Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
59 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK (2 members, 57 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Galapagos finches
RAZD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 91 of 104 (335609)
07-27-2006 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by MurkyWaters
07-25-2006 8:07 PM


Re: here we go ... oops.
Thanks for the response MurkyWaters,

I directed you to this thread with the understanding that we were going to be discussing the galapogos finches and not general misconceptions about evolution, time and the universe in general ...

Thus ~90% of your response is off-topic here as well. Sigh.

Let's start a new thread where the topic is your conception of evolution (then we can't get off-topic, and we can put it in "Is It Science?" Forum where the standards for evidence are less strict -- for the debate:

Message 1

Now I am going to assume that you have read that post before proceeding to respond to the rest of this one (we'll have to wait for it to be promoted before you can respond to it), as otherwise we'll be talking in circles.

Whether you agree with those definitions or not, you can see that within their context, the finch article fits much better with the creation model than with the evolutionary one, primarily since it demonstrates that change does not require millions of years to take place.

You don't get to change definitions to suit your arguement. Sorry.

So, it's not a matter of my agreeing with your definitions, but a matter of using the correct definitions to begin with -- the ones that everyone else uses and not some creatortionista strawman version that changes with every argument.

Evolution is change is species over time. That is what occurred. No supernatural intervention was observed. Conclusion: the change in species over time was due to evolution and not some supernatural intervention.

And let's be clear here, you have not actually shown how the finch fits a creation model other than by claiming that the same mechanism that explains how the finch fits the evolution model can be usurped used by creationists: this does not make it a "better" fit, it just demonstrates how creation is redefined to fit the evidence.

It is not evidence for evolution since the change has not added additional genetic information that wasn’t already present but is required for true evolution to occur.

Seeing as how evolution does not claim to be about changes in "information" this is a strawman arguement based on a false definition of what evolution is about -- this is another bogus creatortionista argument.

Evolution is changes in species over time.

See reference to the bogus creatortionista "information" argument in post linked above and do NOT reply to it here where it is off-topic.

What you need to do here -- on this thread -- is demonstrate specifically how the finches (1) cannot be explained by evolution and (2) how it then fits (your) YEC model in ways that are NOT explained by evolution (using the {real\standard} definitions etc) so that it (YEC) is a better fit.

Blanket assertions aside, you need observation, mechanism (theory), evidence and test (validation), for how your YEC method works.

Evolution has this, and it fits the observed facts.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-25-2006 8:07 PM MurkyWaters has taken no action

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 104 (335610)
07-27-2006 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by MurkyWaters
07-25-2006 8:07 PM


A question for RAZD and MurkyWaters
Are the two of you willing to participate in a Great Debate. This mainly means that only two people are involved, so it should be easier for MurkeyWaters to manage that way. And, in a Great Debate thread, we can be a little more casual about topic drift.

If you both agree, I'll promote Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate and Myriad Misconceptions to the Great Debate forum.

Don't reply here. Respond to this question by posting your comments in Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics.

Thanks.


To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
  • Discussion of moderation procedures
  • Comments on promotions of Proposed New Topics
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Great Debate proposals

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 81 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-25-2006 8:07 PM MurkyWaters has taken no action

    Replies to this message:
     Message 93 by RAZD, posted 07-27-2006 9:54 PM AdminNWR has taken no action
     Message 97 by RAZD, posted 07-29-2006 3:51 PM AdminNWR has taken no action

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 637 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 93 of 104 (335876)
    07-27-2006 9:54 PM
    Reply to: Message 92 by AdminNWR
    07-27-2006 12:16 AM


    Re: A question for RAZD and MurkyWaters
    That would be a possibility, but it looks like we'll need to wait for a further response from MurkyWaters first.

    Edited by RAZD, : doncha hate seeing a typo just as you hit send?


    Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand

    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 92 by AdminNWR, posted 07-27-2006 12:16 AM AdminNWR has taken no action

    Replies to this message:
     Message 94 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-29-2006 1:09 PM RAZD has replied

      
    MurkyWaters
    Member (Idle past 329 days)
    Posts: 56
    From: USA
    Joined: 07-21-2006


    Message 94 of 104 (336331)
    07-29-2006 1:09 PM
    Reply to: Message 93 by RAZD
    07-27-2006 9:54 PM


    Re: A question for RAZD and MurkyWaters
    I have responded here: My Response as suggested by AdminNWR.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 93 by RAZD, posted 07-27-2006 9:54 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 95 by RAZD, posted 07-29-2006 1:39 PM MurkyWaters has replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 637 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 95 of 104 (336350)
    07-29-2006 1:39 PM
    Reply to: Message 94 by MurkyWaters
    07-29-2006 1:09 PM


    Re: A question for RAZD and MurkyWaters
    see response.

