Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Evolution Intellectually Viable?
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 77 of 91 (22080)
11-10-2002 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by nator
11-09-2002 9:29 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
What is the barrier to macroevolution?[/B][/QUOTE]
--What are the barrierS to mega-evolution, macro-evolution, and and/or exquistely complexifying organisms?
The formation of more exquisitely complex new additions while maintaining the integrity of (especially) higher animal functionings:
1) Any and all enzymes and enzyme systems have barriers that cannot be broken, else catalytic active sites become extinct.
a. Neurolytic receptors as such cannot mega-evolve nor mega-devolve without detriment.
b. Higher Animal Immune systems with all their pre-arranged cascading events, critically harmonious interactions, while able to adapt to antigens via their pre-situated physiology, are fixed and maximally fine-tuned.
c. Musculo-skeletal systems are critically harmonious, with fulcrums, levers, axial joints, etc. that may never be violated without detriment.
d. Cardio-Circulatory systems, while similar in many taxa, require specific heart types, fixed-communicating arteries, arterioles, etc. that defy beneficial change toward new additions as well as more exquisitely complex ones.
e. The same holds true for Epithelial and dermatological systems, Lymphatic systems, Head, Eye, Ear, and Nose systems, Heart, Lung, Hepatic, and Renal systems, not to mention the extremely exquisitely complex boundaries of reproductive, embryological, endocrine/harmonal systems, and their evidently dead-end complexity as systems communicate with systems: I.e., How could a retinal system interact more beneficially with the ocular-epithelial system (without wearing glasses), genetically? It can not! The boundary is apparent.
2) Developmental stages are gross barriers to evolution; violate a preceding stage and find detrimental ramifications upon the rest.
3) To accept a macro-ToE is to place faith in spontaneous atomic re-arrangements and repeated abiogenesis-like phenomenon. Abiogenesis/Spontaneous generation of organelles, organs, tissues, harmones, enzymes, systems, intellect, and finally God-consciousness, are barriers to macro-evol. That evolution as such is theistic (God-of-the-gaps) may be postulated but I'd personally reject theistic evolution on grounds of parsimony.
These are just a few barriers to macro-evolution. Time would fail to demonstrate other barriers present due to ecological systems, physical and geological science systems, sociological, psychological systems, etc.
Sincerely,
Philip

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by nator, posted 11-09-2002 9:29 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by nator, posted 11-10-2002 6:09 PM Philip has replied

Delshad
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 91 (22083)
11-10-2002 6:24 AM


Sorry for going off topic guys.
Hie Quetzal
I will start to work on my topic(why the necessity of religion in our modern society ) and hopefully I should finish at the end of this week, inshallah.
Sorry about the long time but its both because of a lack in time and the need to make it thouroughly, (if I am going to start a thread with you I have a feeling I have to be VERY prepared
Sincerely Delshad

Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 79 of 91 (22099)
11-10-2002 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Ahmad
11-08-2002 6:09 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Ahmad:
It is not enough for amino acids to be arranged in the correct numbers, sequences, and required three-dimensional structures. The formation of a protein also requires that amino acid molecules with more than one arm be linked to each other only through certain arms (bonds) called peptide bonds.
Ok, Ahmad. I think that you are getting some of you info from this creationist that Andy has been (correctly) trashing. Couple of clarifications for you. Amino acids are bound to one another through peptide bonds, you have that much correct, the "arms" that you refer to are called R groups and come in a variety of forms. The primary sequence is formed by a series of amide bonds formed from primary amines and carboxylic acids. Only a few of these R groups can form covalent links of this type, namely: glutamic acid, aspartic acid and lysine (the other two basic amino acids, arginine and histidine have resonance structures as part of or adjacent to the amine group and therefor do not form amide bonds readily). These R groups do not normally cause a problem with the formation of the peptide bond due to the lack of repeating resonance structures normally found in a polypeptide, if I remember correctly the disassociation rate for these groups is much higher. The ony other amino acids which form covalent bonds are the cysteines, which form sulfer bonds and therefore will not interupt the primary structure, although they can and do have an effect on the stability of the teriary or quaternery structure. In other words, Ahmad, your objection is poppycock. You do not have to believe me, pick up any decent book on biophysical chemistry or biological physical chemistry and you will see what I mean.
quote:
In the same manner, in a protein molecule, the joining of even one amino acid with another with a bond other than a peptide bond renders the entire molecule useless.
This is flat out wrong as well. There are numerous bonds within a protein, anything from cystine bonds to non-covalent salt bonds such as bridges or hydrogen bonds. The association of these bonds is due to primarily to the primary structure of the protein, although some proteins do require chaperone proteins for proper folding. I am not trying to be rude but you really need to learn some biochemistry prior to making statements like this. Of course, then I would hope that you would not make them at all .
quote:
So are you saying that the first protein, here on earth, would have been a complete, pure, total and in an unadulterated form? If yes, then I have no argument as it seemingly proves a Conscious Intervention which is what I am stating.
No, I am saying that the first proteins (or more properly proteinoids, AKA Dr. Fox) would not be the same as those we find in living systems today. My opinion is that the first self replicating systems were a combination of RNA or RNA like molecules or polymers which were associated with proteins or protenoids. There is a whole body of literature on this area out there, free for the reading.
Oh, and there is no such thing as a "pure" protein in a living system. If there were then I would be out of a job .
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Ahmad, posted 11-08-2002 6:09 AM Ahmad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Ahmad, posted 11-14-2002 7:59 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 80 of 91 (22132)
11-10-2002 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Philip
11-10-2002 2:35 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Philip: [QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
What is the barrier to macroevolution?
quote:
--What are the barrierS to mega-evolution, macro-evolution, and and/or exquistely complexifying organisms?
Define "mega-evolution"
Define "exquizitely-complexifying organism".
quote:
The formation of more exquisitely complex
Define "Exquisitely complex".
quote:
new additions while maintaining the integrity of (especially) higher animal functionings:
Define "higher animal".
quote:
1) Any and all enzymes and enzyme systems have barriers that cannot be broken, else catalytic active sites become extinct.
This is irrelevant. Just because a particular existing enyme pathway is necessary for a particular function, does not mean that someenzyme pathway might have arisen instead.
All the ToE predicts is an outcome, not neccessarily a particular outcome.
quote:
a. Neurolytic receptors as such cannot mega-evolve nor mega-devolve without detriment.
Define "mega-evolve".
Define "mega-devolve".
Define "detriment" in this context.
quote:
b. Higher Animal Immune systems with all their pre-arranged cascading events, critically harmonious interactions, while able to adapt to antigens via their pre-situated physiology, are fixed and maximally fine-tuned.
Unless you have infinite knowledge of the future, you cannot say that ANYTHING in nature is "fixed and maximally-fine-tuned."
quote:
c. Musculo-skeletal systems are critically harmonious, with fulcrums, levers, axial joints, etc. that may never be violated without detriment.
Irrelevant. Evolution is simply change; some changes to the genome be for the better, a few for worse, and most to no effect. Whther it is "detrimental" is dependent upon the environment. There is no barrier to macroevolution here.
This is basic stuff, Philip, that we have been over before.
quote:
d. Cardio-Circulatory systems, while similar in many taxa, require specific heart types, fixed-communicating arteries, arterioles, etc. that defy beneficial change toward new additions as well as more exquisitely complex ones.
Care to provide evidence that circulatory systems do not change?
quote:
e. The same holds true for Epithelial and dermatological systems, Lymphatic systems, Head, Eye, Ear, and Nose systems, Heart, Lung, Hepatic, and Renal systems, not to mention the extremely exquisitely complex boundaries of reproductive, embryological, endocrine/harmonal systems, and their evidently dead-end complexity as systems communicate with systems: I.e., How could a retinal system interact more beneficially with the ocular-epithelial system (without wearing glasses), genetically? It can not! The boundary is apparent.
When nearsighted people get eaten by tigers again, evolution will have a greater influence on human eyesight.
What strict limits you wish to require of both science and nature!
There are limits because Philip says there are limits. I understand now. What was I thinking? How foolish of me.
How do you explain the immunity or resistance to HIV that some people (whose ancestors survived the Black Plague) have? The Plague was also an auto-immune disease which tricked the body into killing it's own lymphocytes, just like HIV does.
Nature selected, through a random mutation, these people to survive through their slightly different immune system.
quote:
2) Developmental stages are gross barriers to evolution; violate a preceding stage and find detrimental ramifications upon the rest.
So what? The ToE doesn't predict that systems came about suddenly, but were a gradual development of additions and deletions and redundancies.
quote:
) To accept a macro-ToE is to place faith in spontaneous atomic re-arrangements and repeated abiogenesis-like phenomenon.
You are, once again, ignoring NATURAL SELECTION.
You really do have a profound misunderstanding of how evolution works.
quote:
Abiogenesis/Spontaneous generation of organelles, organs, tissues, harmones, enzymes, systems, intellect, and finally God-consciousness, are barriers to macro-evol.
STRAWMAN!!!
The ToE does not postulate that ANY of these things sprang up spontaneously!
Gosh, haven't you learned this yet? I swear I have told you this a dozen times if I have told you once, and that is just me!
You sure write a lot of words, Philip, but maybe if you read a bit more about the subject you are denying, you would make a lot more sense.
You know, quality over quantity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Philip, posted 11-10-2002 2:35 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Philip, posted 11-14-2002 12:59 AM nator has replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 81 of 91 (22625)
11-14-2002 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by nator
11-10-2002 6:09 PM


