mutations compared to your parents for that is the common mutation rate for humans. By your logic, shouldn't you be dead already from "disease and deformity"?

quote:
Untill you can SHOW ME those changes in real time, logically and technically, evolution is not proven.

Run the E. coli experiment and you will see those changes you claim don't exist. Evolution in real time, logically and technically.

quote:
Even the evolutionists have to agree with me on this, because they know logic.

Indeed. And it is because we have seen exactly what you claim does not exist that we conclude that evolution happens all around us all the time.

When was the last time you were in a science library?
When was the last time you were in a bio lab?
When was the last time you ran a bio experiment?

quote:
So you're going from bacteria to......bacteria.

No, we're going to a different kind. We started off with something that would die in the presence of T4 phage. Now we have something that lives.

You still want this Spielbergian moment of ostriches from alligators in less than a week. Evolution doesn't work that way.

quote:
You say there is morphological change. SHOW ME the physical difference that arises from new information ABSOLUTELY.

Run the E. coli experiment and see. Before, they died. Now, they live. How is that not a physical difference? How is that not a morphological change?

quote:
The facts show natural selection reducing information.

Incorrect. The facts show the exact opposite. We see duplication followed by modification all the time.

How do you think your immune system works? How do you think your blood clot cascade came into being?

Duplication followed by modification. An "increase in information" that you claim cannot happen. Are you saying the immune system and blood clot cascade don't exist?

quote:
I have never seen a new morphology in an organism

And whose fault is that? We can lead you to the water, but we cannot make you drink.

Run the E. coli experiment and see.

When was the last time you were in a science library?
When was the last time you were in a bio lab?
When was the last time you ran a bio experiment?

quote:
Mutation is an error.

You say that like it's a bad thing. So all those people who have Type-B blood as opposed to Type-A are lucky to be alive? Blonds don't have more fun...they are the walking dead?

You're stuck in this idea that mutation is bad. Until you get past this error, you will continue to fail. You, personally, have about 3 to 6 mutations compared to your parents for that is the common mutation rate for humans. By your logic, shouldn't you be dead already from "disease and deformity"?

quote:
It can change information but it does not add to the DNA in that sense.

How is duplication not an addition to the DNA? We've got more of it. How is more not an "addition"?

quote:
A beneficial mutation, is beneficial by accident, according to a different environment.

Precisely. How on earth do you know if a trait is beneficial until you run it through the environment and see? Is a body that is long and lean and sheds fat easily better than one that is short and squat and retains fat?

Kinda depends upon the environment in which you live, doesn't it?

Since the environment is always changing, selection drives evolution.

quote:
If you get a mutation causing three fingers rather than five, and three is beneficial in an environment, then it's not a new morphology.

Huh? How is having fewer fingers not a new morphology? Are you seriously claiming that 3 = 5? The horse went from having five toes to one. How is that not a change in morphology?

quote:
Your claim is that ab is new information.

Since we only had "a" to begin with, how is "ab" not "new information?

quote:
The equivalent is a new type of finger.

You mean every organism has fingers? The vast majority of all life doesn't even have limbs, let alone fingers.

quote:
Yet I recognise that they are STILL strawberries.

But they're a different kind of strawberry and they are not "diseased" or "deformed"...well, they're huge which I guess could be called a "deformity," but there is nothing wrong with them. And this they have twice the DNA of a regular strawberry, they have a lot of new information.

quote:
That duplication or change within a gene pool does not bring anything new under the sun.

And you just did what I predicted you would: "aa" is not "new information" because it's the same information as before.

quote:
Until then, get over your big ego and admitt that you can't prove that which can't be proved in any syllogism.

Huh? Since when is science restricted to syllogism?

quote:
If the scientists don't claim proof, then who are you to claim it.

But they do claim proof. What do you think your blood clot cascade is? Are you saying there is no such thing as the blood clot cascade?

quote:
the claims of evolution ONLY ALLOW that we never actually SEE what the ToE ACTUALLT claims.

Then do the E. coli experiment and tell us what you see.

When was the last time you were in a science library?
When was the last time you were in a bio lab?
When was the last time you ran a bio experiment?

quote:
It is useless to state something about me, my knowledge, others, their knowledge, because an appeal to authority will not allow you to escape my wisdom.

I am hardly appealing to authority. I am actually asking you to do the experiment for yourself. Don't take my word for it. Do it for yourself. Get your hands dirty for a change.

Run the E. coli experiment and see.

When was the last time you were in a science library?
When was the last time you were in a bio lab?
When was the last time you ran a bio experiment?

quote:
What does that prove logically?

That you are speaking from a place of ignorance. However, ignorance can be cured by doing work. By going to the science library and seeking out the results of others who have done work, you can understand what the state of the science is and won't have to say, "I have never seen a new morphology in an organism." You can prevent yourself from making factual errors such as claiming, "It can change information but it does not add to the DNA in that sense." By going into the bio lab and running the experiments for yourself, you can actually see the process that you claim doesn't exist.

No authority.

No filters.

Just plain life behaving right in front of your eyes.

Run the E. coli experiment.

quote:
ALL YOU HAVE EVER CLAIMED is what mike doesn't know.

Incorrect. All I have ever claimed is direct evidence I can back up with references.

I even ask you to do the work for yourself so you can see it for yourself.

Run the E. coli experiment and see.

When was the last time you were in a science library?
When was the last time you were in a bio lab?
When was the last time you ran a bio experiment?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by mike the wiz, posted 03-23-2009 7:05 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3577
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 126 of 126 (504266)
03-26-2009 1:08 AM


Topic abandonment???
Isn't there a better place for this bio-talk, that some wacked out Coffee House topic?

I think it's PNT time.

Adminnemooseus


    
Prev1
...
45678
9
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014