Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9180 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,259 Year: 5,516/9,624 Month: 541/323 Week: 38/143 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Logic
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 150 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 181 of 302 (319512)
06-09-2006 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Rob
06-09-2006 10:32 AM


Re: on pairs and tells
I want to see additional info in the genome.
This certainly is a complete waste of time. At the moment the converstion is going like this...
Rob:- Where's the new information?
Chorus:-What do you mean by information?
Rob:- Where's the new information?
Chorus:-What do you mean by information?
...
continue ad nauseam
Your question simply can't be answered without knowing what you would consider an increase in genetic information. We could spend months guessing what definition you are using and not get it right, it would expedite matters considerably if you just told us.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Rob, posted 06-09-2006 10:32 AM Rob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by rgb, posted 06-09-2006 12:37 PM Wounded King has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 182 of 302 (319513)
06-09-2006 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 8:07 PM


Hey, guess what. I did a google define search for the word archosaur, and here is one of the definitions: archosaur: "Ruling Reptile'. The group of animals that included dinosaurs, crocodiles, birds, and pterosaurs" define:archosaur - Google Search
Notice that "birds" was included in the definition. That's what we have here with your creature, a bird.
*sigh* no. it's not a bird. it's a pterosaur.
all birds are archosaurs. but not all archosaur are birds. archosauria is the group that includes dinosaurs, crocodiles, pterosaurs, and (maybe) marine reptiles. "birds" is actually redundant, because dinosauria is a group that includes birds.
the animal we were looking at is not a bird at all.
Some lines sticking out from the creature. You know, they could have been faked, it's a possibility. It's not that hard to carve out some lines in a fossil.
actually, it is. it's hard to do it an be convincing. one, maybe, could be faked. but *all* the pterosaurs we have with hair? and all of the dinosaurs with feathers?
I mean, how would hair fossilize? Have you ever thought of that?
the same way anything else fossilized. by making an impression that fills with minerals.
Inner organs don't fossilize too well, how would hair have fossilized? It's so thin and soft...
hair (and feathers) don't fossilize very well either. it doesn't mean they DON'T.
If it's a mistake, why don't you tell them about it, so they can fix it?
because it's such a minor one, and it's not my job to go around correcting every herpetology website about tiny errors.
Even so, how would you know if the feathers and scales came from the same gene? Can you prove it?
yes.
Dinosauria On-Line
if you remove a single gene from the chicken genome, the scutes on their feet are replaced by feathers. this gene is the one that modifies feathers into scutes. one gene.
Scutes? Scutes are scales, not anything to do with feathers!
except, of course, for the fact that they do have a lot to do with feathers, if we can fairly easily turn them into feathers. we also have some dinosaurs, like microraptor gui, that have flight feathers on their feet, growing from where modern birds have scutes:
Wait, you just said it was a mistake, they aren't of the same composition, now you say there are? Which is it?
no, please try to follow along.
the reptilian scales on a bird's feet, which are located on the bottom of the foot, are not the same chemical composition as feathers. the bird scales on a bird's feet, SCUTES, which are located on the top of the foot, ARE.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 8:07 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 8:18 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 183 of 302 (319518)
06-09-2006 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 8:36 PM


