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:   TOE and the Reasons for Doubt
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 34 of 530 (526551)
09-28-2009 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Peg
09-28-2009 7:56 AM


Hi, Peg.
Peg writes:
im aware of that, but the point is that evolution is said to explain how the great variety of species developed, albeit slowly, and yet the fossil record does not show the supposed changes taking place. It shows fully formed and functioning creatures as opposed to anything in its development stage.
Curiously, though, you don't see any single species persisting across the entire geological column. Rather, each individual species is found in a narrow range of fossil strata (e.g., find me a Stegosaurus armatus outside a 5-million-year period of the Late Jurassic).
This implies that individual species are short-lived, doesn't it?
So, if the fossil record largely shows stasis, why do species turn over so rapidly?
And, for the umpteen7-th time, natural selection cannot be realistically expected to favor "underdeveloped" organisms, so every step in a transitional evolutionary sequence must be "fully formed." ToE does not say, nor does it require, that animals get more developed over time, but that their "fully-developed" form must be altered to keep up as the environment changes the status quo on them.
Evolution speaks in terms of "derived" or "apomorphic" vs "primitive" or "plesiomorphic," not "fully-formed" vs "under-formed" (or whatever you think the dichotomy is). "Derived" refers to organisms that have changed drastically from their ancestral condition. Derived animals are not more "fully-formed" than primitive organisms: they are simply more different from their common ancestor.
So, what we see with, for instance, birds, is that derived birds (e.g. modern birds, like the blue jay) look less like theropods than primitive birds (like Archaeopteryx). You consider it a "fully-formed" bird because it has wings and feathers and looks like a bird. But, it retains many primitive characters associated with theropods, which modern derived birds do not retain.
This is not a good reason to doubt ToE.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Peg, posted 09-28-2009 7:56 AM Peg has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(2)
Message 191 of 530 (528126)
10-04-2009 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Peg
10-02-2009 12:05 AM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
Hi, Peg.
Peg writes:
animals adapt to cold by growing thicker body hair. We are one of the animals, we are all linked, so why should we not be growing hair the same way as they do?
Oh, I get it now!
The theory says that all organisms must adapt to the same environment in the same way!
Wow, that is a spectactularly stupid theory, isn't it?
I'm hereby joining your cause, Peg. I will join my voice with yours in ridiculing the idiot theory that clearly cannot explain why monkeys don't have claws like squirrels, or dolphins don't have four fins like turtles, or bats don't have flow-through lungs like birds.
Any theory that requires all things to respond the same way to every environmental stimulus clearly fails to provide an explanation for why arctic spiders do not have fur to keep themselves warm, or why the sloth bear and the giant anteater have heavy, thick fur despite living in tropical regions.
Boy, what a stupid theory!
Sometime, I should tell you about this other theory that doesn't say any of that crap. It's called "the Theory of Evolution." I think you'll like this one, because, like I just said, it doesn't say any of the crap that that theory you were just arguing against says.
-----
Peg writes:
whats nonsense? that frogs are going extinct in australia because of climate change???
That's not the nonsense he was talking about: he was alluding to your apparent belief that extinction of some things disproves evolution. Evolution does not demand that all things be successful, and, in fact, works rather better in a situation in which not all things are successful.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Peg, posted 10-02-2009 12:05 AM Peg has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 192 of 530 (528145)
10-04-2009 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Kaichos Man
10-03-2009 9:11 AM


Mutations
Hi, Kaichos Man.
Welcome to EvC!
-----
Aside from the teleological assumption others have pointed out, your example also fails to address the effects of a population, which is the entity that ToE theorizes will evolve. All you have is one individual. Populations have many different sequences for the same region of the genome.
Reproduction is also a key here. Each time an organism reproduces, roughly half of its offspring will inherit its mutated version of a particular gene, and the other half will inherit the version of the mate. Many of the offspring will have added new mutation(s) to the gene, but many will not. Thus, each generation will have a range of sequences, some of which will surely be very much like the parents’ sequence(s).
So, each round of reproduction produces new variety for natural selection to work on, and often presents much of the same variety for mutation to try to work on again. So, your model needs to provide multiple opportunities for the same sequence to mutate in multiple different directions simultaneously, otherwise it is not meaningful for evolution.
Remember, if insects are going to evolve wings, all we need is one individual out of hundreds of thousands to accidentally acquire the right suite of mutations after hundreds of thousands of attempts, and to then pass the trait on to its offspring. Then, we will have successfully evolved insects with wings. So, your model would be more accurate if each round of mutations produced multiple options, and we got to select which one we want to mutate further.
But, remember, you cannot require evolution to produce something you want on demand, because that is exactly what we theorize that it does not do.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-03-2009 9:11 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 258 of 530 (528544)
10-06-2009 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Kaichos Man
10-06-2009 8:01 AM


