Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Slanted" Eyes in Orientals
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 97 (118119)
06-24-2004 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by RAZD
06-24-2004 12:20 AM


Re: that old bogus "added information" argument again ...
The problem with this is that evolution has these few changes here and there. Theres change happening, but its not evolution, its natural selection. Even if you can point to a few insects here and there that gave rise to a beneficial fly evolution needs more than this. Evolutionists speak about natural selection being the basic mechanism but in fact it is the opposite of what evolution needs. Things like fruitflys with larger wings is not evolution. If your son is taller than you by a change in combination of genes. Is that evolution? no. Many textbooks about evolution claime that evolution is a change in the frequency of the genes. If evolution were true it certainly would produce a change in the ratio of the types of genes which were present because it would be adding new genetic information which previously did not exist. You can change the gene frequency or the ratio of the genes that are already present as much as you like, but unless you add new genes you wont get evolution. Evolution, if it were to occur would require the creation of completely new genetic information. Changes in living things such as the colour distribution of the peppered moths show an interesting alteration in colour-gene frequency but they offer nothing at all to support the notion of evolution that is formation of new genetic information. Natural selection only works in complete living things. It cannot account for the adding of eyes, blood and brains etc in premeval life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2004 12:20 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2004 9:15 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 82 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-24-2004 11:59 AM almeyda has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 77 of 97 (118216)
06-24-2004 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by almeyda
06-24-2004 1:03 AM


Re: that old bogus "added information" argument again ...
In other words you don't have a clue how the insect can lose wings and then re-evolve wings solely through loss of information, so you try to cover with some baffle-barf about it being something else. You were the one that said mutation is only loss of information.
This makes your 'it's not evolution, it's natural selection' argument totally irrelevant, and your point is still refuted by the evidence.
You could be honest and just admit that you don't have a clue how loss of information can have this result.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by almeyda, posted 06-24-2004 1:03 AM almeyda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by mike the wiz, posted 06-24-2004 9:47 AM RAZD has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 78 of 97 (118221)
06-24-2004 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by RAZD
06-24-2004 9:15 AM


Re: that old bogus "added information" argument again ...
Hi Abby .
In other words you don't have a clue how the insect can lose wings and then re-evolve wings solely through loss of information,
Just a thought while lurking: Isn't that information that is already in the insect's gene pool? I think the stance is, that you can gain anything that might already be in your gene pool. So these wings, wouldn't they be selected from the available information?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2004 9:15 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2004 10:27 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 79 of 97 (118226)
06-24-2004 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by mike the wiz
06-24-2004 9:47 AM


Re: that old bogus "added information" argument again ...
The point is that the concept that {mutations are only loss of information} is wrong, for you cannot explain loss and recovery of any facet by an "only loss" mechanism.
You either gain something that represses the wing information (which is lost when the wings re-evolve) or you gain the information to make wings (after some critical part is lost when the wings are lost).
Think of it like this:
A = sum genetic wing information at time 0 (species with wings)
B = sum genetic wing information at time 1 (species without wings)
C = sum genetic wing information at time 2 (species with wings)
n > 0 = genetic wing information loss between A and B
m > 0 = genetic wing information loss between B and C
B = A - n
C = B - m
C = A
No matter how you add it up it is just not possible. This is not just hypothesis, not opinion, but a proven fact.
enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by mike the wiz, posted 06-24-2004 9:47 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by mike the wiz, posted 06-24-2004 10:56 AM RAZD has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 80 of 97 (118236)
06-24-2004 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by RAZD
06-24-2004 10:27 AM


Re: that old bogus "added information" argument again ...
The point is that the concept that {mutations are only loss of information} is wrong, for you cannot explain loss and recovery of any facet by an "only loss" mechanism.
Are you getting "loss" mixed with Natural selection though? What I mean is, NS is a culling process, yes. So the creationist isn't saying that "loss and recovery" does happen, or he would be evolutionist. What creationism says, is that anything you lose with Natural selection is altogether lost unless the trait isn't totally wiped from the gene pool. IOW, if you once had a horse with horns, then if that "horns trait" was firstly in the gene pool, it is salvageable, unless NS completely removes it. SO, if an insect "regains" wings, it's because of the information already available to that species from it's pool. That means you can get a lot of very different breeds of horse, yet you can never quite breed one with wings. Now do tell me of a link which shows a horse with wings if you know of one. IOW, that's what Almeyda is saying, s/he wants to see something big - show her a mutating SOB.
So if we "only lose" then yes, obviously we cannot regain that which is no longer there. YET your insect example might be infact a species that had wings in the past, and has not altogether ridded the trait. Maybe the scientists just couldn't find one with wings.
So ofcourse the added mechanism is mutation. Yet creos deny that there is a producer of new information anyway. They are just saying that the information available is from a source with those traits. Otherwise, they would agree with you.
As for "repressing the wing" information. Surely the information just isn't selected?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2004 10:27 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2004 12:07 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 81 of 97 (118239)
06-24-2004 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by almeyda
06-24-2004 12:08 AM


