Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where is the evidence for evolution?
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 367 (30224)
01-25-2003 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by peter borger
01-25-2003 8:56 PM


No, I am not personally against you (because I am not molecular-savvy, I work like 18th century naturalists which collects animals in a preservation jar). I am curious of where your GUTOB will lead a taxonomist like me.
It seems that you acknowledge that redundancies can be eliminated to construct an irreducible complexity structures, and information quantity can increase.
Thanks for your response

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by peter borger, posted 01-25-2003 8:56 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by peter borger, posted 01-25-2003 9:24 PM Andya Primanda has not replied

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


Message 17 of 367 (30225)
01-25-2003 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Andya Primanda
01-25-2003 9:02 PM


Dear Andya,
No, I am not personally against you (because I am not molecular-savvy, I work like 18th century naturalists which collects animals in a preservation jar). I am curious of where your GUTOB will lead a taxonomist like me.
PB: I know you are not personally against me, you are simply curious how life works. Me too.
It seems that you acknowledge that redundancies can be eliminated to construct an irreducible complexity structures, and information quantity can increase.
PB: That is not what I try to convey. I say that all (an excess) info is already present in the MPG. Info gets activated and inactivated, but also gets lost or duplicated. But having info doesn't do the trick, it is the EXPRESSION of info on the right time, and on the right place.
With the MPG differences between species can easily be explained. In my opinion, (sub)species is all their is, the others classifications is due to manmade subjectivity. And that in general the genes follow the pattern of the classification is because the complexity of similar organisms require the same protein-protein interactions.
Thanks for your response
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Andya Primanda, posted 01-25-2003 9:02 PM Andya Primanda has not replied

David unfamous
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 367 (30244)
01-26-2003 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by peter borger
01-25-2003 8:07 PM


Design can be concluded from genetic redundancies. If they don't demonstrate association with gene duplication and do not change faster than essential genes they can be taken as proof for design. That's exactly what we see in life. So, the debate can be concluded: design.
How do you explain the genetic 'errors' - pseudogenes and retroposons - shared between different species (humans, gorillas, chimps), and that they somehow disprove evolution and prove ID?
And how do you then use ID as proof of a supreme being?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by peter borger, posted 01-25-2003 8:07 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by peter borger, posted 01-26-2003 8:44 PM David unfamous has replied

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


Message 19 of 367 (30264)
01-26-2003 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by David unfamous
01-26-2003 8:40 AM


Dear Dave:
Read what the GUToB holds. It explains all these phenomena.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by David unfamous, posted 01-26-2003 8:40 AM David unfamous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by David unfamous, posted 01-27-2003 5:06 AM peter borger has replied

David unfamous
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 367 (30287)
01-27-2003 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by peter borger
01-26-2003 8:44 PM


Two things Peter, I can't find any references to the GUToB on the internet other than those made by your good self within this forum — am I on a wild goose chase?
And I'd still like you or Sonnike to explain why ID is evidence for a supreme being.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by peter borger, posted 01-26-2003 8:44 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by peter borger, posted 01-27-2003 6:28 PM David unfamous has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 21 of 367 (30297)
01-27-2003 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by DanskerMan
01-24-2003 4:06 PM


I notice that sonnike urges you to read religious websites instead of science websites to learn about science.
This should tell you something right away.
It actually tells you two things.
1) It tells you that sonnike thinks that religious websites are somehow more informed on science than science sites, which doesn't make sense at all.
2) It also tells you that sonnike doesn't want you to look at science websites at all. Note the use of the word "instead".
This is not surprising. Many religious fanatics over the years have understood the danger and threat of science and rational scrutiny to their dogma.
I would encourage you to look at all kinds of sites and to judge for yourself which ones have the most sound research and logic and verifiability behind them.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-27-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by DanskerMan, posted 01-24-2003 4:06 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by DanskerMan, posted 01-27-2003 12:52 PM nator has replied
 Message 26 by DanskerMan, posted 01-27-2003 2:21 PM nator has not replied

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


Message 22 of 367 (30311)
01-27-2003 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by drummachine
01-23-2003 9:30 PM


I'm coming to this debate late. This is a reply to the first message.
First, a disclaimer. I seem to have lost my patience with some Creationist positions. I don't know where it went. I used to have it, now I don't. If someone finds it please let me know.
drummachine writes:
I'm new here. Can you please answer this question for me?
This seems an incredibly uninformed question.
No evolutionist ever comes in here and asks, "Where is this book that speaks of creation and Jesus?" You can believe that the evidence for evolution has been misinterpreted, and you can, like most people, be unaware of the less obvious evidence for evolution, but to ask "Where is it?"
And to start threads asking questions and then never reply?
Many people waste valuable time composing informed responses to uninformed questions like yours that the author never responds to. I hope you'll have the courtesy to reply at some point.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by drummachine, posted 01-23-2003 9:30 PM drummachine has not replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 367 (30323)
01-27-2003 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by nator
01-27-2003 10:14 AM


schraf: "I notice that sonnike urges you to read religious websites instead of science websites to learn about science."
---------------
Nice try schraf. My websites are no more religious/non-science than yours are. Your religion is just different ie. evo-dogma.
Calling a "car" a "bicycle", doesn't make it a bicycle. Don't try to pretend that evo-dogma is un-biased science.
------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by nator, posted 01-27-2003 10:14 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by nator, posted 01-27-2003 1:44 PM DanskerMan has not replied

