Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   TOE and the Reasons for Doubt
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 407 of 530 (530372)
10-13-2009 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 405 by Kaichos Man
10-13-2009 7:39 AM


Re: Selection Pressures
But it doesn't, Percy.
But it does --- when you actually observe reality, as in Lenski's experiments, instead of making stuff up, as in creationist fantasy land. The evolved forms are demonstrably fitter than the ancestral populations, as can be shown by placing them in direct competition. The mythical "genetic entropy" of creationists does not occur. Adaptive evolution does.
All the fudging of figures and misunderstanding of basic genetics in the world won't make that reality go away. Deal.
And as for these mythical "beneficial" mutations, you'll notice evolutionists are happy to include in their number back mutations (repairs to formerly deleterious mutations) and deleterious mutations causing an increase in fitness (e.g. flightless beetles).
Well, of course. This is because any truthful person, such as an evolutionist, is bound to say that mutations which confer benefits are beneficial mutations.
Incidentally, did you just use the phrase "deleterious mutations causing an increase in fitness"? Only I advise you to learn the meanings of the words you're using.
Also some basic genetics, something that you might indeed have done before you decided to discuss genetics.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-13-2009 7:39 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 408 of 530 (530373)
10-13-2009 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 404 by Kaichos Man
10-13-2009 7:26 AM


Re: Selection Pressures
All terms are made up at some time, by somebody. In this case, it's a term coined by a respected Cornell University researcher to describe the process of genomes being inexorably strafed into nonsense by mutations. The same observed, documented process upon which Motoo Kimura based his Neutral Theory of Evolution.
You make a lot of stuff up, don't you?
I take it that, unlike me, you have not read Kimura. If you have read his work, then I have severely underestimated your level of dishonesty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-13-2009 7:26 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 411 of 530 (530376)
10-13-2009 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 409 by Kaichos Man
10-13-2009 8:10 AM


Re: Selection Pressures
...the problem [of Haldane's dilemma] was never solved, by Wallace [soft selection] or anyone else. It merely faded away, because people got interested in other things. They must have assumed that the true resolution lay somewhere in the welter of suggestions made by one or more of the distinguished population geneticists who had participated in the discussion."
George C. Williams, respected evolutionist.
Ooh, look, an out-of-date quotation, taken out of context, with no source and with some words added. I'd ask if that's the best you've got, except that long experience with creationists makes the question somewhat superfluous.
I notice that you haven't even bothered to provide us with a misinterpretation of the quote. Too lazy? Things don't just misinterpret themselves, you know, and as a creationist this is your sole function.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-13-2009 8:10 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 419 of 530 (530622)
10-14-2009 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 417 by Kaichos Man
10-14-2009 9:06 AM


Re: Selection Pressures
I'm amazed you like anything about it. After all, it commits the cardinal sin of having a target: METHINKS IT IS A WEASEL.
Well done for managing to misunderstand Dawkins' point. It was a very, very simple point, a point so simple that children could understand it, but you are a creationist, so you can misunderstand what he meant.
Well done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 417 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-14-2009 9:06 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-15-2009 9:16 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 420 of 530 (530624)
10-14-2009 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 415 by Kaichos Man
10-14-2009 8:13 AM


Re: Selection Pressures
John Sanford's qualifications place him in the former category.
And he is outnumbered by the following people:
"Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin."
--- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Acadmie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Acadmie des Sciences et Techniques du Sngal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Fsicas, Matemticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science
That's a lot of scientists. So maybe you could stop arguing that your idol Sanford is right on the grounds of his qualifications, and try to base your arguments on facts.
Oh, right, but you know damn-all about the subject that he's talking about. All you know is that someone with a PhD said something that you wish was true, so all hail to the mighty John Sanford. Let us bow before him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-14-2009 8:13 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 422 of 530 (530634)
10-14-2009 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 401 by Kaichos Man
10-13-2009 6:53 AM


Creationists Are Frightened By Biology
And around three of those mutations are deleterious. So for every one of your "beneficial" mutations you will get 20,000 deleterious ones. It's not going to get you very far!
N - A - T - U - R - A - L
S - E - L - E - C - T - I - O - N .
Duh.
Do they not sell biology textbooks on your planet?
---
Look, this thread is called "TOE and the reasons for doubt". So let us discuss that. It was not called "Complete drooling halfwitted ignorance of the TOE and the reasons for doubt". If you are so swinishly ignorant that you have no idea what the theory of evolution says, then I should advise you to buy a high-school level textbook on biology and read it. Also, you might want to consider not posting again on this forum until you have done so.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note - This type of message IS NOT admin approved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-13-2009 6:53 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 423 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-15-2009 8:51 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 426 of 530 (530852)
10-15-2009 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 423 by Kaichos Man
10-15-2009 8:51 AM


Re: Creationists Are Frightened By Biology
Since you haven't read Kimura, and I have, your attempts to misrepresent his ideas are doomed to ridiculous failure.
Welcome to creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-15-2009 8:51 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 431 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-16-2009 6:55 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 427 of 530 (530854)
10-15-2009 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 424 by Kaichos Man
10-15-2009 9:16 AM


