|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,822 Year: 4,079/9,624 Month: 950/974 Week: 277/286 Day: 38/46 Hour: 3/7 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Theory of De-evolution!!!!! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfripp Inactive Member |
[qoute]Is that more than likely? When fossils folllow a regular patter throughout the world in terms of appearance and disappearance, and given that each fossil is found in a rather confined spot? Or is this redeposition done with whole fossils only, not disturbing the individual arrangement of fossilized bones, so they always appear perfectly together, yet are moved all over the place (while still being maintained in their individual strata)? Your claim simply doesn't make sense. You will have to do a LOT more work in clarifying and proving this claim to make sense. Because immediately, it looks like your claim is outright nonsense, given what we DO know about the fossil location. So can you clarify this?[/quote]
"Whole" fossil finds are rare! I'm sure that you are aware of the mechanisms that cause fossilization? Small fossils, ie. shell creatures would be re-deposited without the fossil structure being disturbed, that is, if the mineral deposits that have replaced the fossil are strong enough to remain intact, if not, it will just be ground into more sediment. Larger fossil would have less/no chance to remain intact while being relocated by mother nature, but then, aren’t most of the fossil finds in "part" and not whole? I think you'll find that "whole" examples of vertebrates are very rare, Why?
quote: I wasn't aware that I had any credibility yet? I am working of the premise that: At the onset of life there was no spontaneous generation of life from inanimate matter; That all reproductively capable species by way of genetic compatibility were created and came into existence as separate entities, not through evolutionary divergence from a single progenitor.Where the word De-evolution comes into it is here: From the time that these "kinds" were created, genetic code has been weakening, thus allowing those genetic structures that "weaken" at a slower rate to appear more successful than those which are now extinct. Where thermodynamics come into it: Any change within the general genetic makeup is a chemical change and is a transfer of energy one way or another. If it wasn’t for the individual will of living organisms this transfer by way of metabolism of organic matter within, the said system, would not last long and doesn’t last long regardless, every organism dies. Cells may cat anise and reproduction may continue but inevitably the code therein deteriorates. Sure, life appears an open sub-system of a closed-system universe, but my argument is that life as a system started at a peak and is slowly winding down following the same pattern of everything else in the universe. That is of course, is if there will no longer be anymore energy added by the same mechanism that created it! The information within the code of living organisms is deteriorating or holding a temporary equilibrium at best in the model I am trying to present. quote: Bank of English: Evolution n gradual change in the characteristics of living things over successive generations, esp. to a more complex form. 2 gradual development It’s the esp. to a more complex from that I do not agree with as this would entail the generation of new information.
quote: Going through the Talk origins FAQ on this top; the first piece of evidence pertaining to speciation is the Evening primrose; 5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas) While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.So is this a Siamese (if you will) plant containing twice the chromosome count of the possible parent plants? Is this evidence of New’ information being added gradually over time? It seems anything but gradual. However he did find that this supposed new species was not reproductively viable with its progenitor, and it is inconclusive as to whether it was/is reproductively viable within itself (short of cloning) or with the same! However, this could also be evidence of genetic reversion (given the optimum conditions of the lab) to the previous form, but unlikely in this instance. 5.1.1.6 Madia citrigracilis Along similar lines, Clausen et al. (1945) hypothesized that Madia citrigracilis was a hexaploid hybrid of M. gracilis and M. citriodora As evidence they noted that the species have gametic chromosome numbers of n = 24, 16 and 8 respectively. Crossing M. gracilis and M. citriodora resulted in a highly sterile triploid with n = 24. The chromosomes formed almost no bivalents during meiosis. Artificially doubling the chromosome number using colchecine produced a hexaploid hybrid which closely resembled M. citrigracilis and was fertile. Again, this seems to be the combining of information not the generation of new information, and could well be evidence through forced genetic reversion of a previously common species that developed a weakness in its code and diverged along that weakness. Also, compare the artificially doubling of the chromosome number with the previous example involving O. gigas. Is this evidence of evolution through natural selection, or the gradual development of living organisms? 5.2.1 Stephanomeira malheurensis Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes (N = 8). S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self-incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities. Once again, loss of information and un-beneficial mutations showing a weakening of code. I’d like to apologize to the moderators about pasting the original portions of text, but I believe it to be quite necessary. 5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972). Genetic compatibility, yet with the element of time added the hybrids became less viable Forced De-evolution through un-natural selection I’ll try to find more information with regards to specific genetic data on experimental subjects. If you know of any let me know. Some difficulty seems to arise when asked of the definition of species in the scientific community it seems! quote:Flat out? It depends what information you ignore! Enlightened Phones – Mobile Phone Deals Blog Experts quote:No, I’m saying that De-evolution/genetic degradation has and is occurring. Apart from the fact that I do hold to a young earth, that isn’t very relevant to the thread, perhaps I shouldn’t have mentioned it. As far as time is concerned naturally speaking probabilities state that there hasn’t been enough time for some of the current models of evolution to occur, namely the gradual change including spontaneous generation. quote:What’s a 2LoT? Oh.. 2nd law..I haven’t read that much of the creationists info! quote:From the perspective of life starting at its peak genetically makes sense, Look at the sun/earth as a single system! Is it closed or open? It is logical to state that the suns energy emission over time, will change, I’ll let you figure out which way it changes! If the Sun is deteriorating then there will be an impact on earth. The generation of biological mass on the earth "is" a transfer of energy including that which pertains to it! How much matter does, say, a human convert to heat over a life time? I’m guessing quite a lot, but our short lived success has come through our use and quality of will! If a life form chooses not to eat and metabolize organic matter it will die regardless how much solar radiation reaches the earth. And even though it metabolizes matter, the genetic code deteriorates regardless! Even though an organism is an open-system it does not change the inevitable! The system is ultimately closed. (physically) quote:If the slowly unfolding theory of De-evolution be feasible Then it will reconcile both! On one hand you can have your multiple created species or kinds at the onset of life, on the other you can include genetic change over time, albeit a general loss of genetic information rather than gain. quote:I hope so too! I was hopeing that you would try to do a little work in understanding what I'm proposing. Peace Shaun
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfripp Inactive Member |
quote: Thanks Yaro!