This is not evolution. This is just a mutation. Like a human being born without genetalia.
Almeyda - firstly, this is nothing like a human being born sans genitalia, because that would likely result in sterility, not just reproductive isolation.
Further more, you haven't readdressed your definition of "kind". My snail example meets your definition, which stated:
Kinds are a group of organisms that can interbreed among themselves, but not with another group.
It seems like you are taking back this definition of kind, so I would like your revised version so that we can continue the debate.
You must provide evidence of an increase in information.
I did, in message #73 of this thread:
http://EvC Forum: "Slanted" Eyes in Orientals -->EvC Forum: "Slanted" Eyes in Orientals
You haven't addressed this post yet, and I would be interested in your thoughts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by almeyda, posted 06-24-2004 12:08 AM almeyda has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 82 of 97 (118242)
06-24-2004 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by almeyda
06-24-2004 1:03 AM


Re: that old bogus "added information" argument again ...
Natural selection only works in complete living things. It cannot account for the adding of eyes, blood and brains etc in premeval life.
I hope you understand that primordial life was complete and living, and therefore the subject of natural selection.
Also, no one (that I know of) is suggesting that a full brain or eye sprung out of a pool of unicellular organisms - that is ridiculous.
But some unicellular organism do have organelles for detecting light. And nematode have a few cells that act as a very rudimentary eye.
I think one problem here, and with the IC arguments, is that the proponents ask for a mechanism whereby an eyeball could assemble from nothing. That is not what evolution predicts - but rather a progressive specialization of a structure like the eyespot on a nematode...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by almeyda, posted 06-24-2004 1:03 AM almeyda has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 83 of 97 (118246)
06-24-2004 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by mike the wiz
06-24-2004 10:56 AM


Re: that old bogus "added information" argument again ...
No it is not a matter of having some with wings and some without and selection changing the balance from one to the other (aka peppered moth coloration). The example given is
Species A with wings becomes species B without wings by mutation(s)
Species B without wings becomes species C with wings by mutation(s)
wings -- no wings -- wings
To stop wings from being 'expressed' some part of the genetic sequence needs to be "lost" by mutation and for wings to once again be 'expressed' that sequence needs to be replaced by mutation ... no it doesn't need to be the whole wing sequence ... but no matter how you cut it
A does not equal B
B does not equal C
C does equal A
so if A = B + n
and if B = C + m
and A = C
then n = -m
(or m = -n, same thing)
and one or the other is necessarily an "addition" of information if the other is a "loss".
From an evolutionary standpoint a mutation is just a change and it is not a matter of "addition" or "loss" for there is no up or down no good or bad, just different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by mike the wiz, posted 06-24-2004 10:56 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by mike the wiz, posted 06-24-2004 1:15 PM RAZD has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 84 of 97 (118282)
06-24-2004 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by RAZD
06-24-2004 12:07 PM


Re: that old bogus "added information" argument again ...
Species A with wings becomes species B without wings by mutation(s)
Species B without wings becomes species C with wings by mutation(s)
wings -- no wings -- wings
I understand, yes. It's just creationism says even though A = B, A must have once been B, or had that information to enable it to be B. If we have two humans who are white, and they produce a coloured baby, that doesn't mean their ancestors were always white. Which is similar to what I'm saying. Are you saying they never had coloured ancestors?
To stop wings from being 'expressed' some part of the genetic sequence needs to be "lost" by mutation
But doesn't evolution say that it is "lost" by the natural selection process? Rather than mutation? If we have two traits, longer legs for fast running, and shorter ones for slower activity, and the wild beasties of the field do pounce, then surely NS selects the longer legs? I'm guessing if there is a species with "just" wings then they can not produce a species without them, unless there is a gene within their pool that contains information for "no wings". A hidden or dorment gene. We'll call it the "wiz" gene, since no one can or will tell me if this is possible. ROFL.
and for wings to once again be 'expressed' that sequence needs to be replaced by mutation ..
But if it already there to be expressed, then mutation surely isn't needed? For example, some short legged trait alleles are left in the gene pool, despite there apparent "loss". Maybe Loudmouth could help me with this one. I'm guessing, (only guessing, don't laugh) - that our genetic information contains more than what we are, maybe it contains some variants? Lol. What I mean is, some kind of information that lies dorment within us untill we say, get a coloured baba.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-24-2004 12:16 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2004 12:07 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2004 3:16 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 85 of 97 (118335)
06-24-2004 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by mike the wiz
06-24-2004 1:15 PM


