|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5060 days) Posts: 1 From: Austin, TX, US Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Problems with evolution? Submit your questions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
That is not the same. Your quote says "asset" each part would therefore have a selectable function. That makes sence. however if you have a muliple part machine inwhich each part is useless without the others this could neve evolve. But this is not true. A counterexample would be the bones of the mammalian middle ear, the evolution of which is well-preserved in the fossil record. The fact that you can't now remove a part without wrecking the system is not even remotely connected to the question of whether it could have evolved gradually, since such gradualistic evolution does not have the sudden apparition of a part as its final step. It is this consideration that led Behe to admit that his argument was defective, as follows: "There is an asymmetry between my current definition of irreducible complexity and the task facing natural selection. I hope to repair this defect in future work." That was Behe in 2001. Don't hold your breath.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Desent must be destroyed. Now that sounds like dogma! Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Major being the most important word here. We dont find mermaids or pegasus and this is somehow evidence for evolution. Funny how that works. A theory makes predictions and then those predictions turn out to be true. Usually, people consider this to be validation of the theory, at least those who do not have a religious beef against the theory.
When examples are found it is chalked up to the catch all of convergance. Examples?
Man made things can also be "nested" Does not prove they evolved. Actually, no they can't. This is one of the hallmarks of design, the lack of a nested hierarchy. Designers are free to mix and match different design units as they see fit. In fact, humans have designed organisms that clearly violate the nested hierarchy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
havoc writes: Did you have a point, or are you just whining? My point is that I offerd a couple critical points about your beloved theory and you assume I am such and such. DOGMA Desent must be destroyed. Not sure what you meant by that but it could just be that English is not your native language so let's try to figure it out. If you meant dissent, then again you are simply wrong to claim science discourages dissent. You do understand that one of the basics of science is that it not only encourages but mandates that scientists publish all their data so that others can challenge any conclusions? If you meant descent, then again you are wrong. If we destroyed descent then there would be no one left. If you meant decent then I cannot see how it relates in anyway to the topic being discussed. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
That is not the same. Your quote says "asset" each part would therefore have a selectable function. That makes sence. however if you have a muliple part machine inwhich each part is useless without the others this could neve evolve. Behe never demonstrated that each part was useless without the other parts throughout the history of the system. He only demonstrated this aspect for the modern systems. Therefore, Behe failed to demonstrate what he wanted to demonstrate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
My point is that I offerd a couple critical points about your beloved theory and you assume I am such and such. You presented misconceptions of the theory that have been pushed by creationists for decades now.
Desent must be destroyed. You are projecting again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Your quoting Genesis. Kinds reproduce after there own kinds. Nowhere did I mention kinds. Nowhere did I mention Genesis.
My point is that it variation within the limits of the existing info available.
What limitations? Is there a base in any genome that can not be mutated? Is there a deletion or insertion event that can not happen in a genome? Of the DNA differences between humans and chimps which could not be produced by random mutations? You seem to be throwing around concepts that you picked up from creationist websites but have no idea how they apply to biology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Coyote writes:
Which was his point. In his mind, we are out to destroy all desent. This was not a statement he made, this was a (wrong) observation he made.
Now that sounds like dogma!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
dissent dissent dissent. I meant to say dissent. Sory tat mi bed splang prvs evo is tru.
If you meant dissent, then again you are simply wrong to claim science discourages dissent. Well all I did was make some critical points on this website and with a few exceptions I was attacked. Not my points but me. Sounds like people who are afraid to support their ideas so they seek to impugn the other sides motives.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Well all I did was make some critical points on this website and with a few exceptions I was attacked. We made critical points right back. How are your arguments "critical points" while our arguments are "attacks"? What is up with this persecution complex that you seem to have? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
havoc writes: dissent dissent dissent. I meant to say dissent. Sory tat mi bed splang prvs evo is tru.
If you meant dissent, then again you are simply wrong to claim science discourages dissent. Well all I did was make some critical points on this website and with a few exceptions I was attacked. Not my points but me. Sounds like people who are afraid to support their ideas so they seek to impugn the other sides motives. No one has attacked you that I can see, but Creationism is a really dumb idea and so deserves derision. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
What limitations? New functionality. Lets take the dino to bird example. You would have to have mutations that increased the information in the genome and tell the dino how to change from making scales to making feathers, body plan, bone structure, lung design. This doesnt occur and without the preconcived notion that it must have occured there is no evidence for it. I mean the fossile evidence interpetation is more art than science. Mutations do not add new functional info. It would take millions of these fictional mutations to turn a "simple cell" into a human.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Please ignore.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Havoc.
Welcome to EvC!
havoc writes: But for creating "new" information mutation is the only choice, correct? I should point out that "mutation" covers several different mechanisms (e.g. crossing over, point mutations, insertions, deletions, etc.). They're all united under one term (i.e., "mutation") because their patterns of occurrence are largely similar (i.e. random in relation to the fitness effects they have). -----
havoc writes: Biology text books will say that Dinos evolved into birds, flat out and unequivocally. Seems like the question as to what mech and how long should be easy to answer. Instead we get semantics. You all propose a nice neat package that has the answers. How about answering some basic foundational questions. Seems like spelling out the word "mechanism" should be pretty easy to do. Instead we get "mech" from you. Curiously though, it isn't my first impulse to assume that you don't know how to spell "mechanism" in it's entirety and are only writing "mech" in the hopes that no one will notice. Rather, I assume that you had some other reason for only using four of the nine letters. It would be kind of you to return the favor and not assume that textbook writers don't go into details because they don't know the details; but rather, assume that they have some other reason for doing so. I have a three-year-old son. A few months ago, I told him that he isn't allowed to play with the electrical outlets or the electrical cords, because (and I quote), "they have electricity in them, and electricity can burn you." We tailor our writing to our audience. That's the first rule of communication. If the information you want isn't there, maybe you should try looking for a more advanced source, like a textbook about evolutionary genetics, or, even better, search the primary literature on PubMed. -----
havoc writes: We dont find mermaids or pegasus and this is somehow evidence for evolution. Thats a weak argument. Yes, it's a pretty weak argument. But, nobody made this argument. Rather, they made the opposite argument (i.e., if we do find mermaids or pegasus, this is evidence against evolution), which is not a weak argument. Don't confuse a failed argument against as an argument for: they are quite distinct. Edited by Bluejay, : Signature. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
Is there a base in any genome that can not be mutated? Agreed mutations can and do occure. However you can shake up the scrabble board as often as you like and you will never get a Shakespeare.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024