quote: With regard to origins what is your take?
quote: I'll get to work on that straight away!
quote: Genetic compatability, but the results are weaker genetic code! Its not what you would call the result of natural selection for the better! Are these cross-breeds observed in nature?
quote: Did the rainbow evolve from one colour? This message has been edited by sfripp, 07-13-2004 04:50 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfripp Inactive Member |
quote: Hey, big shot! I'm going for a new slant on the evidence here! isn't re-interpretation of evidence something that goes on quite frequently in the scientific world? Dont be scared, consider!The evidence doesn't scare me, the fact that The "select few" feel that they can interpret it correctly without flaw and then state that it is fact intrigues me a little! Sure, I have faith in God, but I also have an interest in science coupled with an opened mind and a healthy imagination! Pity I dont have as much time as I would like to reply to everyone. Pleasure typing to you!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
From the time that these "kinds" were created, genetic code has been weakening, thus allowing those genetic structures that "weaken" at a slower rate to appear more successful than those which are now extinct. When you say "weakening", exactly what do you mean? Given two arbitrary genetic sequences - for the same gene locus, let's say - how would you determine which is the "weaker"? Yank on 'em? As far as I'm aware, all genetic molecules have the same degree of tensile strength and chemical bonding. If you mean "weakness" in terms of something else, I wish you would explain exactly how you would determine the amount of "weakness" a certain genetic sequence contains.
Any change within the general genetic makeup is a chemical change and is a transfer of energy one way or another. How so? What kind of energy? From what to what is it transferred? You seem to be conflating ideas of an organism's "fitness" (expressed often as the "strength" of it's genes) with some kind of inherent property of genetic sequences. This is simply false; it's the fallacy of reification. When we say an organism has "strong" or "weak" genes, we're simply referring to how those genes give rise to phenotypical traits that improve or decrease an organisms fitness in a given environment. If the environment changes - which happens a lot - genes that we described as "weak" might become "strong", or vice-versa. It all depends on environment. You can't eliminate the environment in considerations of an organisms fitness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfripp Inactive Member |
Nice spiders Lam!
quote: What does their code say?
quote: Hereditary inheritance of genetic flaws! Cancer is agood example of rebellious cells. I'm sure there are many others.
quote: No compatability in reproduction! Sorry about the vagueness of my terminology! I'll have to refine it as I learn more, after all this does seem to be a new idea. I was hopeing that the minds here might play with the idea of De-evolution from "peak genetic" forms to "weaker genetic forms" rather than code becoming more refined/complex and stable over time with regerd to its information which seems to be the slant of many evolutionists, I could be wrong. peace shaun This message has been edited by sfripp, 07-13-2004 05:18 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfripp Inactive Member |
quote: Flaws becoming more augmented.
quote: How does science splice genes? Nature/environment would do some yanking also? Just allow humans to creep into their environment?Wonder whether that supposed new strain of flu is actually stronger than the last or whether our immune system is weaker in this generation and no longer has the information to battle it as effectively? quote: The word you used "fitness" seems to be adequate! In light of:
quote: Suppose that the amount of "weak genes" in organism has increased over time, and that the "strong genes" have decreased!
quote: Environmental change would indeed play a part in weeding this out. As well as disease. A weakened immune system is a genetic issue, isn't it? The stronger the function of the genes in all areas of the code the more likely the organism is to survive what the environment throws at it, as well as other micro-organisms of the parasitic nature. Genes can also be self destructive as is the case with cancer which is one of the biggies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Flaws becoming more augmented. Ok, so what constitutes a "flaw"? In what way is it "augmented?"