Re: that old bogus "added information" argument again ...
We're not talking about longer or shorter legs but the presence and absence of legs.
This is not a one-time event, but several similar occurrences in different times and places:
Chart of species relations (click)
Nor is it a matter of {recessive \ dormant} gene switching for that would mean some wingless individuals within the winged species and some winged individuals within the wingless species as regular occurances (like the light and dark peppered moths both exist at the same time) and not different species.
Yes the nature article says: "These results suggest that wing developmental pathways are conserved in wingless phasmids, and that 're-evolution' of wings has had an unrecognized role in insect diversification" indicating that parts of the wing mechanism are possibly preserved, but it also says
"Thousands of independent transitions from a winged form to winglessness have occurred during the course of insect evolution; however, an evolutionary reversal from a flightless to a volant form has never been demonstrated clearly for any pterygote lineage. Such a reversal is considered highly unlikely because complex interactions between nerves, muscles, sclerites and wing foils are required to accommodate flight. Here we show that stick insects (order Phasmatodea) diversified as wingless insects and that wings were derived secondarily, perhaps on many occasions."
Further, if the same-old wings were being expressed again then they would have to be the same as before in size, shape and vein patterns: yet these are different between the different species that have regained their wings.
Something turned the wings "off" and something else turned it "on" -- both are changes to the genetic structure of the insect = mutation, so if one is a loss of information then the other must be an addition.
mike writes:
... doesn't evolution say that it is "lost" by the natural selection process? Rather than mutation?
No, the trait is changed by the mutation, and natural selection just eliminates those versions not able to survive to reproduce -- it cannot "choose" between traits that are not there or ones where survival is not an issue, the trait has to exist for the selection process to work.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by mike the wiz, posted 06-24-2004 1:15 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by mike the wiz, posted 06-24-2004 4:11 PM RAZD has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 86 of 97 (118360)
06-24-2004 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by RAZD
06-24-2004 3:16 PM


Re: that old bogus "added information" argument again ...
No, the trait is changed by the mutation, and natural selection just eliminates those versions not able to survive to reproduce
That's my point really. That NS gets rid of useless traits, but can it not simply remove it, to an extent. I mean, if let's say, we have wings/no wings available. Because how can you know for sure that it wasn't both available at one time? You would need to have access to the past. It's like me saying, "White people are a mutation, when people of coloured skin have produced coloured skinned peope, for hundreds of year, and all of a sudden they produce a white person". So, just how can you possibly know that it MUST have started out winged or wingless? Time machine maybe?
Nor is it a matter of {recessive \ dormant} gene switching for that would mean some wingless individuals within the winged species and some winged individuals within the wingless species as regular occurances
Why? Maybe there are no wingless individuals and they are all winged, yet they still have an alternative hereditary unit. Maybe all the members of my family are white, yet they might still produce a coloured person?
your link writes:
These results suggest that wing developmental pathways are conserved in wingless phasmids, and that 're-evolution' of wings has had an unrecognized role in insect diversification"
Isn't this what I am saying?? I mean, if pathways are already there, then maybe they can be part of the "next" offspring, not by mutation, but by information that already exists? If wingless creatures have pathways for wings, then who's to say that they were not once with wings?
Sorry, your link crashed my computer, I daren't touch it again.
Ofcourse, the simplest answer may well be that mutation is beneficial and does add information. I'm not trying to say you're wrong, I'm just trying to show what creationism says about these occurences of wings from wingless insects. But insects are so bizarre anyway, a catterpillar becomes a butterfly. I'd sure like to see a horse become a human. Teehee.
AIG says that you may well get changes, yet you will find that those changes can be accounted for by the fact that they were once in the gene pool. You can only breed so many horses, and I'm sure they're different in size and colour, but are they horses? Once the information is lost, then the horse is still a horse, it can just never be breeded with a very different horse, So the explanation is that the horse may not be able to reproduce with it's "kind" yet that is because Natural selection has culled the dormant genes, or ridded the previous traits. Is that not an explanation? Don't forget, "kinds" do become useless biologically speaking, and "species" can be used, BUT that in iteself doesn't mean that original "kind" groups didn't exist.
So what do we see? If AIG is right we should still get a horse despite it's isolation from the main "kind". So, that means that we get a creature that still resembles a horse, and is in a way, atleast, still a horse "kind". It is simply isolated. Doesn't this also explain diversity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2004 3:16 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2004 4:59 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 87 of 97 (118371)
06-24-2004 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by mike the wiz
06-24-2004 4:11 PM