Re: Physician, heal thyself.
Hi, Kaichos Man.
Kaichos Man writes:
Well, absolutely. And it's so easy to prove they are incompetent, isn't it? Simple problem. A one in four chance occurring 1000 times in succession.
What's the real answer, Iyx2no?
I see you ignored my post on this (Message 192). You forgot that evolution happens to populations, not to individuals!
It's not a 1/4 chance happening 1000 times in succession: it's like a 1/4 chance happening 1000 times simultaneously, after which some selection processes dictate which and how many of the 1000 get to proliferate themselves into the next round, and repeating that same process 1000 more times.
Selection effectively increases the probability of obtaining a "good" result, because it removes the "bad" stuff and allows the "good" stuff to increase its proprotional representation in a population.
And, having an entire population, instead of just one individual, increases the number of times you get to roll the proverbial dice during each round.
So, evolution is the preferential survival and proliferation of the "good" mutations that do happen, which increases the "good" population, which also increases the chance of the next "good" mutation happening to an individual that already has the first "good" mutation.
So, while your model does show one possible result, it only shows one possible result. In a real population, you will have other individuals with more, with fewer, with "better," and with "worse" mutations, and those with more "better" mutations will proliferate better and become increasingly well represented in the population, continually increasing the likelihood that the next "good" mutation will be added to all the previous "good" mutations.
In summary:
You forgot selection.
And you forgot the population.
And, you assumed that you could dictate, a priori, what counts as "good."
Without these corrections to your model, your model fails to provide any sort of meaningful commentary on evolution. Continuation of this argument amounts to the molestation of a strawman.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-06-2009 8:01 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-07-2009 8:49 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 259 of 530 (528556)
10-06-2009 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Kaichos Man
10-05-2009 8:37 AM


Re: Some facts that Peg may not be aware of
Hi, Kaichos Man.
Kaichos Man writes:
You assert that evolution has no target. You are, respectfully wrong. It's target, even though it is unconscious of the fact, is survival. It's purported aiming device is natural selection.
I don't really mind your referring to survival as the "target" of evolution (I wouldn't say it myself, though), but I do mind your translating this into predictions about "the gene we want to evolve" or about "completion" of the gene (both ideas taken from the following quote, in this message from you, upthread):
Kaichos Man writes:
To give ourselves a flying start, we'll say there was a gene-duplication event in this particular genome, and the duplicate gene is already 98% similar to the gene we want to evolve. Of course, natural selection won't apply to a duplicate gene, so we'll need to evolve it to a point where natural selection can take it to completion. Let's say we have to improve it by just 0.5% for NS to kick in. So the new gene is 20 bps away from completion, with just 5 bps required to enable natural selection.
How on earth do you think knowing that survival is the "target" of evolution gives you an ability to diagnose the exact genetic sequence needed by the organism? There are millions of different ways to survive, after all.
Look at your example: if the target is survival, then, by "the gene we want to evolve," you must be referring to the gene sequence that results in survival, right? That is the "target," or the "gene we want to evolve," isn't it?
Well, how does the animal survive while its survival gene is only partially complete?
Furthermore, if the organism's target is survival, why exactly is it still evolving when it's clearly already surviving?
Clearly, survival is not the target or function of individual genes or mutations. On the level of genes, what exactly does "survival" mean, anyway?
So, maybe you should present, not survival itself, but any of the millions of ways to survive, as the "target" of evolution. In truth, then, this means that evolution has millions of alternative targets, any one of which will do, given the proper circumstances. In fact, there are so many different "targets," it's probably more appropriate to not refer to them as "targets," and to just agree with Jacortina (not Jacorinta) there there is no target.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-05-2009 8:37 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 280 of 530 (528884)
10-07-2009 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Kaichos Man
10-07-2009 8:49 AM


