Always talking about micro-evolution?

One problem with thinking that you can calculate a probablility for the woodduck's pattern is that there are a huge number of different patterns, all of which would do just as well. And how many is that? I dunno.You're picking the result as if it was the only possible one, it isn't.This is a common misunderstanding. There is no target to the evolutionary process.(as an aside: many years ago a number of us were driving by a lake in the interior of BC. My friend, the driver, pointed to the lake and said, "Hey look, wood ducks". My first wife looked form the back seat and replied, "No, there're not, they moved.". We were lucky that the driver managed to stay on the road.)

Hello:I'm jumping into this one quite late cuz I've ben on a self-imposed hiatus from this site in an attempt to get my blood pressure back down after dealing with "whatever" etc. What makes you think that feathers evolved for flight? Do you know the difference between an adaptation and an exaptation?

Skeptick,I notice you never seem to answer any questions yourself, like the ones I posted here. And they're too important to ignore.No one here knows whether you accept any amount of evolution whatsoever in organisms, or whether you just think small changes won't add up to big ones over time. No one here knows what evidence you would consider persuasive concerning evolution by natural selection.When you were shown a diagram of ear-and-mouth structures in reptiles and humans that strongly suggest common descent, you dismissed the evidence as unintelligible. When you asked for statistics, you were answered but you claimed you couldn't understand the numbers. When you expounded upon DNA and genetics, you wouldn't listen when a geneticist tried to put the subject into context for you. When you claimed that certain fossils were frauds, we explained that the frauds were uncovered by peer review, radiometric dating, and the scientific process. You then made it sound like creationists were the ones who exposed the frauds, with nothing but your own assertions to back you up.Of late, you posted a quote by a creationist that was criticized for being wrong about the effect of mutations in the genome. You claimed that the fact that he is a creationist is the sole reason we don't accept his word. This only makes us more certain that you don't understand the subject and aren't making much of an effort to learn. You've asserted that

quote:

---

I've never found an evolutionist who could either provide any [evidence], just lots of verbiage, and references to many frauds, and forgeries. If there is evidence, your camp seems to be hiding it pretty well because they can't show us any.

---

Obviously that's a strong position, that there is no evidence whatsoever to support the theory of evolution by natural selection. What is your point, Skeptick? Would you please tell us what form of evidence you would find acceptable concerning common ancestry of organisms?[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 02-11-2004]

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

I asked: You responded: I asked: You responded: The remaining 97% that is non-functional, does that mean it has no function, or that we perhaps need a different "de-coder" ring? Sorry for the term, my vocabulary is quite limited.

I think what that means is that it never expresses proteins. The "junk" DNA may very well have function, but that function wouldn't be related to its nucleotide sequences. No, because we're using the same "de-coder ring" that the cell uses.

Well, I joined this forum thinking I knew at least a little bit, but the wisdom and intelligence that flowed from your camp just debunked virtually everything that I brought up, so it appears that I was terribly mis-informed before I arrived here. I've already been lambasted for everything that you've referenced in your post #168, so I don't know why I'm being lambasted again for it. Is your purpose to just beat up on intellectual "little guys", or to help elighten us so we can make a better decision about what to believe? Please don't be so upset with me.Also, your quote is now # 168, but you reach all the way back to my quote 104 where I wrote: Which is a while back. I have learned so much since then. I guess I didn't get out much before now.But since you seem intent on embarassing me further, I will attempt to answer your question: Um, I guess, the same kind of information that you would probably require of me to indicate a common designer. That's my best guess. Or am I incorrect?[This message has been edited by Skeptick, 02-12-2004]

What's throwing us off here is that you've gone from a tone of honest questioning (your first 3 or 4 posts), to one of arrogant superiority (the bulk of your exchanges with me), to one of supercillious deference (your recent posts), all in about 3 days.It's difficult to believe that these represent an honest change of heart, because that usually takes a lot longer. Plus when honest people really want to rectify their ignorance, they usually conclude that an internet forum is not a good substitute for a science education, and ask for reccommended texts for their edification. What they usually don't do is continue to ask the sort of questions creationists ask to try to entrap us, like "what did the male wood ducks do while they waited for their plumage to evolve to the females' high standards?" or some such.Is there any reason we shouldn't view your new tone of "I'm so ignorant, please don't hurt me" as simply one more disingenuous tactic?

Most of the junk DNA appears to be junk, in the sense that it apparently carries no useful sequence information, and can be removed with no effect on an organism. There might be a function for raw bulk of DNA; but this is not normally what we mean by functional DNA.However, it can be very hard to tease out the various roles to which DNA is put in the cell; and thus to tell what is junk, and what is not. Sometimes the term "junk DNA" is used as a synonym for "non-coding DNA", which is an error. Sometimes the discovery of function for certain sequences of non-coding DNA is taken as an indication that there is no such thing as junk DNA, which is also an error.Junk DNA can be identified by seeing if removing that portion has no effect on an organism. We don't know enough about the workings of DNA to identify junk simply by the sequence information alone.Some DNA can be of critical importance as, for example, binding sites for transcription factors. Such DNA sequences may have a vital regulatory function, and this is based on the nucleotide sequence. But the sequence is not used to express protein.There has been a bit of a communication problem here, I think. The figure 3% was introduced by Mammuthus as the proportion of "classical genes", and Skeptick has taken this is as "functional". Mammuthus' wording contributed to this confusion, and subsequently abbreviated quoting concealed the problem.Cheers -- Sylas

quote:

---

The remaining 97% that is non-functional, does that mean it has no function, or that we perhaps need a different "de-coder" ring? Sorry for the term, my vocabulary is quite limited.

