Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Theory of Evolution
Defiant Heretic
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 63 (18209)
09-25-2002 2:57 AM


I am going to attempt to state the general theory of evolution in its simplest terms. However, for the sake of completeness, I do at times state the obvious.
1) Organisms differ from one another. (e.g. We are not all clones)
1a) Organisms change with each passing generation.
1b) Organisms that reproduce sexually receive traits from both parents.
2) Organisms pass on traits to their offspring.
2a) If an organism reproduces, its traits will be included in the next generation.
2b) If an organism does not reproduce, its traits will not be included in the next generation.
2c) An organism must be alive in order to reproduce.
3) Organisms depend on certain resources in order to survive.
3a) There are a limited amount of resources available.
4) Certain organisms (e.g. carnivores) prey upon other organisms
4a) Carnivores are more likely to prey upon organisms that are easy to kill.
5) Because of (3) and (3a), organisms must compete for available resources.
5a) Organisms that successfully compete survive.
5b) Organisms that do not successfully compete die.
6) Because of (4) and (4a), organisms must compete (indirectly) to avoid being eaten by carnivores.
6a) Organisms that successfully compete survive.
6b) Organisms that do not successfully compete die.
7) Some traits are beneficial to an organism. (e.g. a chameleon's ability to camouflage)
7a) Some traits are detrimental to an organism. (e.g. blindness)
8) Organisms with beneficial traits are more likely to successfully compete as detailed in (5)and(6).
8a) Organisms with detrimental traits are less likely to successfully compete as detailed in (5)and(6).
9) Because of (8), organisms with beneficial traits are more likely to survive long enough to reproduce.
9a) Because of (8a), organisms with detrimental traits are less likely to survive long enough to reproduce.
10) Because of (9) and (2a), beneficial traits are more likely to be included in the next generation.
10a) Because of (9a) and (2b), detrimental traits are less likely to be included in the next generation.
Conclusion: Over time, beneficial traits are more likely to remain in the gene pool and detrimental traits are more likely to disappear from the gene pool.
As organisms possessing certain beneficial traits breed with organisms possessing other beneficial traits, their offspring inherit the traits from both parents, and therefore possess more beneficial traits than either organism of the previous generation.
Organisms change in each successive generation, gaining beneficial traits and discarding detrimental ones, and therefore improving the overall survivability of the organism.
This wasn't as simple as I wanted it to be, but I wanted to make sure I didn't leave any loopholes.
If you believe that the theory of evolution (by which I mean the general theory, the one stated above) is incorrect, please state exactly which of these points you consider inaccurate, and explain why. Be sure to post any references you cite.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Quetzal, posted 09-25-2002 5:57 AM Defiant Heretic has not replied
 Message 3 by Andya Primanda, posted 09-25-2002 8:02 AM Defiant Heretic has not replied
 Message 4 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-25-2002 1:49 PM Defiant Heretic has not replied
 Message 5 by TrueCreation, posted 09-25-2002 5:08 PM Defiant Heretic has replied
 Message 6 by Fred Williams, posted 09-25-2002 6:17 PM Defiant Heretic has replied
 Message 7 by peter borger, posted 09-25-2002 11:27 PM Defiant Heretic has not replied
 Message 18 by Syamsu, posted 09-27-2002 5:16 AM Defiant Heretic has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 2 of 63 (18213)
09-25-2002 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Defiant Heretic
09-25-2002 2:57 AM


[b]Defiant Heretic: Welcome to evcforum! Excellent post. You'll find that there are a number of different creationist points of view represented here. I think Peter Borger, especially, might have comments on your presentation (he feels that the neo-Darwinian theory has been falsified, and that natural selection is invalid). I'll be curious to hear his replies.
Again, welcome to the forum...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Defiant Heretic, posted 09-25-2002 2:57 AM Defiant Heretic has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 63 (18222)
09-25-2002 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Defiant Heretic
09-25-2002 2:57 AM


Defiant, you have just stated Darwin's central thesis, Natural Selection. Some creationists in this site, like Tranquility Base, has no problem with it. However, as far as I know, they are more inclined to reject Common Descent. Darwin did not just propose one theory, but five.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Defiant Heretic, posted 09-25-2002 2:57 AM Defiant Heretic has not replied

  
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 63 (18276)
09-25-2002 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Defiant Heretic
09-25-2002 2:57 AM