Define "mega-evolution"
--Extreme macro-evolution, wherein morphological changes necessarily violate harmonious physiological systems within the organism(s) and wherein expected detrimental mutational changes somehow produce hopeful monsters. In YEC terms, it would be kinds switching. Of course such evolution violates pre-existent physiological parameters and must be viewed as preposterous.
Define "exquizitely-complexifying organism".
--Higher ordered harmonious complexity and inter-dependencies devoloping. "Exquisite" is does denote a higher percieved order and excellency (harmony symmetry, and proportion) of overall function.
Analogies: A watch vs. a rock.
Define "Exquisitely complex".
--See above
Define "higher animal".
(--As per Linnaein taxa schemes)
(Any and all enzymes and enzyme systems have barriers that cannot be broken, else catalytic active sites become extinct...)
This is irrelevant. Just because a particular existing enyme pathway is necessary for a particular function, does not mean that someenzyme pathway might have arisen instead.
--I'm speaking of detrimental effects of enzyme evolution as barriers. What mechanism could possibly overcome such barriers? Enzyme pathways (e.g., Kreb's cycle) are different and may allow for minor evolvements, in my perception.
All the ToE predicts is an outcome, not neccessarily a particular outcome.
--How can catalytic active-sites fall into place then when there is no
guiding (particular) mechanism, unless it is pre-existent/APRIORI.
quote:
Neurolytic receptors as such cannot mega-evolve nor mega-devolve without detriment.
Define "mega-evolve".
--(Above)
Define "mega-devolve".
--The formation of vestiges which encumber an organism to the point of detriment, hence, impossible.
Define "detriment" in this context.
--Detriment is less survivability.
quote:
b. Higher Animal Immune systems with all their pre-arranged cascading events, critically harmonious interactions, while able to adapt to antigens via their pre-situated physiology, are fixed and maximally fine-tuned.
Unless you have infinite knowledge of the future, you cannot say that ANYTHING in nature is "fixed and maximally-fine-tuned."
--I agree that variations may be tolerated to a minimal extent, then stop (as is Drosphila studies).
quote:
c. Musculo-skeletal systems are critically harmonious, with fulcrums, levers, axial joints, etc. that may never be violated without detriment.
Irrelevant. Evolution is simply change; some changes to the genome be for the better, a few for worse, and most to no effect. Whther it is "detrimental" is dependent upon the environment. There is no barrier to macroevolution here.
--As a podiatric surgeon, I could never surgically take a human foot whose biomechanics are in the norm and improve upon the musculo-skeletal complexity of functions. Its all dead-end and fixed biomechanics even for the greatest foot surgeon. How much less could it evolve more beneficially.
This is basic stuff, Philip, that we have been over before.
--...
quote:
d. Cardio-Circulatory systems, while similar in many taxa, require specific heart types, fixed-communicating arteries, arterioles, etc. that defy beneficial change toward new additions as well as more exquisitely complex ones.
Care to provide evidence that circulatory systems do not change?
--Monkey heart transplants have failed in humans. If successful they will never benefit past a human heart; surely you can see.
A great deal of variation does occur with vascular channels, however, in the arterioles especially. In fact, my identical twin's vasculature is drastically different than mine in arterial and venous stemmings.
But, the main arteries (as per Grey's Anatomy) are set-in and cannot be perfected, only worsened. Designing or evolving a better Grey's vasculature is not viable on physiological grounds.
quote:
e. The same holds true for Epithelial and dermatological systems, Lymphatic systems, Head, Eye, Ear, and Nose systems, Heart, Lung, Hepatic, and Renal systems, not to mention the extremely exquisitely complex boundaries of reproductive, embryological, endocrine/harmonal systems, and their evidently dead-end complexity as systems communicate with systems: I.e., How could a retinal system interact more beneficially with the ocular-epithelial system (without wearing glasses), genetically? It can not! The boundary is apparent.
When nearsighted people get eaten by tigers again, evolution will have a greater influence on human eyesight.
--Only true if spectacles were not designable. But, methinks it would not increase complexity of the Grey's anatomy of the eyeball, because this organ is indeed harmoniously dependent upon its parts.
What strict limits you wish to require of both science and nature!
Not trying to be a pessimist regarding the ToE, but morphological kinds of organisms a limited in regards to change.
There are limits because Philip says there are limits. I understand now. What was I thinking? How foolish of me.
--My less than meager humble opinion(s).
How do you explain the immunity or resistance to HIV that some people (whose ancestors survived the Black Plague) have? The Plague was also an auto-immune disease which tricked the body into killing it's own lymphocytes, just like HIV does.
--Hypothetically, God's grace pre-enabled certain gene pools to mercifully allow the ToE to operate in some (this is not a theistic ToE I'm advocating nor god-of-the-gaps mechanism, please don't confuse this). But the pre-existent elements were in place in certain genomes to mutate or code resistance in the DNA itself. Surely, this is miraculous (unless I'm missing something) when there were so few people on earth during the black plague to invoke a substantial mutational ToE effect.
Nature selected, through a random mutation, these people to survive through their slightly different immune system.
--Perhaps, we'll luck-out with AIDS, too? Monogomy will probably have to increase/stablilize the nuclear family via social pressures, SANS a genomic-ToE here.
quote:
2) Developmental stages are gross barriers to evolution; violate a preceding stage and find detrimental ramifications upon the rest.
So what? The ToE doesn't predict that systems came about suddenly, but were a gradual development of additions and deletions and redundancies.
--Right, Shraf, but there's too many complex developmental stages ramifying one on the other. Perhaps there is genetic flexibility here but I would be careful to exaggerate such.
quote:
) To accept a macro-ToE is to place faith in spontaneous atomic re-arrangements and repeated abiogenesis-like phenomenon.
You are, once again, ignoring NATURAL SELECTION.
--You are nearsited, always invoking NS; I am farsighted, always invoking harmonious interdependencies, catalytic active sites in proteins, and other ICs and redemptive phenomena.
--Of course there's NS SANS changes in Taxonimically classifiable Kinds.
You really do have a profound misunderstanding of how evolution works.
--You really have a profound misunderstanding of how evolution works.
Don't make me become Borg-like at this point in counter-rebuttals.
(I'll bypass this one)
quote:
Abiogenesis/Spontaneous generation of organelles, organs, tissues, harmones, enzymes, systems, intellect, and finally God-consciousness, are barriers to macro-evol.
STRAWMAN!!!
--I do have a profound misunderstanding of what you mean by the scarecrow.
The ToE does not postulate that ANY of these things sprang up spontaneously!
Gosh, haven't you learned this yet? I swear I have told you this a dozen times if I have told you once, and that is just me!
--Nag nag nag. At least one of us is lying. The Mega-ToE is merely a nearsited spontaneous generational theory, in my opinion.
You sure write a lot of words, Philip, but maybe if you read a bit more about the subject you are denying, you would make a lot more sense.
--Appeal to emotions? Appeal to the APRIORI fallacies?
You know, quality over quantity?
--Don't even try to confuse these two realities (like the insanely confused Dawkins in Blind Watchmaker)
Sincerely,
Philip