Selection Pressures
Hi, Kaichos Man.
Kaichos Man writes:
It's pretty simple:
Works towards the enabling of Natural Selection = "good".
Works away from the enabling of Natural Selection = "bad".
This needs to be addressed first, because you’ve got it completely backwards. Natural selection is not good for an organism. Natural selection is the killer of the bad stuff. Let me explain:
How do you define the word, survivor? I would define it as, something that hasn’t died (yet). It’s a negative definition: it is defined in terms of what it is not.
When you start saying that survival is the result of the mechanism of natural selection (as you have been), you are trying to define survival positively. This means that survival can’t happen until your mechanism is enabled. So, if natural selection, of your usage, is not enabled, the organism is not surviving, so the mutations in your example are never happening.
So, we don’t define natural selection that way: we define it as the pressures that can kill things, and survivors as things that natural selection hasn’t gotten yet.
Natural selection is bad for individual organisms, because it kills them or prevents them from breeding. And, if it is not enabled, that means the organism is surviving.
Do you understand this part?
-----
Kaichos Man writes:
Bluejay writes:
You forgot selection.
Kicked in after a 0.5% improvement on the duplicated gene. Didn't you understand this?
Okay, now I’m going to beat the horse for a little more, just to make sure you understand the implications of the above definition for natural selection.
Yes, I did understand this. It is your "a priori" talking, like I mentioned in my earlier posts.
Selection isn't something you just "enable" at some point: it's the result of pressures that are always present for all organisms (e.g. predators, pathogens, resources, competitors, mates, physiological constraints, etc.). Again, these pressures are always working on all organisms. Selection is always hovering over everybody's head, waiting for the chance to strike. As soon as you start changing your phenotype (the outward expression of your genes), you potentially make it easier or harder for natural selection to "get" you. If it doesn't "get" you, you survive and reproduce.
What your threshold-value approach is saying is that under a certain specific circumstance, and under no other circumstances, the organism's fitness will be changed such that natural selection occurs. This is you, dictating, a priori, what counts as "good" or "bad."
But, in reality, any time you start changing base-pair sequences, you risk tipping your phenotype into the "inviable" or "unfit" region. And, since mutations are random, you really have no way of knowing when a mutation will happen, nor how it will affect you when it does happen, nor, for that matter, how many other possibilities might have happened or how they would effect you. This is why your a priori selection of the time at which natural selection "kicks in" is a completely fallacious approach.
Any given mutation might happen in any given embryo (that’s when evolution-relevant mutations typically occur). And, a whole array of effects of this mutation on the organisms's ability to withstand a potentially endless quantity of selection pressures would have to be evaluated before you could say whether or not said mutation was deleterious, neutral or beneficial under the organism’s circumstances. And, even then, its effects on the organism would only be a statistical probability.
The line to remember from my last post:
Bluejay writes:
There are millions of different ways to survive, after all.
Source
This should be obvious, given that there are millions of organisms with millions of different survival mechanisms (e.g. herding, armor, speed, armaments, camouflage, resource management physiology, food acquisition and processing syndromes, sensory accoutrements, etc., each with many different sorts and flavors).
An example: let's say "the gene we want to mutate" from your example produces wings. What your example says is that, if we don't evolve wings, we have failed. But, in the process of failing to evolve wings, we could easily evolve increased muscle fitness or more efficient oxygen-exchange in our lungs instead, which, although not what we "wanted," could contribute to our fitness.
So, yes, you failed to incorporate natural selection by assuming that it wouldn't occur unless a specific set of circumstances that you dictated beforehand came to fruition.
I wrote a bit more about selection pressures in a new thread, Stasis and Evolution, which also now features links to a couple older, but still good, threads directed by RAZD on related issues.
-----
Kaichos Man writes:
It wouldn't matter if the mutations were happening to an individual or a population until natural selection kicks in. The only difference in a population is that the incident of mutations would be greatly accelerated, which means that until natural selection kicks in THE GENE WOULD DETERIORATE FASTER.
If we take out the errors involved in dictating natural selection thresholds beforehand, this amounts to you tacitly (like my word?) agreeing with me that you failed to incorporate the population.
The gene wouldn't deteriorate faster because it would mutate in multiple different directions simultaneously in different individuals in a population. This will result in multiple phenotypes in a single population, and the different phenotypes will be involved in an evolutionary game in which they have different chances to succeed. And, you can't deteriorate a gene without some sort of consequences on your survival. So, you'll have natural selection, all along the way, weeding out any with deteriorated genes. Thus, natural selection results in the preservation of the genes without deterioration and the genes with actual improvements.
Does this make it clear to you? Populations and selection are always going to be present, and you must explicitly incorporate them in any model of evolution if you want your model to be meaningful.
-----
It seems the reasons for doubt about evolution are usually just misunderstandings of what evolution is actually about. It was the same way for me when I first began hearing about it. I sincerely hope this will help everyone understand the concepts behind evolution better (though I’m sure the length of the post has already prevented many from even bothering to read it).
Edited by Bluejay, : "indidivual"
Edited by Bluejay, : "improvments"

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-07-2009 8:49 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-07-2009 10:10 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 309 of 530 (529129)
10-08-2009 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Kaichos Man
10-07-2009 10:10 PM