    And I take it from the lack of any follow-up on the Galapogos Finches that this issue is resolved?

    Galapagos Finches show change in species over time == evolution.

    (certainly there is no information that it =/= evolution)

    Edited by RAZD, : finished post

    Edited by RAZD, : spleing


    Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand

    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 94 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-29-2006 1:09 PM MurkyWaters has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 96 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-29-2006 2:06 PM RAZD has replied

      
    MurkyWaters
    Member (Idle past 329 days)
    Posts: 56
    From: USA
    Joined: 07-21-2006


    Message 96 of 104 (336359)
    07-29-2006 2:06 PM
    Reply to: Message 95 by RAZD
    07-29-2006 1:39 PM


    Re: A question for RAZD and MurkyWaters
    No, it is not resolved. Seems to me that 2 seperate issues are preventing it's resolution.
    1) Your contention that change in species over time == evolution. Rather than debate that here, we can finish that discussion in the "great debate".
    2) Change in genetic information over time. I agree that this has not been clarified sufficiently by me to provide a cogent argument. This has probably been debated in this forum elsewhere, so I'll come up to speed as to what's been said already by the time we get to this in the "great debate".

    LOL, this "great debate" thing is cool. It sounds like we're getting ourselves into something very "special".


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 95 by RAZD, posted 07-29-2006 1:39 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 98 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2006 7:30 AM MurkyWaters has taken no action
     Message 99 by RAZD, posted 09-11-2007 1:51 PM MurkyWaters has taken no action

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 637 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 97 of 104 (336381)
    07-29-2006 3:51 PM
    Reply to: Message 92 by AdminNWR
    07-27-2006 12:16 AM


    Re: A question for RAZD and MurkyWaters
    see Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate and Muriad Misconceptions


    Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand

    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 92 by AdminNWR, posted 07-27-2006 12:16 AM AdminNWR has taken no action

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 637 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 98 of 104 (336834)
    07-31-2006 7:30 AM
    Reply to: Message 96 by MurkyWaters
    07-29-2006 2:06 PM


    Re: A question for RAZD and MurkyWaters
    1) Your contention that change in species over time == evolution.

    It's not my contention, but the contention of the science. As referenced.

    Part of the problem is that there are two "evolutions"

    (1) is the mechanism - (micro\macro)evolution, the change is species over time, (mechanism)evolution or {"M/E"} and

    (2) is the science - the study of evolution (the mechanism), AND the experiments, AND the observations, AND the results, AND the theories of natural (survival\sexual) selection, common descent, punkeek, etc etc etc, (science)evolution or {"S/E"}.

    What you have said above essentially is "it is not {M/E} because it is not {S/E}" -- and in logic this is called the fallacy of equivocation, using different meanings of words in different parts of the construction.

    I guess we'll have to cover that under definitions in the Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate (now open to anyone)

    LOL, this "great debate" thing is cool. It sounds like we're getting ourselves into something very "special".

    The only thing 'special' is that it is just two people in the debate. This means no {dodging\changing} the topic without mutual consent, and it also means coming to some consensus before moving on (even if that consensus is agreeing to disagree).

    Enjoy.

    Edited by RAZD, : for clarity in red above


    Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand

    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 96 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-29-2006 2:06 PM MurkyWaters has taken no action

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 637 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 99 of 104 (421199)
    09-11-2007 1:51 PM
    Reply to: Message 96 by MurkyWaters
    07-29-2006 2:06 PM


    Back to the Evolution of the Galapagos Finches ...
    This is in response to the information\assertions made in Message 118 regarding the Galapagos Finches and whether this constitutes evolution or not:

    MurkyWaters writes:

    ... In all of the change that we have observed, fruit flies are still fruit flies, moths are still moths, finches are still finches. No evolution. It doesn’t matter if we simply observe species changing. ...