Creature can change, but only within limits, within thier own kind, for that, we do have evidence. But for macroevolution, we do not.
what mechanism prohibits change from compiling?
But it already had scale follicles, why would it also evolve hair follicles? So those creatures would have had hairy scales? Is that what you're saying? Or were they losing scales follicles and evolving hair follicles instead, being bare for some time?
many reptiles lack crocodilian-type scales. an early reptile might have grown hair (and the follicles it requires) during the shift to warm-blood. there were many adaptations that aided in this, but one -- bipedalism - required it.
I think some of the specimens were faked.
all 7, faked in exactly the same, precisely accurate way? a way that's fooled paleontologists trained at spotting fakes? a way that lines up nicely with every other feathered dinosaur found?
But either way you look at it, archaeopteryx has no link coming to it and leaving from it, so it's not a valid transitional fossil anyway.
bad logic. evolution is not a straight line, it's a forking tree. archaeopteryx is not a direct ancestor of modern birds, no. but it is closely related to the common ancestor of it, and modern birds.
"transitional" doesn't mean "exactly between in a direct line of ancestors." it means that it indicates the sorts of transitions that were going on.
It doesn't show scales evolving into feathers, it shows fully developed feathers.
scales did not evolve into feathers.
and if if they did, what would you expect to see as a transition? tell me how you would represent a transition, with one species, frozen in time, in the rock? would you accept less advanced feathers? we have those too.
as previously mentioned, many non-avian dinosaurs have hollow bones.
That doesn't prove they had air sacs or something.
birds have hollow bones as part of their respiratory system. they have hollow bones because they have air sacrs. actually, the hollow bones are the air sacs.
your argument is about like saying "it has a skull, but that doesn't prove it had a brain."
But then again, dinosaurs were reptiles, reptiles are cold blooded.
birds are reptiles too. they're warm blooded. remember that page you just looked up about archosaurs? birds are dinosaurs, dinosaurs are archosaurs, archosaurs are sauropsides ("reptiles").
but you failed to follow the logic here. cold blooded animals cannot be bipedal. period. they have to remain close to the ground for warmth. because dinosaurs walked with their legs under them, and often on two legs (the four legged ones, btw, all started off bipedal) they MUST have been warm-blooded in some degree.
We weren't there to witness it, so we can't be sure of much.
if someone broke into your house, and stole your tv...
do you not understand that science is often forensic in nature? especially paleontology.
Edited by arachnophilia, : broken tag


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 8:36 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 8:36 PM arachnophilia has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22700
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 184 of 302 (319520)
06-09-2006 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Rob
06-09-2006 10:32 AM


Re: on pairs and tells
Hi Rob,
Before reading further, please see my Message 169 defining information, and my Message 180 providing a simple example of how mutation increases genomic information in a population.
Rob writes:
That's great! That's just wonderful.... I think all of us knew that duplication is possible. I want to see additional info in the genome.
The messages I referenced answered your request about adding information to the genome, but you also mention duplication.
Duplication is an extremely common mechanism by which information is added. Let's say a population has a gene for producing protein X, and that protein X is essential for life. It is so essential that any mutations in the gene cause the fetus to spontaneously abort.
Now a mutation occurs that duplicates the gene, so now the population has two genes for producing protein X. But it is only the presence of protein X that is essential for life. Extra protein X neither helps nor hurts the individuals in the population. Individual organisms in the population with this mutation appear no differently than others.
Now let's say a mutation occurs in one of the genes for protein X. The fetus does not spontaneously abort, because there is still one gene producing protein X. And now the duplicate gene is producing protein Y. The new protein may or may not have an effect, but we'll keep the focus on the question of information. We now have one gene sending the message "Protein X" and another gene sending the message "Protein Y". That's two messages instead of one. The information in the population's gene pool has just increased.
Not slight variation within kind, where we see the same amount of information rearanged into a unique individual organism.
Mutations (and allele recombinations), no matter how slight, eventually accumulate into significant change. It's like the steps you take while walking, which even if they're baby steps will eventually carry you long distances.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Rob, posted 06-09-2006 10:32 AM Rob has not replied

rgb
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 302 (319547)
06-09-2006 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Wounded King
06-09-2006 11:01 AM


Re: on pairs and tells
Wounded King writes
quote:
Your question simply can't be answered without knowing what you would consider an increase in genetic information.
An increase in genetic information in an organism is an increase in either the functionality of already existing parts in the organism or the number of parts that serve the same purposes, less purposes, or more purposes than already preexisting parts.
In other words, "information" is both an abstract and a subjective idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Wounded King, posted 06-09-2006 11:01 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Percy, posted 06-09-2006 1:22 PM rgb has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22700
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 186 of 302 (319554)
06-09-2006 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by rgb
06-09-2006 12:37 PM


Re: on pairs and tells
rgb writes:
Wounded King writes
quote:
Your question simply can't be answered without knowing what you would consider an increase in genetic information.
An increase in genetic information in an organism is an increase in either the functionality of already existing parts in the organism or the number of parts that serve the same purposes, less purposes, or more purposes than already preexisting parts.
The question was about an increase in genetic information, but your answer instead addresses the expression of that information in the morphology of the organism, which is something different. There is no requirement that increases or decreases in genomic information be expressed.
rgb writes:
In other words, "information" is both an abstract and a subjective idea.
This is true of the Dembski/Gitt creationist definition of information, which is actually much closer to knowledge.
But this is not true of the scientific definition of information. It is objective, concrete and deterministic. See my Message 169 and Message 180.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by rgb, posted 06-09-2006 12:37 PM rgb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by rgb, posted 06-09-2006 4:15 PM Percy has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 729 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 187 of 302 (319559)
06-09-2006 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Rob
06-09-2006 9:42 AM