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by nator, posted 11-10-2002 6:09 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by nator, posted 11-15-2002 1:06 PM Philip has replied

Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 91 (22796)
11-14-2002 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
11-10-2002 2:31 PM


quote:
. Amino acids are bound to one another through peptide bonds, you have that much correct, the "arms" that you refer to are called R groups and come in a variety of forms. The primary sequence is formed by a series of amide bonds formed from primary amines and carboxylic acids. Only a few of these R groups can form covalent links of this type, namely: glutamic acid, aspartic acid and lysine (the other two basic amino acids, arginine and histidine have resonance structures as part of or adjacent to the amine group and therefor do not form amide bonds readily).
First of all, a peptide bond is formed by the elimination of water. The compund formed is a dipeptide and successsive covalent bonds form a polypeptide. The R group is just one of the "arms" you have mentioned. Ofcourse, this the group that gives each amino acid its uniqueness. A peptide bond is also composed of a free amino group and a carboxyl group. Research has shown that amino acids combining at random happen to combine with a peptide bond only at a ratio of 50% and that the rest combined with different bonds that are not present in proteins. To function properly, each amino acid making up a protein must be joined only with a peptide bond in the same way that it has to be chosen only from among the left-handed ones.
This probability is the same as the probability of each protein being left-handed. That is, when we consider a protein made up of 400 amino acids, the probability of all amino acids combining among themselves with only peptide bonds is 1 over 2^399.
quote:
The ony other amino acids which form covalent bonds are the cysteines, which form sulfer bonds and therefore will not interupt the primary structure, although they can and do have an effect on the stability of the teriary or quaternery structure. In other words, Ahmad, your objection is poppycock. You do not have to believe me, pick up any decent book on biophysical chemistry or biological physical chemistry and you will see what I mean.
So are you denying that a specific chain, a specific arrangement is needed for the correct function of amino acids? I don't recall mentioning anything about the structure but its function.
This is my argument:
-The probability of two amino acids being combined with a "peptide bond" = 1/2
-The probability of 500 amino acids all combining with peptide bonds = 1/2^499 = 1/10^150
= 1 chance in 10^150
This is a huge number. Its 10 followed by 150 zeros.
quote:
This is flat out wrong as well. There are numerous bonds within a protein, anything from cystine bonds to non-covalent salt bonds such as bridges or hydrogen bonds. The association of these bonds is due to primarily to the primary structure of the protein, although some proteins do require chaperone proteins for proper folding. I am not trying to be rude but you really need to learn some biochemistry prior to making statements like this. Of course, then I would hope that you would not make them at all
Amino acids can make different bonds with each other; but proteins are made up of those and only those amino acids, which are united by "peptide" bonds.
quote:
No, I am saying that the first proteins (or more properly proteinoids, AKA Dr. Fox) would not be the same as those we find in living systems today. My opinion is that the first self replicating systems were a combination of RNA or RNA like molecules or polymers which were associated with proteins or protenoids. There is a whole body of literature on this area out there, free for the reading.
Just a moment... << Here's a scientific article from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences about complexity and proteins. The author makes a case that biological proteins are amongst the most complex things in our Universe - yet ends this paper with the shallow claim that evolution is the cause of this complexity. "This brief sketch should make it clear that proteins are truly complex systems and that the complexity can be described through the energy landscape. The complexity has arisen through evolution." Ofcourse, the article proves my point of the complexity involved in proteins
Regards,
Ahmad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 11-10-2002 2:31 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