Re: Selection Pressures
Dawkins was trying to illustrate that what might be impossible by random mutation alone becomes possible when you apply the principle of natural selection.
To do this he had to use a TARGET which was "METHINKS IT IS A WEASEL" and the fact that evolution cannot have a TARGET is the little hidey-hole you bolted down in order to evade the impossibility of evolving a gene. Evolution is random, remember? It isn't trying to build anything. It can't have a TARGET.
Unless you are Richard Dawkins, of course.
The only difference between Dawkins programme and my example is that one came from an evolutionist, one from a Creationist. Ergo, it is a matter of faith and doctrine for an atheist that you support the former and condemn the latter.
When you wrote that, I'm sure that in your head it meant something other then "WAHHHH!!! I'm frightened of evolution!!! I'll pretend that all the people convinced by the overwhelming evidence are atheists!!! WAHHHH!!!"
However, the meaning you had extraneous to that pointless pretense has not quite come over. Clearly you wish to be wrong about something. But what?
You wanted to misunderstand Dawkins somehow. His point is so simple that a small child could understand it. So it's going to take all your effort to misunderstand it.
Now, on the count of three, take a deep breath and try harder to be wrong.
1 ... 2 ... 3 ...
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-15-2009 9:16 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 432 of 530 (531106)
10-16-2009 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 431 by Kaichos Man
10-16-2009 6:55 AM


Re: Creationists Are Frightened By Biology
I have no doubt that you've read it. But you obviously didn't understand it:
Obviously one of us doesn't understand it, and since the quote you have just given does not support what you claimed his point was ("genomes being inexorably strafed into nonsense by mutations", forsooth!) obviously it is you.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-16-2009 6:55 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 434 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-16-2009 7:35 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 437 of 530 (531113)
10-16-2009 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 434 by Kaichos Man
10-16-2009 7:35 AM


Re: Creationists Are Frightened By Biology
The fact remains that Kimura showed from observed data that natural selection plays only a minor role in molecular evolution.
And the fact remains that nothing he said supports your inane babble about "genomes being inexorably strafed into nonsense by mutations", nor your apparent pretense in post #123 that Kimura's findings are opposed to the proposition that natural selection removes deleterious mutations from the gene pool.
As to your latest blather, "only a minor role" are weasel words, which are untrue without extensive qualification.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-16-2009 7:35 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 442 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-17-2009 9:15 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 444 of 530 (531406)
10-17-2009 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by Kaichos Man
10-17-2009 9:15 AM


Re: Creationists Are Frightened By Biology
"The Neutral theory asserts that the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level, as revealed by comparative studies of Protein and DNA sequences, are caused not by Darwinian selection but by random drift of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutants." Motoo Kimura
Yes, we all agree with what he said. Where you pass into gibbering lunacy is where you pretend that you know what he means. For example, when you pretended that his meaning was that of "genomes being inexorably strafed into nonsense by mutations". I mean, that was just so much bullshit, wasn't it?
If, according to Kimura, the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level are caused by drift, what kind of role does that leave Darwinian selection?
Minor, perhaps?
No.
For as he wrote:
The theory does not deny the role of natural selection in determining the course of adaptive evolution, but it assumes that only a minute fraction of DNA changes in evolution are adaptive in nature, while the great majority of phenotypically silent molecular substitutions exert no significant influence on survival and reproduction and drift randomly through the species.
Got that? He says that natural selection determines the course of adaptive evolution, whereas genetic drift exerts no significant influence.
So does that leave Darwinian selection as a "minor" influence, according to Kimura?
Got that?
If you'd actually bothered to read Kimura, you'd know how very different his ideas are from yours. But you haven't, have you?
If you'd read what he had to say, you would doubtless be frothing and foaming about how he's one of those evil Darwinists. If you understood the full meaning of what he said you'd be apoleptic. It is his work that allows evolutionists like me to say that genetics proves that Darwin was right. It ought to drive you into screaming fits. But you haven't read it, have you?
You don't know how his ideas stand as the basis of every time every evolutionist says "molecular phylogeny proves that we're right".
You have no idea, do you?
You poor creationists ought to be denouncing all his works like billy-oh --- if only you'd read them. But instead of reading what he said, all you know about him is what you tell one another you think that he meant, so you proclaim him as your savior.
I would find this sad except that I have a dark sense of humor, so instead I find it very, very funny.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-17-2009 9:15 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 470 of 530 (537301)
11-28-2009 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 447 by Peg
11-26-2009 7:02 AM


Re: Creation website much?
I wonder what darwin would think today
He'd be elated to learn that after 150 years of trying, the people with the strongest motivation to find an example of such an organ have still not come up with one example that will withstand a moment's scrutiny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by Peg, posted 11-26-2009 7:02 AM Peg has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 528 of 530 (571186)
07-30-2010 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 518 by Bolder-dash
07-29-2010 9:18 PM


Re: cell reproduction
The ID movement if you want to cal it that, makes some pretty simple demands. Allow the discussion of all aspects of the ToE in schools, including the strengths and weaknesses of the theory.
However, what creationist liars mean by "weaknesses" is halfwitted lies that they've made up. The "weaknesses" are the same worthless anti-scientific propaganda that they've failed to smuggle into school under the rubrics of "creation science" and "intelligent design", and putting a new label on this doesn't make it any less shit.
Anyone finding a real weakness in the theory should publish. Indoctrinating schoolchildren with pathetic lies might serve creationists' political agenda, but is no substitute for actual science.
They are AGAINST teaching both the strengths AND weaknesses of the theory-even though polls show that 3/4 of all Americans are for this.
I'd be for teaching any real weaknesses.
So if any side can be said to be stifling science ...
Bullshit is not science. I'm happy to "stifle" bullshit, if by "stifle" you mean "not make compulsory in public schools".
... it appears to be yours, because of your own fear of open discussion.
Interesting lie. What we are actually afraid of is a situation where science teachers are forced to tell what they know to be lies to students who deserve better.
We're all in favor of open discussion. Indeed, I believe we're currently having one. To compel science teachers to lie to children is not, however, "open discussion".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 518 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-29-2010 9:18 PM Bolder-dash 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