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


Message 24 of 367 (30325)
01-27-2003 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by DanskerMan
01-24-2003 11:40 PM


sonnikke writes:
A designer or designers, were involved in your information scenario. We can't escape the reality that time, chance and natural accidents cannot create what only a Supreme God CAN!!
The February, 2003, issue of Scientific American includes the article Evolving Inventions which describes experiments in genetic programming (software modeled upon evolution) illustrating that random change combined with selection can produce quality designs, in some cases superior to those produced by people. Just as with evolution, there's no designer. Random change with selection is a natural process that can produce amazing results.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by DanskerMan, posted 01-24-2003 11:40 PM DanskerMan has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 25 of 367 (30326)
01-27-2003 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by DanskerMan
01-27-2003 12:52 PM


quote:
Nice try schraf. My websites are no more religious/non-science than yours are.
Um, if the sites you listed aren't religious, then why the constant references to God, Bible quotations, and in the case of at least one site, the descriptor "ministry" used to describe itself?
quote:
Your religion is just different ie. evo-dogma.
The ToE is not dogma, because Biology, like all science, is tentative in nature. It changes in light of new evidence.
There is also no appeal to a deity or any supernatural entity in science, and no unchanging doctrine that must be adhered to no matter what, unlike religion.
quote:
Calling a "car" a "bicycle", doesn't make it a bicycle. Don't try to pretend that evo-dogma is un-biased science.
Of course it is biased science.
All good science is biased in favor of the observed evidence found in nature.
You talk about bias as if it is always a bad thing. Isn't being biased in favor of the evidence a good thing?
Being biased in favor of a particular part of a particular interpretation of a particular version of a particular religion's sacred text regardless of the observed evidence found in nature would be bad bias.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by DanskerMan, posted 01-27-2003 12:52 PM DanskerMan has not replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 367 (30336)
01-27-2003 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by nator
01-27-2003 10:14 AM


schraf: "I would encourage you to look at all kinds of sites and to judge for yourself which ones have the most sound research and logic and verifiability behind them."
--------------------------------------------
This might be a once in a lifetime thing, but I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with that statement!
Study BOTH sides, and see which makes more sense.
Regards,
S
------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by nator, posted 01-27-2003 10:14 AM nator has not replied

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


Message 27 of 367 (30363)
01-27-2003 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by David unfamous
01-27-2003 5:06 AM


Dear Dave,
The GUToB is new, my friend. Did you check all 235 google hits?
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by David unfamous, posted 01-27-2003 5:06 AM David unfamous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by derwood, posted 01-28-2003 1:32 PM peter borger has not replied

MRC_Hans
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 367 (30411)
01-28-2003 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by peter borger
01-25-2003 8:07 PM


Peter Borger:
quote:
Design can be concluded from genetic redundancies. If they don't demonstrate association with gene duplication and do not change faster than essential genes they can be taken as proof for design. That's exactly what we see in life. So, the debate can be concluded: design.
Sorry for the late reaction, I dont come around this boar so often.
Could you elaborate a bit on the above? I can understand that in principle, some changes in essential genes will be weeded out by selection, whereas this will probably not happen in redundant (or receeding) genes, but can you point to any documentation that this has been verified? To my knowledge, our decoding of genes is still very incomplete, so are we at present able to say with any certainty which genes are redundant? Have we verified the exact role of the seemingly redundant genes?
Please, no abbeviations, I'm new here and I dont find it productive to guess at what various letter codes mean.
Cheers, Hans

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by peter borger, posted 01-25-2003 8:07 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by John, posted 01-28-2003 9:01 AM MRC_Hans has replied
 Message 35 by peter borger, posted 01-28-2003 7:27 PM MRC_Hans has not replied
 Message 36 by peter borger, posted 01-28-2003 7:28 PM MRC_Hans has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 367 (30427)
01-28-2003 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by MRC_Hans
01-28-2003 2:37 AM


quote:
Please, no abbeviations, I'm new here and I dont find it productive to guess at what various letter codes mean.
If you hang around long, here are some abreviations you'll see.
ToE == the theory of evolution
GUToB == PeterBorger's pet theory == God-awful Unsupportable Tarradiddle of Bull
NS == natural selection
LOL == laugh out loud
ROTFLMAO == rolling on the floor laughing my arse off-- prolly not used often enough
Sometimes people's login IDs are abbreviated as well.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by MRC_Hans, posted 01-28-2003 2:37 AM MRC_Hans has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by MRC_Hans, posted 01-28-2003 10:55 AM John has replied

MRC_Hans
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 367 (30435)
01-28-2003 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by John
01-28-2003 9:01 AM


quote:
Sometimes people's login IDs are abbreviated as well.
LMAO, U got me there, heheh. The MRC thingy is an old handle with no relevance to boards like this. I just stick to it so old friends may recognize me.
Yes, I later read up on GUToB. I hope Peter can educate me sometime, because off-hand I dont think it makes too much sense.
Hans

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by John, posted 01-28-2003 9:01 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by John, posted 01-28-2003 11:10 AM MRC_Hans 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