    As we see from the Definition of Evolution you can define evolution several ways, but the required elements are (a) hereditary traits and (b) natural selection operating on those traits as expressed in the individual phenotypes, and that result in (c) the change in hereditary traits within populations of species over time (or from generation to generation). When these conditions are met evolution has occurred. This is "descent with modification" to use Darwin's formulation, and thus we would always expect that the offspring of (X) would always be (X) regardless of what (X) is, and to say otherwise is to misunderstand or misrepresent evolution. If there is a change in hereditary traits from one generation to the next then evolution has occurred, whether it is still the same species or not.

    If you want to discuss the definition of evolution go to Definition of Evolution

    MurkyWaters writes:

    ... As we all know, the word “evolution” can refer to this theory or it can refer to the “process” (or mechanism) that is occurring today (as many references pointed out). In other words, you can look to the Galapagos finches and say “this is evolution” referring to the process (CISOT), or you can say the Galapagos finches does not go far enough to demonstrate evolution, referring to the theory (MTM) ...

    {Where "CISOT" refers to "change in species over time" (where the "change" has been specified as hereditary) and "MTM" refers to "molecules to man" (which MurkyWaters also states as "all the living forms in the world have arisen over billions of years from a single common ancestor which itself came from an inorganic form").

    This is essentially agreeing that evolution has occurred by the process of mutation and selection. As we see from The Definition for the Theory of Evolution that there is a lot of confusion as to what constitutes a theory, and we also see that we can define the theory of evolution several ways, but the essential elements are (a) evolution per a scientific definition (such as "change in hereditary traits from one generation to the next"), and (b) the theoretical postulation that this applies to any level of change that has been observed, whether that change be microevolution within a population or macroevolution and the increasing divergence possible between related species with the increasing passage of time.

    MurkyWaters writes:

    (Percy, Message 115)

    The Galapagos finches are an example of evolution in action because scientists were able to observe modification through successive generations brought about by changes in the natural environment that in turn changed which variations were more desirable than others.

    This is where we part ways. This is exactly the point that initiated this entire debate. It all depends on how you define “evolution”. It may demonstrate “evolution” which some have deceptively defined as only change in species over time but it DOES NOT demonstrate the theory of evolution.

    The point is not how people define evolution, but how evolutionary biologists define evolution. When you use the definition used by the scientists it qualifies as evolution. That there is a conflict with how the theory of evolution is defined by the "MTM" theory would imply it is a faulty statement of the theory of evolution, not that evolution has not occurred.

    Again, if you want to discuss the definition of evolution go to Definition of Evolution.

    MurkyWaters writes:

    (Percy, Message 115 ... adding back comments in gray)

    You spend much time objecting to "change in species over time," which you abbreviate as CISOT, as part of the theory of evolution. I don't understand why you raise this objection, since all the dictionary definitions you cited include change over time. The entire purpose of Darwin's Origin of Species was to present evidence explaining how the current diversity of life came about by changes in predecessor species.

    You’ve made my point. The purpose was to explain how all “the current diversity of life came about”, NOT just how species change. The fact that species change, by itself, DOES NOT rule out the possibility that this diversity is the result of changes to the original created kinds about 6000 years ago.

    But applying the theory to the evidence would. When you apply the theory to the evidence back to say the end of the Cretaceous Period (the KT extinction event) or all the way back to bacterial life (when only prokaryotes lived on earth) and show that the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation explains the data sufficiently, then it validates the theory of evolution over a concept of minimal original "kinds" of animals (especially with certain "typical examples" as listed in Genesis). In fact you only need to go back a few million years before those "typical example" organisms evolved to reach this conclusion.

    It is not the theory that makes the distinction between competing theories, but predictions based on the theory for results when you apply it to the evidence to see if it can explain the evidence: that is what distinguishes one theory from another (and those predictions are usually made to falsify one or the other of competing theories). This is basic to how science works, so once again we need to use definitions as used by scientists that study evolution. This has been reviewed on The Definition for the Theory of Evolution, and currently the definition of the theory of evolution as defined on that thread is:

    RAZD writes:

    Message 158

    (1) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time.

    (2) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes theories on how change is enabled, and it includes theories on how changes made within each generation are selected.

    (3) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes theories on how change is enabled, due to the available variations (diversity) within populations from the formation and accumulation of different mutations in hereditary traits, and it includes theories on how changes made within each generation are selected, due to the differential response of organisms under prevailing ecological pressures to their individual development, their ability to pass on hereditary traits to the next generation, and their opportunities to disperse into other ecological habitats.