Wow, great post.
We need more people like you. Watch out for the creationists. This is so concise and well scientifically put.
Welcome to the forum. Look forward to more posts from you.
------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Defiant Heretic, posted 09-25-2002 2:57 AM Defiant Heretic has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 63 (18283)
09-25-2002 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Defiant Heretic
09-25-2002 2:57 AM


--A fairly affluent post, Defiant. One of my more significant disapprobation's to your post would be your use of reference toward 'organisms' evolving though inheritance and the guidance of natural selectability. A more appropriate and accurate wording would be a 'population' in the majority of its context.
--[Edit] - Also, your post only involved a small branch of the mechanics of evolutionary developement so I would not call it a 'general' discription.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 09-25-2002]
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 09-25-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Defiant Heretic, posted 09-25-2002 2:57 AM Defiant Heretic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Defiant Heretic, posted 09-26-2002 2:41 AM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 28 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-30-2002 1:58 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 6 of 63 (18292)
09-25-2002 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Defiant Heretic
09-25-2002 2:57 AM


The theme of Defiant Heretic’s post is the oft-used illusion whereby if you can’t support your theory with evidence, make it true by redefining it! I have an article on the evolution definition shell-game here:
404 Not Found
quote:
I am going to attempt to state the general theory of evolution in its simplest terms.
Interpretation: I am going to perpetuate the illusion of evolution using the equivocation method of debate as described on page 1 of my evo-handbook.
quote:
1) Organisms differ from one another. (e.g. We are not all clones)
1a) Organisms change with each passing generation.
1b) Organisms that reproduce sexually receive traits from both parents.
Mendelism is an anti-evolutionary mechanism, and placed a solid barrier on upward evolution (FYI, Mendel was a creationist). It forced evolutionists to embrace random mutation (LOL!) as the root mechanism to create the new genetic information necessary to evolve new complexities. It put a nail in the coffin of Lamarckism, a mechanism that if true would have been favorable to upward evolution (I suppose that is why Darwin espoused Lamarckism, and why some evolutionists still cling to the Lamarck fairytale today).
quote:
2) Organisms pass on traits to their offspring.
2a) If an organism reproduces, its traits will be included in the next generation.
2b) If an organism does not reproduce, its traits will not be included in the next generation.
2c) An organism must be alive in order to reproduce.
Item 2b is incorrect, regardless of whether you are a creationist or evolutionist.
quote:
3) Organisms depend on certain resources in order to survive.
3a) There are a limited amount of resources available.
4) Certain organisms (e.g. carnivores) prey upon other organisms
4a) Carnivores are more likely to prey upon organisms that are easy to kill.
5) Because of (3) and (3a), organisms must compete for available resources.
5a) Organisms that successfully compete survive.
ROTFL! The classic mistake of defining selection as a tautology!
quote:
5b) Organisms that do not successfully compete die.
6) Because of (4) and (4a), organisms must compete (indirectly) to avoid being eaten by carnivores.
6a) Organisms that successfully compete survive.
6b) Organisms that do not successfully compete die.
ROTFL! (see previous ROTFL for the reason for my ROTFL)
quote:
7) Some traits are beneficial to an organism. (e.g. a chameleon's ability to camouflage)
7a) Some traits are detrimental to an organism. (e.g. blindness)
8) Organisms with beneficial traits are more likely to successfully compete as detailed in (5)and(6).
8a) Organisms with detrimental traits are less likely to successfully compete as detailed in (5)and(6).
Here DH engages in question begging (specifically item #7). He skips over an important problem— how did the chameleon get the ability to camouflage? DH assumes evolution is true and expects us to not catch this glaring omission. It’s all part of the illusion of the power of selection. Yet selection can only work with *pre-existing* traits! Where did this trait come from? This question is at the root of the C/E debate, yet DH tries to skip right over it, to the praise and adoration of his peers here on this board.
quote:
9) Because of (8), organisms with beneficial traits are more likely to survive long enough to reproduce.
9a) Because of (8a), organisms with detrimental traits are less likely to survive long enough to reproduce.
This is precisely natural selection (provided you add more before beneficial & detrimental). Please discard your previous tautological arguments.
Natural selection primarily acts as a conservation mechanism. Those with diminished traits due to harmful mutation are weeded out to the benefit of the population (a protection mechanism to combat error catastrophe and eventual extinction). Here evolutionists and Creationists have always agreed and in fact Creationists espoused this view before Darwin [Edward Blyth, 1835].
quote:
10) Because of (9) and (2a), beneficial traits are more likely to be included in the next generation.
10a) Because of (9a) and (2b), detrimental traits are less likely to be included in the next generation.
Conclusion: Over time, beneficial traits are more likely to remain in the gene pool and detrimental traits are more likely to disappear from the gene pool.
And hence the illusion is complete - evolution must be true!
For the truly nave, here is the root problem with DH’s claim: Where did the beneficial traits come from? That is what we are debating. This is the crux of the C/E debate. Creationists say that In the Beginning God created all life and all traits were initially beneficial, and over time certain traits have degraded or were lost. Evolution says In the Beginning Slime (or to appease the evolution isn’t abiogenesis crowd, In the Beginning a single cell) evolved through random mutation + selection to produce all the traits of all life on earth. Yet DH has already established the existence of what his theory seeks to prove, beneficial traits!!
This is the current state of thinking in our schools, and it is quite sad. Logic gets thrown out the window for the sake of the sacred cow of evolution.
quote:
As organisms possessing certain beneficial traits breed with organisms possessing other beneficial traits, their offspring inherit the traits from both parents, and therefore possess more beneficial traits than either organism of the previous generation.
Organisms change in each successive generation, gaining beneficial traits and discarding detrimental ones, and therefore improving the overall survivability of the organism.
LOL! Here is yet another glaring error that your peers have failed to notice while they were busy patting you on the back for your story. Evolutionists like to say populations evolve, not individuals. If we accept here that evolution refers to micro-evolution (adaptation), then this statement is correct and can be used to show you the error of your ways. Say both parents each have 5 beneficial traits. That represents 10 beneficial traits in the population. After their offspring are produced, regardless of how many offspring they have, guess what? The offspring still only contribute 10 beneficial traits to the population!
Perhaps you are claiming that each parent is contributing 10 *new* beneficial traits to their offspring. If so, please provide any evidence that new beneficial traits outpace new detrimental traits. Any evidence whatsoever. Please provide a documented example of a population whose gene pool was observed to have a net increase in beneficial traits over detrimental traits; that is, a decrease in genetic load.
On the other hand, I can provide a ton of evidence that the opposite is true, that new detrimental traits are outpacing new beneficial traits in organisms. Ready to go to battle?
quote:
If you believe that the theory of evolution (by which I mean the general theory, the one stated above) is incorrect, please state exactly which of these points you consider inaccurate, and explain why. Be sure to post any references you cite.
The problem is, you did not properly state the usual evolutionist re-definition illusion correctly above. You could have kept the illusion simple, as most evolutionists do: evolution is allele frequency change over time. The capitulation and equivocation is complete!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Defiant Heretic, posted 09-25-2002 2:57 AM Defiant Heretic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Defiant Heretic, posted 09-26-2002 4:27 AM Fred Williams has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 7 of 63 (18316)
09-25-2002 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Defiant Heretic
09-25-2002 2:57 AM