---

Hi Skeptic,
As Sylas pointed out, some of the non-coding DNA is important for controlling transcription of genes but never makes it into the protein. Also, some of the DNA puts a critical distance between sequences that control gene expression. Thus, the sequence itself is irrelevant but the number of bases between the transcription control elements is critical. There are many dead copies of genes called pseudogenes that may have once been functional or are the products of reverse transcription of retroelements that went awry. These psuedogenes could be removed from the genome and would not have any phenotypic effect. Then there are the repetitive elements I mentioned. In some cases they may be important. They may also serve a function as structural elements in chromosomes. But many can suffer deletions, mutations, or be removed completely without any consequence to the organism and hence have been termed "junk". Finally, there are purely structural sequences like those of the centromere. They don't code for proteins but are necessary for cell division to occur. The vast majority of the genome (around 97%) is made up of these types of sequences as opposed to protein coding sequences.

Skeptick,I'm not trying to trap you by asking what you would consider persuasive evidence of common ancestry. I just want to know. If you're sincere in saying that we have presented you with such evidence, tell us what that is.Your last line makes me think that maybe this is another evasion tactic. I just asked you what your opinion is: do you think evolution happens at all? Do you think the proposed mechanisms of evolution are testable and verifiable? Do you think that Darwin's theory has any basis in fact?

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

In my quick quirk quiet kind of a way I think it could have function AND depend on the DNA(related to "its" nucleotide sequences) for its existence and information transfer abilities. We often talk of the DNA aND RNA and Protein as 'sequences' like the fibinnocii numbers form/at a sequence but we dont consider the way the numbers are represented to be "part" of said 'sequence' (ONE could be 1 or I etc)but if one can search a DNA Library it may be possible to find that both "1" and "I" show up in identifiable patterns among DNA, RNA, and protein such that the repeating of 1 gives an assymetry of electron transfer that I matches symmetrically and due to the nature of physical conductivity the function indeed may depend CRITICALLY on the DNA SEQUENCE in order to establish its existence and as long as the existence does not PHYSICALLY prevent the flow of said electrons which may need to maintain thermal contacts etc they can increase by mistakes in replication nonoverwhelmingly and thus recieve the apethet- "junk" no matter the history from saying this origin...This however would term and turn the notion of "classical" and "functional" on my angels on the pin head which indeed would find an explanation for the population genetics of Lichen introns possibly as well. It would indicate that functionality of the "classical" gene is depauperate to biological reality if true.

Um, entrap you? Why would you be concerned about being entrapped when your scientific position is so solid, and laden with an overwhelming amount of evidence? No matter how hard I try, I can't do anything right for some of you guys.But, tell me this: Have you admonished those folks who have called me various names on this forum (folks from your camp), like buffoon and lunatic, as well as those folks who have used vulgar language directed toward my posts and others? I'm certain you know, that "points" are generally "deducted" from debate team scores when they become personal in their arguments? But yet I go through the stages that you just listed, and you make a big deal out of it somehow. Are you concerned about stages past, or stage present (supercilious deference)? Just simple questions are what I'm down to, not much more. Tell me, which stage should I now evolve into, that would be acceptable to you so we can continue with this topic?

Why don't you evolve into a stage where you support assertions with evidence when asked? That's all we've ever wanted.If you've got questions, ask 'em. Nobody's worried that you're going to outsmart us, trust me. But be prepared to be corrected if your questions are based on premises that just aren't true.Fire away.

quote:

---

Just simple questions are what I'm down to, not much more. Tell me, which stage should I now evolve into, that would be acceptable to you so we can continue with this topic?

---

Any topic that you want to go into will require some knowledge beforehand. Not a lot, mind you, but a little. Questions like "how long did it take to evolve precise coloration," tend to lead nowhere. However, asking "what mechanism can lead to differing coloration within the same species," would be a much better question. If I were to ask you "If you guys know so much about how earthquakes occur, what will the next earthquake in Diluth, Minnesota measure on the Richter scale," while insinuating that the current theories on earthquakes are wrong, how would you answer? If you weren't able to answer, could I then assume that the current theories on earthquakes are wrong? Of course not. The better question would be "what is the cause of earthquakes, and what are the possibilities of an earthquake in Diluth."All I am trying to say is that you might want to delve into the basic tenets of the theory of evolution. This might help out both you and your responders. Mind you, you don't have to believe that the ToE is correct, just understand what it is saying. This way we can have an INFORMED debate.Just to get your toes wet, perhaps you could start a topic on the evidences of common descent by commonalities in DNA sequences. We could go over specifics like pseudogenes and HERV's, which evolutionists believe to be strong indications for common descent. Best of luck.

quote:

---

No matter how hard I try, I can't do anything right for some of you guys.

---

Just to point out, our interactions have become much milder. Mr. Hambre has asked you several specific questions without insulting you as well. Loudmouth has been patient the entire time you have been here. Perhaps keep posting on those topics you feel are progressing and ignore those you feel are merely part of a flame war.