Karl
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 91 (22836)
11-15-2002 5:47 AM


quote:
Amino acids can make different bonds with each other; but proteins are made up of those and only those amino acids, which are united by "peptide" bonds.
Sorry. Not so. Much of the shape of a protein is fashioned by hydrogen bonds between non-adjacent (in the sequence) amino acids.
{Fixed quote - AM}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-15-2002]

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 84 of 91 (22866)
11-15-2002 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Philip
11-14-2002 12:59 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
Define "mega-evolution"
--Extreme macro-evolution, wherein morphological changes necessarily violate harmonious physiological systems within the organism(s) and wherein expected detrimental mutational changes somehow produce hopeful monsters. In YEC terms, it would be kinds switching. Of course such evolution violates pre-existent physiological parameters and must be viewed as preposterous.
Examples of this, please. Please explain where in Evolutionary Biology this is predicted to occur.
quote:
Define "exquizitely-complexifying organism".
--Higher ordered harmonious complexity and inter-dependencies devoloping. "Exquisite" is does denote a higher percieved order and excellency (harmony symmetry, and proportion) of overall function.
Analogies: A watch vs. a rock.
Define "Exquisitely complex".
--See above
You didn't really define anything.
Provide examples of what you mean from living organisms, please.
quote:
(Any and all enzymes and enzyme systems have barriers that cannot be broken, else catalytic active sites become extinct...)
This is irrelevant. Just because a particular existing enyme pathway is necessary for a particular function, does not mean that someenzyme pathway might have arisen instead.
quote:
--I'm speaking of detrimental effects of enzyme evolution as barriers.
There are detrimental effects possible in all stages of evolution.
What you would need to be correct is for ALL effects of enzyme evolution to be detrimental, and this is not the case.
Remember the nylon-digesting bacteria?
quote:
What mechanism could possibly overcome such barriers?
You have not demonstrated these barriers.
All the ToE predicts is an outcome, not neccessarily a particular outcome.
quote:
--How can catalytic active-sites fall into place then when there is noguiding (particular) mechanism, unless it is pre-existent/APRIORI.
What makes you think that nything in evolution simply "falls into place"?
Methinks thais is yet another variety of "Philip's Argument from Incredulity", or, "I. Philip, can't believe X, therefore X had to have God cause it!"
quote:
Define "mega-devolve".
--The formation of vestiges which encumber an organism to the point of detriment, hence, impossible.
Huh? Vestigials are evidence of devolution? On what planet?
quote:
Define "detriment" in this context.
--Detriment is less survivability.
How is this a problem for Evolution?
quote:
b. Higher Animal Immune systems with all their pre-arranged cascading events, critically harmonious interactions, while able to adapt to antigens via their pre-situated physiology, are fixed and maximally fine-tuned.
Unless you have infinite knowledge of the future, you cannot say that ANYTHING in nature is "fixed and maximally-fine-tuned."
quote:
--I agree that variations may be tolerated to a minimal extent, then stop (as is Drosphila studies).
Cite please.
quote:
c. Musculo-skeletal systems are critically harmonious, with fulcrums, levers, axial joints, etc. that may never be violated without detriment.
Irrelevant. Evolution is simply change; some changes to the genome be for the better, a few for worse, and most to no effect. Whther it is "detrimental" is dependent upon the environment. There is no barrier to macroevolution here.
quote:
--As a podiatric surgeon,
...OK, here we go...
quote:
I could never surgically take a human foot whose biomechanics are in the norm and improve upon the musculo-skeletal complexity of functions.
That's nice.
What does that have to do with evolution?
quote:
Its all dead-end and fixed biomechanics even for the greatest foot surgeon. How much less could it evolve more beneficially.
You have not demonstrated any barrier to speciation with this example.
All you have displayed is your incredulity.
added by edit:
Are you therefore saying that all feet of all people are the same?
quote:
d. Cardio-Circulatory systems, while similar in many taxa, require specific heart types, fixed-communicating arteries, arterioles, etc. that defy beneficial change toward new additions as well as more exquisitely complex ones.
Care to provide evidence that circulatory systems do not change?
quote:
--Monkey heart transplants have failed in humans. If successful they will never benefit past a human heart; surely you can see.
Huh? What the heck does this have to do with evolution?
quote:
A great deal of variation does occur with vascular channels, however, in the arterioles especially. In fact, my identical twin's vasculature is drastically different than mine in arterial and venous stemmings.
But, the main arteries (as per Grey's Anatomy) are set-in and cannot be perfected, only worsened.
So, you ARE claiming to have infinite knowledge of all future generations of humans until the end of time!
Really, Philip, you are making silly "it is so because I say it's so" claims.
quote:
Designing or evolving a better Grey's vasculature is not viable on physiological grounds.
So sez you.
quote:
e. The same holds true for Epithelial and dermatological systems, Lymphatic systems, Head, Eye, Ear, and Nose systems, Heart, Lung, Hepatic, and Renal systems, not to mention the extremely exquisitely complex boundaries of reproductive, embryological, endocrine/harmonal systems, and their evidently dead-end complexity as systems communicate with systems: I.e., How could a retinal system interact more beneficially with the ocular-epithelial system (without wearing glasses), genetically? It can not! The boundary is apparent.
When nearsighted people get eaten by tigers again, evolution will have a greater influence on human eyesight.
quote:
--Only true if spectacles were not designable.
What? This makes no sense.