How does science splice genes? How does that answer the question I asked?
Suppose that the amount of "weak genes" in organism has increased over time, and that the "strong genes" have decreased! How could you determine which genes were which without examining their effect on the environment? There's nothing inherently "weak" or "strong" about genes; that was the point of my post which you appeared to have missed.
The word you used "fitness" seems to be adequate! "Fitness" is simply a measure of how successful a given organism is at reproducing. Organisms that leave more offspring (and contribute a proportionally greater share of genes to the gene pool) are more "fit." Organisms who are being selected against (and who contribute proportionally fewer genes to the gene pool) are less "fit."
A weakened immune system is a genetic issue, isn't it? Not often. Usually it's a physiological condition caused by disease, poor nutrition, toxins, or other environmental factors. Very rarely is immunosuppression a genetic condition.
The stronger the function of the genes in all areas of the code the more likely the organism is to survive what the environment throws at it Not necessarily. What is "strong" in one environment might be a fatal weakness in another. Again you're reifying the "strength" of genes. That's just an expression, not an actual trait that genes have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfripp Inactive Member |
quote: Comprehensive Cancer Information - NCI This would explain an example better than I could!
quote: Am i going mad or is this question backward?
quote: Death is an obvious genetic weakness when two of the same species breed and both have a genetic disposition toward the latter development of cancer, the chances of that flaw showing itself are augmented.
quote: OK, lets look at the most apparently successful of species, Man!As a single species we, as a unit, comprise a fair portion of the earth bio-mass and are capable of forceing our environment to adapt to us (to certain extent), whe have also developed means to cure and prevent a vast majority of sicknesses, yet suseptability to sickness seems to be rising as quickly as the cures are developed! Is there some connection here? If we had nothing to suppress disease how would we fair as a species? I know I would probably not be here! quote: Usually? Page not available - NCBI Bookshelf I’d put it the other way round!
quote: This is why organisms select their environment! I still see that genetic code will deteriorate regardless of the optimum surroundings.
quote: More the inability of genetic code to remain intact without unbeneficial mutation over time!In this way I see the code weakening.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bob_gray Member (Idle past 5040 days) Posts: 243 From: Virginia Joined: |
quote:quote: I don't want to go into a detailed discussion of this webpage because it is WAY off topic but if you should check out the Dates and Dating forum. To give you an idea of the reliability of the page you linked I will quote for you a rebuttal of this: Living snails dated 27,000 years old using carbon 14. (bold in the original)
quote: Also, I don't think that this: What’s a 2LoT? Oh.. 2nd law..I haven’t read that much of the creationists info! is an answer to this: So what **IS ** your "understanding of the 2LoT? But if you would care to answer the question I would be curious to know what is your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, or any of them for that matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
Hoo boy, lots of stuff here. I'll try and hit the high spots.
On the question of fossils, why would a separated leg of a dinosaur always end up in the same layers as the heads of dinosaurs? Why wouldn't the leg end up in recent sediments and the head end up in cambrian sediments if creationism were true? It is strange that whole and partial fossils all end up in the same layers according to the predictions of evolution and geology, don't you think.
quote: And for you to make a conclusion from your premises, you first have to support them with evidence. Let's go on.
quote: The geologic/fossil record is sorted in a matter that falsifies your first premise. You must evidence a mechanism that, without one single mistake world wide, is able to sort fossils in a way that mimics evolutionary predictions but in fact is reflective of special creation. Care to take a stab at that one?
quote: Lets take two DNA sequences, one lets call "strong" and one we will call "weak": Strong: attcctggttaWeak: attgctggtta In the example above, can you show me how the two sequences differ in energy content? I'll give you a hint, they don't. The second law of thermodynamics applies to the movement of heat, not the order of bases in a DNA sequence. However, energy is needed to construct DNA sequences (one ATP per base extension), but DNA strands of the same length contain the same amount of energy regardless of what their sequence is. This is a second premise that is false.
quote: Natural selection regulates the amount of harmful mutations that accumulate in a population by differential reproductive rates. That is, the organisms with the non-detrimental mutation will outreproduce the organisms with the deleterious mutation. Therefore, de-evolution is prevented by the preservation of sequence through natural selection. Another premise falsified.
quote: During your lunch hour, look up into the sky. See that big fireball? That is the source of energy that drives evolution and keeps genetic systems from deteriorating. Whenever there is an imput of energy, entropy can decrease (things become more complex). Even if entropy does not apply to DNA sequences, it applies to your premise here. Even within the confines of your premise, it is falsified by real world observations.
quote: Yeah, science ignores data derived from the misuse of dating methods. Leave it to creationists to use lies in order to support their worldview.