    (4) The modern theory of biological evolution is a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time; it includes:

    • theories on how change is enabled
      ...(list of theories on different mechanisms for the formation and accumulation of different mutations in hereditary traits within populations)
    • theories on how changes made within each generation are selected
      ...(list of theories on different mechanisms of selection and where and when they operate)
      ... etc

    If you want to discuss the definition of the theory of evolution go to The Definition for the Theory of Evolution (which is currently closed but can be reopened on request to moderation staff (see Thread Reopen Requests 2) or restarted - it's currently at 215 out of a usual 300 messages on a topic, and many of them are discussions not related to the theory of evolution).

    According to that statement of the theory, evolution can be as small a change as just the change in hereditary characteristics from one generation to the next, it does mean that the changes observed in the Galapagos Finches meet the requirements of the theory of evolution as used by evolutionary biology scientists.

    What else does MurkyWaters say that impacts this thread on the evolution of the Galapagos Finches? Several times, most recently in Message 112 and Message 118 of the same thread, he has made statements like:

    MurkyWaters writes:

    One of the greatest evolutionary minds, Ernst Mayr, who has been called the “Darwin of modern times” says that change in frequency of alleles is NOT evolution and therefore not a part of the definition.

    And let’s not get into this silly notion that evolution is simply a change in frequency of alleles. There are many scientists that disagree with this definition including the Darwin of modern times Ernst Mayr. “Neutral evolution” is NOT evolution.

    But of course the change in beak size of the Galapagos Finches is not "neutral evolution" as it involves selection of hereditary traits from one generation to the next.

    As documented on Message 192 using these quotes of Mayr is misrepresenting what he says, and does not take into consideration where he actually says what evolution is throughout the book. Some examples are:

    quote:
    "Evolution is best understood as the genetic turnover of the individuals of every population from generation to generation."
    -- Ernst Mayr (2001) What Evolution Is, Basic Books, New York p.76

    "Evolution in sexually reproducing organisms consists of genetic changes from generation to generation in populations, from the smallest local deme to the aggregate of interbreeding populations in a biological species."
    -- ibid p.157

    "In fact, the way organisms are structured, evolution is inevitable. Each organism, even the simplest bacterium, has a genome, consisting of thousands to many millions of base pairs. Observation has established that each base pair is subject to occasional mutation. Different populations have different mutations, and if they are isolated from each other, these populations inevitably become more different from each other from generation to generation. Even this simplest of all possible scenarios represents evolution."

    -- ibid p.264


    There can be no doubt for anyone understanding what Mayr is saying in this book, that evolution occurs when hereditary traits are selected and that the selection then affects the distribution of those traits in following populations. There can be little rational doubt that applying the statements above to the Galapagos Finches shows that they evolved fully in accordance with the views of Mayr.

    Conclusions

    (1) evolution as defined by evolutionary biologists involves the change in hereditary traits from generation to generation.

    (2) the theory of evolution as defined by evolutionary biologists involves evolution (per 1) and the (testable) postulate that this applies to any observed level of change in species over time.

    (3) the change observed in the Galapagos Finches in response to changes in the ecology did involve selection of hereditary traits from one generation to the next, and that this is therefore an example of evolution in action.

    (4) the change observed in the Galapagos Finches was explained by the change in hereditary traits from one generation to the next, and this is therefore a validation of the theory of evolution at this (small) scale of change and in this one instance.

    Enjoy.

    Edited by RAZD, : sp, grammar

    Edited by RAZD, : reopening thread link

    Edited by RAZD, : reworded section for clarity


    Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
    compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 96 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-29-2006 2:06 PM MurkyWaters has taken no action