Dear all,
It is good to see that all the evo's are so united on this 'excellent post'. However, and I presume you already expected this, I completely disagree with this outdated overview. Dear evo's this is the 21st century.
I presume you expect me to reiterate my arguments against natural selection on the genomic level, but I won't. Why, because you are able to find my comments on genetic redundancies on this site, and why they cannot be explained by natural selection. On the other hand, they are explained by the multipurpose genome that holds that the major part of the genes of any organism are redundant. This has been scientifically proven over the last decade. The hypothesis of a multipurpose genome in conjunction with (non)-random mutation not only explains genetic redundancies but is also able to explain ALL evolutionary observations. And that is what it is all about in science. To explain observations.
However, regarding natural selction...
THE MAIN FUNCTION OF NATURAL SELECTION IS NOT TO CREATE BUT TO REMOVE.
In contrast to what Darwin thought (selection of the most adapted, fittest or whatever he called it), "The weaker are selected against". Pretty obvious in nature isn't it? In effecto, the genepool of the multipurpose genome doesn't deteriorate to rapidly.
This has been known for a long time, but it is simply ignored to keep the hype alive. (For refernces see: L.Spetner, Not By Chance, chapter 7.)
For the rest, Fred made some excellent remarks.
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Defiant Heretic, posted 09-25-2002 2:57 AM Defiant Heretic has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by mark24, posted 09-26-2002 5:08 AM peter borger has not replied
 Message 29 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-30-2002 2:02 AM peter borger has not replied