My point is that the genetic basis of nearsightedness is not likely to be reduced in the population because instead of the nearsighted people getting killed off by predators, being in car accidents, etc., we have invented the means to correct their vision artificially.
They then get to reproduce at roughly the same rate as those with normal vision, so the genetic material remains in the population.
quote:
What strict limits you wish to require of both science and nature!
quote:
Not trying to be a pessimist regarding the ToE, but morphological kinds of organisms a limited in regards to change.
Do you reject all fossil evidence which shows transitions between species?
quote:
There are limits because Philip says there are limits. I understand now. What was I thinking? How foolish of me.
quote:
--My less than meager humble opinion(s).
Baseless opinion.
How do you explain the immunity or resistance to HIV that some people (whose ancestors survived the Black Plague) have? The Plague was also an auto-immune disease which tricked the body into killing it's own lymphocytes, just like HIV does.
quote:
--Hypothetically, God's grace pre-enabled certain gene pools to mercifully allow the ToE to operate in some (this is not a theistic ToE I'm advocating nor god-of-the-gaps mechanism, please don't confuse this). But the pre-existent elements were in place in certain genomes to mutate or code resistance in the DNA itself. Surely, this is miraculous (unless I'm missing something) when there were so few people on earth during the black plague to invoke a substantial mutational ToE effect.
The pre-existing elements (a copying mistake) were there through God's intention?
Then can I also assume that ALL mutations, even those that cause horrible genetic diseases, are there because God made them that way on purpose?
If not, then what criterion can we use to tell the God-caused mutations from the ordinary random mutations?
What about all those genetics experiments where scientists manipulate certain genes? Is God directing those, too?
quote:
Nature selected, through a random mutation, these people to survive through their slightly different immune system.
quote:
--Perhaps, we'll luck-out with AIDS, too?
I thought that luck had nothing to do with it?
Care to retract your statement that immune systems can't evolve?
quote:
Monogomy will probably have to increase/stablilize the nuclear family via social pressures, SANS a genomic-ToE here.
Yes. It's too bad that the US doesn't allow gay marriage, and thus encourage gay people to be monogomous.
Then again, the rate of AIDS is dropping in the Gay community and rising fastest among heteros.
quote:
2) Developmental stages are gross barriers to evolution; violate a preceding stage and find detrimental ramifications upon the rest.
So what? The ToE doesn't predict that systems came about suddenly, but were a gradual development of additions and deletions and redundancies.
quote:
--Right, Shraf, but there's too many complex developmental stages ramifying one on the other.
How many is "too many".
Argument from personal incredulity.
Just because Philip thinks there are "too many" doesn't mean "Godidit".
quote:
) To accept a macro-ToE is to place faith in spontaneous atomic re-arrangements and repeated abiogenesis-like phenomenon.
You are, once again, ignoring NATURAL SELECTION.
quote:
--You are nearsited, always invoking NS;
Natural selection OS the farsighted view that is supportd by the evidence. Mutation happens in an instant; NS has effects over millions of years.
quote:
I am farsighted, always invoking harmonious interdependencies, catalytic active sites in proteins, and other ICs and redemptive phenomena.
You are also arrogant in your notion that if Philip can't imagine it, it must not be true.
quote:
--Of course there's NS SANS changes in Taxonimically classifiable Kinds.
Please explain the barrier which would prevent macroevolution.
quote:
You really do have a profound misunderstanding of how evolution works.
quote:
--You really have a profound misunderstanding of how evolution works.Don't make me become Borg-like at this point in counter-rebuttals.
Heavens, you constantly make up your own terminology, are utterly vague when asked for definitions, and constantly claim that, "Golly, speciation just can't happen because I just can't believe it!"
quote:
Abiogenesis/Spontaneous generation of organelles, organs, tissues, harmones, enzymes, systems, intellect, and finally God-consciousness, are barriers to macro-evol.
quote:
The ToE does not postulate that ANY of these things sprang up spontaneously! Gosh, haven't you learned this yet? I swear I have told you this a dozen times if I have told you once, and that is just me!
quote:
--Nag nag nag. At least one of us is lying. The Mega-ToE is merely a nearsited spontaneous generational theory, in my opinion.
You specifically claimed that whole organs and systems should arise spontaneously in an Evolutionary model, and this is NOT TRUE.
It isn't my problem that you cannot seem to be able to absorb this information, and if you are tired of being corrected, perhaps you might consider not making the claim in the future.
Am I to assume that you do not accept that transitional fossils exist?
Might I inquire as to what you would accept as a transitional fossil?
Then we can look and see if such a fossil exists.
Perhaps a fossil with both dinosaur and bird characteristics? Or both land mammal and water mammal characteristics?
Why would I think that you understand Evolution if you continue to make such silly claims about it?
quote:
You sure write a lot of words, Philip, but maybe if you read a bit more about the subject you are denying, you would make a lot more sense.
quote:
--Appeal to emotions? Appeal to the APRIORI fallacies?
Appeal to education and clarity.
{Tried to clean up quote structure as best I could - Adminnemooseus
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-15-2002]
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-17-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Philip, posted 11-14-2002 12:59 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Philip, posted 12-31-2002 12:59 AM nator has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 85 of 91 (27629)
12-22-2002 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ahmad
11-05-2002 8:50 AM