      
    Elmer
    Member (Idle past 5136 days)
    Posts: 82
    Joined: 01-15-2007


    Message 100 of 104 (443631)
    12-26-2007 7:46 AM


    The neo-lamarckian mechanism
    FYI--

    Rebecca L. Young & A.V. Badyaev, 2007. Evolution of ontogeny: linking epigenetic remodeling and genetic adaptation in skeletal structures. Integrative & Comparative Biology 47(2):234-244. ABSTRACT. Evolutionary diversifications are commonly attributed to the continued modifications of a conserved genetic toolkit of developmental pathways, such that complexity and convergence in organismal forms are assumed to be due to similarity in genetic mechanisms or environmental conditions. This approach, however, confounds the causes of organismal development with the causes of organismal differences, and, as such, has only limited utility for addressing the cause of evolutionary change. Molecular mechanisms that are closely involved in both developmental response to environmental signals, and major evolutionary innovations and diversifications, are uniquely suited to bridge this gap by connecting explicitly the causes of within-generation variation with the causes of divergence of taxa. Developmental pathways of bone formation and a common role for bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) in both epigenetic bone remodeling and the evolution of major adaptive diversifications provide such opportunity. We show that variation in timing of ossification can result in similar phenotypic patterns through epigenetically induced changes in gene expression, and propose that both genetic accommodation of environmentally induced developmental pathways and flexibility in development across environments evolve through heterochronic shifts in bone maturation relative to exposure to unpredictable environments. We suggest that such heterochronic shifts in ossification can not only buffer development under fluctuating environments while maintaining epigenetic sensitivity critical for normal skeletal formation, but also enable epigenetically induced gene expression to generate specialized morphological adaptations. We review studies of environmental sensitivity of BMP pathways and their regulation of formation, remodeling, and repair of cartilage and bone to examine the hypothesis that BMP-mediated skeletal adaptations are facilitated by evolved reactivity of BMPs to external signals. Surprisingly, no empirical study to date has identified the molecular mechanism behind developmental plasticity in skeletal traits. We outline a conceptual framework for future studies that focus on mediation of phenotypic plasticity in skeletal development by the patterns of BMP expression.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


    Replies to this message:
     Message 101 by RAZD, posted 12-26-2007 10:39 AM Elmer has replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 637 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 101 of 104 (443660)
    12-26-2007 10:39 AM
    Reply to: Message 100 by Elmer
    12-26-2007 7:46 AM


    Re: The neo-lamarckian mechanism
    http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/47/2/234

    The rest of your post - where you show how this applies specifically to Galapagos finches and how it is "neo-lamarkian" - is strangely missing.

    Enjoy.


    Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 100 by Elmer, posted 12-26-2007 7:46 AM Elmer has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 102 by Elmer, posted 12-26-2007 11:16 AM RAZD has replied

      
    Elmer
    Member (Idle past 5136 days)
    Posts: 82
    Joined: 01-15-2007


    Message 102 of 104 (443667)
    12-26-2007 11:16 AM
    Reply to: Message 101 by RAZD
    12-26-2007 10:39 AM


    Re: The neo-lamarckian mechanism
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/47/2/234
    The rest of your post - where you show how this applies specifically to Galapagos finches and how it is "neo-lamarkian" - is strangely missing.

    No, what is strangely missing is your ability to take empirical facts, accept their inescapable implications, and revise your theoretical assumptions about the mechanisms involved in phenotypic alterations/epigenetic inheritance.
    In this particular case, the expansion of the _average_ beak size of a particular population of finches on a particular Galapagos island when affected by the behaviour required to processer larger and tougher forage, temporarily, along with the decrease back to to normal _average_ beak size once normal-sized forage became once again available.

    RM+NS? My aunt Fanny!


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 101 by RAZD, posted 12-26-2007 10:39 AM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 103 by RAZD, posted 12-26-2007 2:13 PM Elmer has replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 637 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 103 of 104 (443711)
    12-26-2007 2:13 PM
    Reply to: Message 102 by Elmer
    12-26-2007 11:16 AM


    Re: The neo-lamarckian mechanism
    ... what is strangely missing is your ability ...

    Don't need to go all snooty. All you posted was a cut and paste, no link and no commentary for how it applies: this is against the forum guidelines.

    ... take empirical facts, accept their inescapable implications, and revise your theoretical assumptions about the mechanisms involved in phenotypic alterations/epigenetic inheritance.

    Yet you have not shown that genetic inheritance does not apply ... and even then you are still dealing with "inheritance" of hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. You still don't show that the beaks are larger in the new chicks because they absorbed something from the ecology, rather than the tested "inheritance" of hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

    Nor do you show that the beaks are larger in the parents because they grown that way in response to ecological conditions and then pass on that acquired trait to their offspring.

    It's not a matter of accepting some "new paradigm" because it is missing. Whatever way you cut the evidence, I am still left with:

    ... the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation

    In this particular case, the expansion of the _average_ beak size of a particular population of finches on a particular Galapagos island when affected by the behaviour required to processer larger and tougher forage, temporarily, along with the decrease back to to normal _average_ beak size once normal-sized forage became once again available.