  
Defiant Heretic
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 63 (18329)
09-26-2002 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by TrueCreation
09-25-2002 5:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
One of my more significant disapprobation's to your post would be your use of reference toward 'organisms' evolving though inheritance and the guidance of natural selectability. A more appropriate and accurate wording would be a 'population' in the majority of its context.
Thank you for pointing this out. Yes, I was referring to populations here. I’m sorry for any confusion this may have caused.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by TrueCreation, posted 09-25-2002 5:08 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Defiant Heretic
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 63 (18331)
09-26-2002 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Fred Williams
09-25-2002 6:17 PM


quote:
Interpretation: I am going to perpetuate the illusion of evolution using the equivocation method of debate as described on page 1 of my evo-handbook.
Actually, I don’t have an evo-handbook yet. Do you know where I could find one?
quote:
Mendelism is an anti-evolutionary mechanism, and placed a solid barrier on upward evolution (FYI, Mendel was a creationist). It forced
evolutionists to embrace random mutation (LOL!) as the root mechanism to create the new genetic information necessary to evolve new complexities. It put a nail in the coffin of Lamarckism, a mechanism that if true would have been favorable to upward evolution (I suppose that is why Darwin espoused Lamarckism, and why some evolutionists still cling to the Lamarck fairytale today).
I fail to see how this is relevant. If I’m not mistaken, Mendel helped discover how dominant and recessive traits factor into genetics. And although some people may cling to the Lamarckian view, I do not, and even if I did, it would have nothing to do with this thread.
quote:
Item 2b is incorrect, regardless of whether you are a creationist or evolutionist.
I meant its traits won’t be included in the next generation unless another organism contributes them.
quote:
ROTFL! The classic mistake of defining selection as a tautology!
I did say I would be stating the obvious at times. Some redundancy is bound to result.
quote:
Here DH engages in question begging (specifically item #7). He skips over an important problem— how did the chameleon get the ability to
camouflage? DH assumes evolution is true and expects us to not catch this glaring omission. It’s all part of the illusion of the power of selection. Yet selection can only work with *pre-existing* traits! Where did this trait come from? This question is at the root of the C/E debate, yet DH tries to skip right over it, to the praise and adoration of his peers here on this board.
Yes, I do skip over that, because it’s not the issue here. I am merely arguing that evolution happens, not how it happens. No matter where the traits came from in the first place, whether they are the result of random mutation, divine intervention, or something else, beneficial traits become more common and detrimental traits become less common. This post is mainly directed at anyone who believes that [/I]no [/I]evolution has occurred at all, including micro-evolution.
quote:
This is precisely natural selection (provided you add more before beneficial & detrimental). Please discard your previous tautological arguments.
Yes, this is natural selection. How exactly does that make it a tautology?
quote:
And hence the illusion is complete - evolution must be true!
Perhaps you could elaborate on which part of this is illusionary.
quote:
This is the current state of thinking in our schools, and it is quite sad. Logic gets thrown out the window for the sake of the sacred cow of evolution.
Please post the logic you are referring to.
quote:
On the other hand, I can provide a ton of evidence that the opposite is true, that new detrimental traits are outpacing new beneficial traits in organisms.
They may indeed be outpacing beneficial traits, however most likely they are not outlasting them. If your evidence suggests that they are, then by all means, feel free to post some of it.
quote:
quote:
If you believe that the theory of evolution (by which I mean the general theory, the one stated above) is incorrect, please state exactly which of these points you consider inaccurate, and explain why. Be sure to post any references you cite.
The problem is, you did not properly state the usual evolutionist re-definition illusion correctly above. You could have kept the illusion simple, as most evolutionists do: evolution is allele frequency change over time. The capitulation and equivocation is complete!
My intention here was to define general evolution/natural selection without leaving loopholes in the definition. One place where I was quite clear is the paragraph you just quoted. I asked you to state which premise, if any, you disagree with, and to post your references. You have done neither.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Fred Williams, posted 09-25-2002 6:17 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Fred Williams, posted 09-26-2002 2:49 PM Defiant Heretic has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 10 of 63 (18332)
09-26-2002 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by peter borger
09-25-2002 11:27 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

I presume you expect me to reiterate my arguments against natural selection on the genomic level, but I won't. Why, because you are able to find my comments on genetic redundancies on this site, and why they cannot be explained by natural selection.