Re: that old bogus "added information" argument again ...
mike writes:
I mean, if pathways are already there, then maybe they can be part of the "next" offspring, not by mutation, but by information that already exists?
You need something to turn it on and off, a switch, that changes -- that is a mutation ... in both cases.
OR is the next scenario one where no information is ever lost?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by mike the wiz, posted 06-24-2004 4:11 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 88 of 97 (121385)
07-02-2004 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by macaroniandcheese
06-17-2004 9:21 AM


Re: Natural and Sexual Selection
If you (or anyone else) are interested I just ran across another source that talks about sexual selection and several sub-categories (good genes, good taste, good parents) that has me rethinking some of my position on this: Department of Psychology | The University of New Mexico
article writes:
Despite initial skepticism about the handicap principle, computer simulations and mathematical models have helped to convince most biologists that condition-dependent and revealing indicators are common outcomes of sexual selection. For example, simulations by Andersson (1986) showed that condition-dependent indicators could evolve even in perfectly monogamous species, given viability differences of only a few percent. An important mathematical analysis by Iwasa, Pomiankowski, and Nee (1991) confirms that indicators can evolve under sexual selection even if mate preferences are costly, as long as mutations are usually harmful. Other, more recent models suggest that `good parenting' indicators can evolve to display even non-heritable resources such as good territories (Grafen, 1990; Heywood, 1989; Hoelzer, 1989; Price et al., 1993). Thus, not all indicators are necessarily advertising genetic quality; they could simply be advertising resources and health relevant to raising offspring. Indicators often evolve better when runaway sexual selection is also operating on the relevant traits and preferences (Andersson, 1986; Heywood, 1989; Pomiankowski, 1988; Tomlinson, 1988). However, indicators alone, even without the runaway process, can suffice for the evolution of extravagant male ornaments and extreme female preferences (Grafen, 1990). See Andersson (1994, chapter 3) for a comprehensive review of indicator models and data.
I'm less than half way through the (long) article at this point.
I believe it also gets into brain development in humans as a result of sexual selection.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by macaroniandcheese, posted 06-17-2004 9:21 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4369 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 89 of 97 (122455)
07-06-2004 5:24 PM


Prophageus asked why orientals have slanted eyes.
I believe i have the answer.
I am a creationist but I've read from evolutionist themselves,I think, and agree this is a simple answer.
The eye folds of th asian are just a part of a package of the asian head to deal with an ancient severe envirorment in the far east.
They after the spreading out from the tower of Babal hit upon the last vestiges of the ice age.
In thier case the wind and what the wind was blowing was so severe The Lord God allowed for thier faces to develope a fold to keep the wind/material out of thier eyes. This happens also in animals like some horses and in the past used to be called CHINA EYE. Also the Asian hair became taunt and straight so as not to be blown off the head where it was needed for protection. As today Asian women will complain of not being able to keep thier hair curled.
Also while I'm not sure I believe they have a special area under the eyes for extra protection from the wind on the chhek bones.
Where the Chinese first began to thrive is on the yellow river. This river is yellow because it brings down glacial dust,not dirt, called loess. This loess was blown special together in that area and possibly was the problem for these type of Asians.
The Asian like all races show the way before man had advanced how God in his love took care of his people.
Regards Rob

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by CK, posted 07-22-2004 5:03 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 90 of 97 (126723)
07-22-2004 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Robert Byers
07-06-2004 5:24 PM


The Asian like all races show the way before man had advanced how God in his love took care of his people.
Before man had advanced? you are basically describing Asians as Sub-humans!
my next comment maybe would get me banned.............

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Robert Byers, posted 07-06-2004 5:24 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by NosyNed, posted 07-22-2004 5:08 PM CK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024