quote: In that case, we shouldn't see new, beneficial mutations in humans. And again, another premise falsified. In humans alone, a mutation for reducing cholesterol has recently been found, and a new hemoglobin isotype that protects against malaria without the side effects of sickle cell anemia has been found in Africa. This new hemoglobin is expected to replace the sickle-cell allele within 50 generations. Sorry, but we see example after example of new, beneficial mutations among humans and a wide variety of other organisms. According to you this shouldn't be happening.
quote: So no matter what energy is input the genetic code will continue to deteriorate? I thought this was tied to the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Are you now saying that the 2nd law does not apply? How quicly you creationists change your arguments when you get painted into a corner.
quote: Just because we die does not prevent energy from going into the system while we are alive. Last I heard, nobody reproduces after they die. So during the time that organisms are reproducing they are an open system.
quote: Although this wasn't aimed at me, I find it quite ironic that we understand the concepts behind your premises better than you do. You might want to study up on the laws of thermodynamics and understand in which situations they are applied. Entropy, in the case of thermodynamics, is a reference to the number of states a molecule can fill. It has nothing to do with the sequence of bases on a DNA molelcule.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Am i going mad or is this question backward? I suspect it's a certain ignorance of biology that leads you to feel that way. The question is formulated in the only way that makes sense; on their face there's really no way to distinguish between different genetic sequences except by examining their effect on the population.
Death is an obvious genetic weakness when two of the same species breed and both have a genetic disposition toward the latter development of cancer, the chances of that flaw showing itself are augmented. Well, pretty much everybody gets cancer if they live long enough. (That's why cancer seems to be on the rise; we're eliminating all the other causes of death, pretty much.) But yes, that's the obvious case - some genotypes are fatal. But natural selection removes these quickly from the population. In cases where these genes persist it's usually because the heterozygous genotype confers some survival advantage; the textbook case of this is Human Hemoglobin S (the sickle-cell anemia gene.) Recently however that gene "mutated" in such a way as to confer the same level of malarial resistance without the anemic weaknesses. (Since that would be a gene getting "stronger", by your definition, can we assume this falsifies your hypothesis?)
OK, lets look at the most apparently successful of species, Man! There's no legitimate measure you could use where Homo sapiens comes out as "the most successful species." That title is and will always belong to bacteria, who comprise the vast majority of the Earth's biomass.
I’d put it the other way round! Certainly not based on that article, I would hope.
As a single species we, as a unit, comprise a fair portion of the earth bio-mass We don't even comprise a thousandth of a percent of the Earth's biomass. Not even a millionth or a billionth of a percent. Insects comprise a fair portion of the Earth's biomass. I'd be surprised if class Mammalia comprised a millionth of the Earth's biomass.
Is there some connection here? Yeah, the connection is evolution. Diseases evolve. Another poster here has an example you can do in your own bio lab that shows how diseases can - and must - evolve.
This is why organisms select their environment! When they can, sure. But the majority of selection is always the environment selecting the organisms.
More the inability of genetic code to remain intact without unbeneficial mutation over time! Natural selection, however, provides a defense against the accumulation of these detrimental mutations. Moreover it ensures that beneficial mutations, when they occur (which is not frequently), are selected for. The result is a ratcheting effect that increases a gene pool's number of beneficial genes. It's a constant process and, under the second law of thermodynamics and the realities of survival, it's simply inevitable. Evolution must occur; it's mandated by the second law.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Crash writes: I suspect it's a certain ignorance of biology that leads you to feel that way. The question is formulated in the only way that makes sense; on their face there's really no way to distinguish between different genetic sequences except by examining their effect on the population. Thats a bit harsh Crash, you did say the effect of the genes on the environment originally. I'm quite happy to agree that a population of organisms is part of an environment, but that didn't seem to be what you were saying. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Steen Inactive Member |
quote:So that would mean that the Herring Gull and the Lesser Black-backed Gull are two different "kind," as they can't interbreed. In that case, we now have DOCUMENTED evidence of a new Kind evolving. But doesn't that destroy your claim and the very foundation you have set up for creationism? Guess that means that you now accept Evolution, then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
And it shows that "kind" does not partition the set of organisms. In other words, it is not true that each living organism fits into one and only one "kind". After all, the black-headed gull is in the same "kind" as its neighboring species, which is in the same "kind" as its neighbor, ..., which is in the same "kind" as the herring gull. Yet the herring gull and the black-headed gull are not the same "kind". So "kind" fails to be a well-defined identification for interbreeding populations.
Edited for clarity. (I think.) This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 07-13-2004 08:44 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Steen Inactive Member |
That is indeed the mechanism of the ring-species. I am still waiting for any of those guys to take that issue on straight-on, visiting the tread specifically focusing on ring-species.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024