Re: Selection Pressures
Hi, Kaichos Man.
Kaichos Man writes:
G'day Bluejay.
Y'all too, dude!
-----
Kaichos Man writes:
Creationists have no problem with negative selection. It is positive selection we refute...
The Theory of Evolution doesn't include any positive selection. What appears to be "positive selection" is the result of negative selection working stronger on somebody else than on you. Increases in fitness result from mutations that allow greater ability to avoid the negative selection pressures.
It's all defined in terms of the negative result (failure or death), so it's always negative selection.
-----
Kaichos Man writes:
What is the difference between selection being "enabled" and selection "striking"?
Envision natural selection like the Grim Reaper, lurking over your head and trying to kill you at every turn. "Striking" is when he finally gets you. But, he's been trying (i.e. he's been "enabled") since the moment you were conceived.
-----
Kaichos Man writes:
If you don't like the verb "to be enabled", then fine. Call it natural selection "coming into play".
But, it's always "in play." That was my point: it's always working on every organism. The "striking" analogy was just referring to the failure of an organism to stay ahead of it.
-----
Kaichos Man writes:
Which gives us fruitflies with a host of interesting new phenotypical features, one of which may or may not be an antenna?
That is NOT observed!
It is.
Have you heard of "antennipedia"? This hints at the limb ancestry that Mr Jack was talking about.
Or four-winged fruit flies? Have you heard of those? This hints at the wing ancestry of fly halteres.
In this case, it's easy to see that a fruit fly's ancestors used to be like any other insect (i.e. having four wings), then developed a mutant gene that caused its hind wings to become halteres. If you knock out the mutant gene with another mutant, the fly's wings develop like typical insect wings.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-07-2009 10:10 PM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 339 of 530 (529538)
10-09-2009 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by Calypsis4
10-09-2009 5:45 PM


Re: Some facts that you may not be aware of
Hi, Calypsis4.
Please read the following mock post by Bluejay:
----------------------------------------------------------------
[mock post]
Here is evidence of evolution:
Cooksonia bridges the gap between non-vascular plants and vascular plants
Schinderhannes bartelsi bridges the gap between Dinocarida and Arthropoda
Ambulocetus natans bridges the gap between Artiodactyls and Cetaceans
These three fossils completely destroy all arguments against ToE. It is up to you to explain how these animals could have happened under your ID model.
'Nuff said, right?
[/mock post]
----------------------------------------------------------------
The above mock post is identical in quality to the arguments you have provided against ToE.
It's nothing but: "Look! A picture of something that, according to me, destroys your argument! You have to be indoctrinated or heavily biased not to see it!"
Seriously, would you like us to use the above tactics against you? Would that really make for a useful debate? If not, why the hell are you doing it?

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Calypsis4, posted 10-09-2009 5:45 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by Calypsis4, posted 10-09-2009 6:13 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 393 of 530 (530127)
10-12-2009 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 392 by Peepul
10-12-2009 10:35 AM


Re: Selection Pressures
Hi, Peepul.
Peepul writes:
You may be aware, Percy, of recent research that shows that about 150 mutations occur per generation in human - your figure of 20 is very conservative.
Can you supply some sources for this? I've been looking for this information. Thanks.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Peepul, posted 10-12-2009 10:35 AM Peepul has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 425 of 530 (530851)
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
Hi, Kaichos Man.
Kaichos Man writes:
[N-A-T-U-R-A-L S-E-L-E-C-T-I-O-N]...plays a very minor role in molecular evolution
...but plays a major role in the evolution of populations of organisms.
Do you not understand that deleterious mutations have negative impacts on the organisms that have them?
Do you not understand that "negative impacts" means survival and/or fecundity decrease?
Do you not understand that a dead organism cannot pass on the deleterious mutations that killed it to its progeny, because it's dead!?
Think on this for awhile.
Edited by Bluejay, : ellipsis (...) marks

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-15-2009 8:51 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 529 of 530 (571343)
07-31-2010 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 520 by Bolder-dash
07-29-2010 9:48 PM


Re: Strengths and weaknesses and other lies...
Hi, Dash.
Bolder-dash writes:
So what are you saying, that the strengths and weaknesses of the theory shouldn't be taught because you feel it is a strategy?
So children should not be taught accurately because your side wants to win a strategy war?
The "weaknesses" that creationists want taught are not actually weaknesses of the ToE, but are the exact same talking points that creationists have wanted to pass into science curricula for a very long time.
It's at least a bit more honest of creationists though, because they're no longer presented these talking points as their own counter-theory, but only as arguments (complaints, really) against ToE. But, they're still the same inaccurate and meritless talking points that they've always been.
Basically, the education of children is far more accurate now than it would be if this creationist strategy were to be implemented.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 520 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-29-2010 9:48 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