    Yet the increase in beak size is not shown to have grown in response to the behavior\need for larger beaks. To assert that this is the case without evidence is less than scientific.

    What I got from the Abstract was that in some cases some bones grow somewhat differently due to epigenetic effects than probable from pure genetics. That may just mean that naturally large beaks can become somewhat stronger\larger than they otherwise would during the development of the chick to adult, but not that naturally small beaks can become as large as the naturally large beaks.

    RM+NS? My aunt Fanny!

    Yet you don't show that finches with small beaks do not die out during the drought conditions.

    So lets talk about:

    'adaptation and variation' is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation

    And return to the discussion of variation and adaptation with speciation added to the mix on Evolution and the BIG LIE? At least talk to Ray.

    Enjoy.


    Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 102 by Elmer, posted 12-26-2007 11:16 AM Elmer has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 104 by Elmer, posted 12-26-2007 11:00 PM RAZD has taken no action

      
    Elmer
    Member (Idle past 5136 days)
    Posts: 82
    Joined: 01-15-2007


    Message 104 of 104 (443833)
    12-26-2007 11:00 PM
    Reply to: Message 103 by RAZD
    12-26-2007 2:13 PM


    Re: The neo-lamarckian mechanism
    Hi RAZD;

    You say;


    quote:
    what is strangely missing is your ability ...

    Don't need to go all snooty. All you posted was a cut and paste, no link and no commentary for how it applies: this is against the forum guidelines.

    First, it's a bit ironic,-- you complaining about what I say when what I say is framed in the exact same language as your comment, the one to which I am responding.
    Second, I did not have a web link to my citation, because my source did not provide one. However, the original source, authors etc., is given right under the heading, and I should have thought that would be sufficient accreditation. Does this website require that all cited material must provide a working web link? Material from books and journals need not apply?
    Third, commentary is redundant when facts speak for themselves--or am I to presume that every reader in this forum is an imbecile who needs the obvious spelled out for him/her? The facts in the citation are clear and definite; the facts about what occurred to the beaks of the finches in the famous Grants' study should be well known to anyone who has read this thread to this point, let alone to anyone who has contributed to the discussion. These two sets of facts correlate positively to very high degree wrt to neo-lamarckism, whereas the supposed 'selection' explanation given by the Grants and applauded by darwinists worldwide has never been anything but notional speculation derived post hoc.
    Now the speculation has met with empirical science, and guess which one can't fly?


    Yet you have not shown that genetic inheritance does not apply ...

    The paper _does_ show that genetic inheritance does not apply- [except, perhaps, as some sort of jumping-off point]- in this study. The authors take pains to show that it is an epigenetic/proteomic and not a genetic mechanism that drives morphological/physiological development of the novel traits observed. It applies to bone, so why not cartilage, skin, feathers, fins, scales, and all else?

    In short, there is no requirement for me to prove that something the paper treats as irrelevent, beside the point.


    and even then you are still dealing with "inheritance" of hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

    But that is not the issue. The issue is not stasis, i.e., "inheritance of hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation". The issue is the driving mechanism for "evolution", i.e., the change in the standard set of morphological, physiological, and instinctive behavioural traits in organisms over at least one generation. Epigenetic inheritance is an empirically proven fact. If epigenetic inheritance is a matter of the same trait appearing in two or more consecutive generations because the same stimulus and the same proteomic resonse to it persists over that period, then this paper explains how it operates. It also explains why the trait reverts to the standard form, a few generations after the environmental stimulus returned to normal. As was the case with the Grants' study. And here's a scary thought--just as was the observed [as opposed to the notional, 'bird predation'] case with the darwinists other favourite--the infamous 'speckled moth'.


    You still don't show that the beaks are larger in the new chicks because they absorbed something from the ecology,

    I do not have to "show" anything. This paper does the "showing".
    But this paper says not one word about anything "absorb[ing] something from the ecology [sic]". Where did you get that idea?
    What is does say is that their test organisms epigenetically developed their traits in response to environmental stimuli.

    I relate that experience, since they are analogous, empirically speaking, first to the Grants' finches, and now to Majerus et al and the Peppered Moth.


    rather than the tested "inheritance" of hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

    I do not understand your meaning here. As above, 'inheritance' is inheritance'. and 'evolution' is 'evolution'. When people confuse the one for the other, they are wrong. And in the case of the finches, as in this entire forum, the subject is evolution.