I suggest you re-read my posts to you, PB.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by peter borger, posted 09-25-2002 11:27 PM peter borger has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 11 of 63 (18358)
09-26-2002 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Defiant Heretic
09-26-2002 4:27 AM


quote:
Me: Mendelism is an anti-evolutionary mechanism It put a nail in the coffin of Lamarckism, a mechanism that if true would have been favorable to upward evolution
I fail to see how this is relevant. If I’m not mistaken, Mendel helped discover how dominant and recessive traits factor into genetics. And although some people may cling to the Lamarckian view, I do not, and even if I did, it would have nothing to do with this thread.
It’s quite relevant, and has everything to do with this thread. You are trying to defend the general theory of evolution, and have used the fact of Mendelism as part of your thesis. What you failed to realize is that Mendelism works *against* upward evolution, and shattered a powerful weapon of evolution accepted by many at the time of Darwin (including Darwin), Lamarckism. From Mendelism we learned that there is a 50% barrier for every new mutation that occurs in an organism. In other words, only half the offspring will get the mutation. Because of this enormous barrier in a sexual population, Fischer calculated the odds of a beneficial mutation with a high selective value only has a 1 in 50 chance of surviving (the odds are worse when more reasonable selective values are used). Lamarckism on the other hand does not incur this barrier, and new beneficial traits can become fixed in a population rapidly. Lamarckism would also completely alleviate Haldane’s Dilemma (a model that showed only one beneficial substitution could fix per 300 generations in a sexual population). Even if Haldane’s model is off, it still does not remove the fact that traits must go from few to many in a population, and the speed at which this can occur is governed by the organism’s reproductive capacity. This problem totally goes away if Lamarckism were true. But we know Lamarckism is false, and we know Mendelism is established fact. Too bad for the fairytale of upward evolution.
quote:
Yes, I do skip over that, because it’s not the issue here. I am merely arguing that evolution happens, not how it happens.
Yes, it is the issue, but you don’t want it to be the issue because I suspect you know there is no evidence for upward evolution, so you equivocate what evolution means. I have to be frank and say I find this intellectually dishonest, always have. I don’t think it is unwitting on either your part or the majority of other evolutionists who engage in this shell-game (not all evolutionists do this).
quote:
No matter where the traits came from in the first place, whether they are the result of random mutation, divine intervention, or something else, beneficial traits become more common and detrimental traits become less common. This post is mainly directed at anyone who believes that no evolution has occurred at all, including micro-evolution.
I don’t know of a single creation scientist who disputes micro-evolution. Regardless, your penultimate sentence is a vague assertion, and if you are implying beneficial traits outpace detrimental traits then you need to provide evidence to support this. This is what evolution is really all about.
quote:
DH: Conclusion: Over time, beneficial traits are more likely to remain in the gene pool and detrimental traits are more likely to disappear from the gene pool.
Me: And hence the illusion is complete - evolution must be true!
DH: Perhaps you could elaborate on which part of this is illusionary.
I did elaborate. In a nutshell, your illusion is that a lizard changing into a lizard means that a lixard can turn into a bird. You make the false extrapolation that if micro-evolution is true, then so is macro-evolution. I again refer you to my article that deals with your illusion:
404 Not Found
quote:
Please post the logic you are referring to.
See above. The relevant term used to describe your illogic is non-sequitur.
quote:
They may indeed be outpacing beneficial traits, however most likely they are not outlasting them. If your evidence suggests that they are, then by all means, feel free to post some of it.
Why certainly. For starters:
http://www-bml.ucdavis.edu/imc/loadstatus.html
Several studies have reported deviations from classical Mendelian segregation ratios in controlled crosses of bivalve molluscs (oysters, mussels, clams and scallops) These results imply that the Dabob Bay population of oysters has a large load of recessive deleterious alleles and that this genetic load is responsible for the distortion of Mendelian segregation ratios that was previously observed.
Here we have a clear case where Mendelian segregation ratios (see Hardy-Weinberg law) are distorting due to heavy selection against harmful mutations. With such readily observable distortions at these loci it is clear the mutations are fixed or nearly fixed in the population. We would need an equal number of loci under positive selection (Hardy-Weingberg is also distorted when positive selection occurs on a beneficial mutation) to compensate and keep the genetic load in equilibrium. Where are they? I can provide many more examples. Where are your citations documenting a distortion in a direction favorable to upward evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Defiant Heretic, posted 09-26-2002 4:27 AM Defiant Heretic has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 09-26-2002 3:58 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 13 by Mister Pamboli, posted 09-26-2002 4:51 PM Fred Williams has replied