They may not have *turned* to herps etc but YES-- see all posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Ahmad, posted 11-05-2002 8:50 AM Ahmad has not replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 86 of 91 (28170)
12-31-2002 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by nator
11-15-2002 1:06 PM


The nesting levels of counter arguments and rebuts have been exceeded in my opinion (and probably the editor's); most readers would have difficulty following at this point, too.
Thus, I retreat from arguing in depth. 'Tis true, Philip's arguing is based in part on incredulity as his perceptions are not bottled into mere existential cause-effect reasonings.
The great black box we behold; you'd probably convince yourself that it all evolved. For me to state that the black box is really the ToE therein, in and of itself, seems a profound incredulity. The ex-nihilo nature (something from nothing) of it defies mean (e.g., ToE) scientific explanation.
Does it not violate science to see it all?: The apparently infinite universe, the apparently infinite breadth of time, the cosmic excellencies, the complex enzymatic biochemical machinery, the orchestrated ecological and physiological systems, and finally, the guilt-infested human psyches trying to make scientific sense of it all?
Respectfully: Wake up scientists! How can you slumber in these mean biases? How can you believe and purport so much mean empiricism in hypothesizing about this black box? Where does your empirical science fit into that ex-nihilo box?
Not ex-nihilo you say? Believe/infer what you will. I see it, detect it, feel it, taste it, and handle it all as a something-out-of nothing--redemptive phenomenon. As such, it is all worthy of praise and thanks, with no scientific excuses for ungratefulness and empirical bigotry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by nator, posted 11-15-2002 1:06 PM nator has not replied

PrimatePaul
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 91 (30123)
01-24-2003 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ahmad
11-05-2002 8:50 AM


Actually you are wrong, scientists created the environmental conditions of the primeval soup and discovered what many comsider to be life arising from it. Protein formation occurred. This is not proof in the theory of evolution, simply proof that it is intellectually viable.
I must ask you if you consider creation to be intellectually viable, and whether you consider man to be created exclusively?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Ahmad, posted 11-05-2002 8:50 AM Ahmad has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Percy, posted 01-24-2003 12:26 PM PrimatePaul has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 88 of 91 (30126)
01-24-2003 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by PrimatePaul
01-24-2003 11:02 AM