    Nor do you show that the beaks are larger in the parents because they grown that way in response to ecological conditions

    I do not, as above, _have to show_ that the mechanism demonstrated by my cited paper does not apply to the finches, the moths , or anything else. The fact is that the mechanism which produces such phenomena is now empirically demonstrated, and is presumably ubiquitous. Compare this empirical mechanism as an explanation for the evolution to your metaphysical assumptions about it, and the onus falls on you to prove that your assumptions trump their science.


    and then pass on that acquired trait to their offspring.

    If the stimulating environmental conditions that epigenetically determined the developmental outcome of the parental trait persisted, it would do the same thing to the next generation, and if still persisting, the the generation after that. What is still unknown is the cause of the 'lag time', wherebye this mechanism does not cease operations the minute environmental stimuli revert to normal, but persists for at least a generation or two, as has been observed to be the case. The case of revertant eubacterial 'mutations' in their plasmid DNA may be connected to this as well. But as for now, we'll have to wait and see.


    It's not a matter of accepting some "new paradigm" because it is missing.

    It's not about what's missing [whatever it is you refer to]--it's about what's actually there.


    Whatever way you cut the evidence, I am still left with:

    ... the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation

    Heredity is a fact. So what? Heredity is not the issue. Evolution is the issue. In this case the 'genes' did not evolve, they did not 'change' from generation to generation. The organism, however, did evolve. And so did every tested example of that genotype, generation after generation. Iterated change in a phenotype with no genetic mutation. That's what matters.


    quote:

    In this particular case, the expansion of the _average_ beak size of a particular population of finches on a particular Galapagos island when affected by the behaviour required to processer larger and tougher forage, temporarily, along with the decrease back to to normal _average_ beak size once normal-sized forage became once again available.

    Yet the increase in beak size is not shown to have grown in response to the behavior\need for larger beaks.

    First, the Grant study did not show, AFAIK, that any individual was born with a beak longer than that which was the established limit for normal beak sizes in that species. Only the _statistical average size_ in the overall population fluctuated.
    The Grants themselves claim only that the _average beak size of the population_ increased directly because of mechanical requirements involved in eating larger, tougher forage. And that is not evolution; that is merely what farmers call pruning and culling, and darwinists call 'natural selection'.

    At no point did the Grants connect the statistical alteration in the group phenotype to any genetic mutation. Evolution did not occur, except as an assumed statistical blip.

    True, and I really wish that darwinists would stop doing that!! As for empirical evidence of a real biological mechanism, read the cited article. That's my scientific evidence.


    What I got from the Abstract was that in some cases some bones grow somewhat differently due to epigenetic effects than probable from pure genetics.

    By "pure genetics", do you mean what is predicted to happen under 'genetc determinsm'? IAC, I saw nothing in the abstract [I wish I had access to the whole paper]that referred to statistics. Simply to "BMP's", [bone morphogenetic proteins], which are empirical and ubiquitous, and above all, not 'genes'. Nothing about 'probability', either.


    That may just mean that naturally large beaks can become somewhat stronger\larger than they otherwise would during the development of the chick to adult, but not that naturally small beaks can become as large as the naturally large beaks.

    It doesn't mean that they cannot, either. If an epigenetic [proteomic]
    mechanism can do a little, why can't it do a lot? And what does it matter,anyhow?


    Yet you don't show that finches with small beaks do not die out during the drought conditions.

    Why do I have to, even supposing that they do? That's nothing to do with anything!


    So lets talk about:

    'adaptation and variation' is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation

    No, "adaptation and variation" are not "the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation". How can you even think such a thing?


    And return to the discussion of variation and adaptation with speciation added to the mix on Evolution and the BIG LIE? At least talk to Ray.

    I am regularly talking to ray in that thread, and I'd be talking to you more often if you'd answer my questions. I was responding to your post 62 when it occurred to me that you only wanted to debate creationists, and so I asked you if you wanted me to drop out, since I am not a creationist. You never replied to that question, but after some time you addressed another post to me, so I assumed that you did want me to continue, and so I posted a response which ended with a request that you identify the particular points in the unfinished post 62 that you want me to respond to. So far as I know, you haven't done that yet.
    If you want me to resond to everything in that long post it's going to take a lot of time and effort, but I'll do what I can with the time available to me. Just let me know what you want.

    Edited by Elmer, : typoes


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 103 by RAZD, posted 12-26-2007 2:13 PM RAZD has taken no action

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.1
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022