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


Message 12 of 63 (18360)
09-26-2002 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Fred Williams
09-26-2002 2:49 PM


Just a quick note on a technical point. The TOE does not postulate anything like "upward evolution".
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Fred Williams, posted 09-26-2002 2:49 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 09-26-2002 6:17 PM Percy has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 13 of 63 (18361)
09-26-2002 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Fred Williams
09-26-2002 2:49 PM


[B][QUOTE]What you failed to realize is that Mendelism works *against* upward evolution, and shattered a powerful weapon of evolution accepted by many at the time of Darwin (including Darwin), Lamarckism.[/B][/QUOTE]
As Percy has rightly pointed out, there is no such postulate as "upward evolution" in the general theory of evolution. Lamarck's particualr theory required it, and for this reason among others it was roundly rejected by Darwin.
[B][QUOTE]From Mendelism we learned that there is a 50% barrier for every new mutation that occurs in an organism. In other words, only half the offspring will get the mutation.[/B][/QUOTE]
Only true if you are talking about variation passed through DNA. There are other forms of heritable variation - epigenetic processes have a role to play which is only just being realized and processes are also known which affect the germ cells (variation even unto the next generation, as your favourite tome might put it) such as those well-recorded effects on the size of the grandchildren of Dutch women who suffered in the famine of WWII
[B][QUOTE]This problem totally goes away if Lamarckism were true. But we know Lamarckism is false, and we know Mendelism is established fact.[/B][/QUOTE]
Except that there are processes which, as I have said, lie outside the Mendelian constraints [/B]and[/B] there is a wheen of scientists who indeed hold some form of Lamarckism to be true; I recommend Steele, Lindley and Blanden's "Lamarck’s Signature: How Retrogenes are Chainging Darwin’s Natural Selection Paradigm" Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 1998.
But it still ain't no "upward" evolution.
[B][QUOTE]I did elaborate. In a nutshell, your illusion is that a lizard changing into a lizard means that a lixard can turn into a bird. You make the false extrapolation that if micro-evolution is true, then so is macro-evolution.[/B][/QUOTE]
Your illusion, Fred, is that a bird is not a lizard. Lizard, bird, dinosaur, whatever, are merely terms to identify useful graduations (taxonomically delineated) of a continuum. That's not to say a bird is exactly a lizard, just that lizardness and birdness are not mutually exclusive properties.
[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 09-26-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Fred Williams, posted 09-26-2002 2:49 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Fred Williams, posted 09-26-2002 6:16 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 14 of 63 (18365)
09-26-2002 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Mister Pamboli
09-26-2002 4:51 PM


quote:
Percy: Just a quick note on a technical point. The TOE does not postulate anything like "upward evolution".
Pamboli: As Percy has rightly pointed out, there is no such postulate as "upward evolution" in the general theory of evolution.
Great! So you admit that your theory is now re-defined so that it fits nicely within a creationist framework? So you agree there is no evidence of upward evolution? In other words, do you agree that there is no evidence for the naturalistic development of new complex systems such as organs, sonar, feathers, etc?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Mister Pamboli, posted 09-26-2002 4:51 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 09-26-2002 7:01 PM Fred Williams has not replied

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


Message 15 of 63 (18366)
09-26-2002 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Percy
09-26-2002 3:58 PM


Hi Fred,
Sorry to again reply in a bullet point, but I'm being kept pretty busy these days. I wish I could spend more time here, but oh well, and it can't be helped. Glad to see you've again freed up some time!
Models attempt to describe the real world. You're arguing that the model (your particular version of it, anyway) doesn't gibe with the real world, and that therefore reality must be wrong. I don't think it works that way.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 09-26-2002 3:58 PM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024