PrimatePaul writes:
...scientists created the environmental conditions of the primeval soup and discovered what many consider to be life arising from it.
Uh, I don't think so. Complex organic molecules, yes. Life, maybe someday.
I don't have a link to the article handy, but scientists *did* recently synthesize life, though not from scratch. They created the DNA for an existing organism from scratch (the organism's DNA had been previously decoded), then inserted it into an existing cell membrane from which they'd evicted the previous occupant, and voil, life!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by PrimatePaul, posted 01-24-2003 11:02 AM PrimatePaul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by sprout, posted 06-29-2005 1:35 PM Percy has not replied

sprout
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 91 (220700)
06-29-2005 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Percy
01-24-2003 12:26 PM


PrimatePaul wrote that scientists created pre-biotic conditions and the beginning of life? Give me your references to this please. Simple Homochirality is but one of a thousand problems facing abiology theorists.
Some molecules, such as amino acids are chiral, they occur randomly in nature as two molecular mirror images or enantiomers (See 1). A famous example is thalidomide, which was used as a morning sickness drug. It is also chiral. One form was an effective drug. The other was a poison. This explained why some babies were deformed.
The amino acid enantiomers are called levo (L) and dextro(D).
Interesting to creationists, proteins in all living things are built of L-amino acids exclusively.
Homochirality happens to be an obstacle to the prebiotic soup idea. All experiments to work around the “problem” have failed. For example, Eberhard Breitmaier of the University of Bonn and his team found that a magnetic field could force chemical reactions to favor L-amino acids (Science, 13 May 1994). No one could duplicate the experiment. Thanks to the pharmaceutical interest in enantiomers, like the infamous thalidomide, scientists went to Breitmaier's lab to see the experiment done again. It worked until Breitmaier tried without a teammate’s help. His colleague, Zadel, had been spiking the solution with large amounts of single-enantiomer additive (Science, July 1, 1994).
Ever since Eugene Dubois' 1891 Java-man hoax (3) and many others, it has been clear Evolution has its zealots similar to religious fanatics. Unfortunately, hoaxes popularized the theory. The Theory of Evolution has had its dark age of social Darwinism in Hitler’s day.
It seems Pasteur’s fight with spontaneous generation continues at the molecular level. His law states that life only comes from life.
A prominent biologist, Dean Kenyon of San Francisco State University, was one of the world's foremost authorities on biochemical evolution. He wrote Biochemical Predestination, which became a established university textbook. After biologists learned more, especially in genetics, he was among many to admit that the systems they discovered were irreducibly complex, not amenable to evolution. He explains this well with computer-generated images in a recent DVD called Unlocking the Mystery of Life and in his book Of Pandas and People. Life requires information, an encoding medium, molecular machines to handle the medium, communication mechanisms between molecular machines, infrastructure to position the molecular machines. We have networks of factories of factories working in each cell.
I question weak fossil evidence and hear of upside down geological layers in China (See 5 and 6). I see DVDs about diminishing vestigial organ list, and no proof that mutations can add useful information to the genetic code (4 and 5)
I am a computer scientist. I know that the code I’m modifying comes from a somewhat intelligent programmer. Until someone proves otherwise, great engineers made my computer and Charles Babbage made the first one in a pre-electronic mechanical soup.
* * *
1. Chirality (chemistry) - Wikipedia
2. Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
3 Eugene Dubois admitted before he died in 1940 that his 1891 Java man was not a missing link. He said the human-like femur was found 46 feet farther that the skull cap which was that of a large gibbon.
4. Famous example of sightless cave fish: In a dark cave, the seeing cave-fish had no advantage over the blind. Their sensitive eyes are prone to scraping or attack and subsequent infection. Loss of eyesight shows a loss of genetic information through mutation. Natural selection weeded out the fish with eyesight. This is not an example of macro-evolution which is an addition of meaningful genetic information ( the addition of a member for example).
5. See Icons of Evolution DVD (amazon.com).
6. The 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption showed that 400 feet of sedimentation layers formed within days. (http://www.cnt.ru/users/chas/sthelens.htm).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Percy, posted 01-24-2003 12:26 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Chiroptera, posted 06-29-2005 2:02 PM sprout has not replied
 Message 91 by Admin, posted 06-29-2005 2:03 PM sprout has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 91 (220706)
06-29-2005 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by sprout
06-29-2005 1:35 PM


Hiya, sprout.
As it turns out, the chirality problem isn't really much of a problem after all. It is possible to have homochiral molecules that will self-replicate when placed in a racemic mixture. What is more, these molecules are simple enough that it isn't a stretch to imagine them forming in nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by sprout, posted 06-29-2005 1:35 PM sprout has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 91 of 91 (220707)
06-29-2005 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by sprout
06-29-2005 1:35 PM


You're replying to a thread that hasn't been active in over two years. In addition, since you've included the text of your recent yet-unreleased thread proposal, you appear to be attempting to hijack this thread to discuss your own topic.
Closing this one down.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by sprout, posted 06-29-2005 1:35 PM sprout 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