Re: on pairs and tells
On the contrary.. peopel have listened to them.. looked at what they are saying, and found their claims to be lacking.
For example, one great new 'LAW' that dempski claims to have discovered is the law of conservation of information. This 'Law' is supposed to prove all sorts of things for the I.D. proponents.
However, it can not be tested, it can not be demonstrated. From a scientific point of view it is meaningless.
I'll tell you what though, Maybe you can come up with some scientific
experiemetns that demonstrate this 'law' of dembski's?? He hasn't been able to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Rob, posted 06-09-2006 9:42 AM Rob has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 188 of 302 (319569)
06-09-2006 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Percy
06-09-2006 5:53 AM


quote:
What you're describing is the way Dembski and Gitt define information.... They confuse information with knowledge and meaning.
And aren't they intelligent and educated enough to realize this? Especially after it has been pointed out to them?

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Percy, posted 06-09-2006 5:53 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Percy, posted 06-09-2006 2:52 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22700
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 189 of 302 (319578)
06-09-2006 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Chiroptera
06-09-2006 2:08 PM


Chiroptera writes:
And aren't they intelligent and educated enough to realize this? Especially after it has been pointed out to them?
Gish was also famous for displaying this kind of behavior.
Getting into this might draw the thread off topic. Is there a thread for discussing why creationism's leading lights not only don't learn, but don't even try to engage with scientists, either.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Chiroptera, posted 06-09-2006 2:08 PM Chiroptera has not replied

rgb
Inactive Member


Message 190 of 302 (319590)
06-09-2006 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Percy
06-09-2006 1:22 PM


Re: on pairs and tells
As a devout defender of the faith and a young earth creationist, I must disagree with you.
quote:
The question was about an increase in genetic information, but your answer instead addresses the expression of that information in the morphology of the organism, which is something different.
The expression comes directly from genetic component of the organism.
Now, can I please talk with herepton?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Percy, posted 06-09-2006 1:22 PM Percy has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 191 of 302 (319711)
06-09-2006 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 10:52 PM


Re: define "Macro"evolution ... eh?
I read your essay and was not dissappointed. It is full of misconceptions and falsehoods, as well as being assertion after assertion with no foundation.
Your comment on Lucy with the knee is typical of the lack of any care or attempt to find the truth of the statements you included. This has already been dealt with on the Lucy - fact or fraud? (click) thread, so I expect you either to:
(1) Correct your essay accordingly (the honest thing to do) or
(2) Substantiate you claim -- on the linked thread, not here -- by providing actual evidence of professional misconduct by the scientists involved (the other honest thing to do) or
(3) Continue in your ignorance and incredulity to claim such falsehoods as if they were real (with some mistaken belief that you are somehow right to do so, no matter how dishonest it is)
Your choice.
Because of the several outright errors (and lack of scientific rigor displayed by it) in your website it cannot be used as a source of factual information, it is NOT evidence (except of your ignorance).
Oh, yes, and your opinion is NOT evidence, and your repeated assertions of your opinion is NOT evidence.
So: you have not presented any evidence yet to show that an accumulation of small changes over time results in the 'remarkable' differences that we humans consider different enough to characterize as {family} or larger taxon groups.
You have specifically not presented any evidence of any mechanism that would in any way prevent further change from happening, whether at a genetic level or at a larger species selection level.
So, as noted in Message 171, let's set some groundwork. Lets talk about simple speciation first - you agree that small changes do occur, what you call "changes in kind" or "micro"evolution, happens yes? - and let's start with this example - Pelycodus, a small primate mammal that shows gradual increases in size and then a splitting into two groups:


(click to enlarge)

(Picture originally from A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate (click to see original picture) -- copied here to save bandwidth on the original site)
Do you or do you not agree that this is just normal speciation - that Pelycodus ralstoni evolved into Pelycodus trigonoodus which then evolved into Pelycodus jarrovii which then evolved into two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus -- all by "micro"evolutionary changes, small changes where they remained essentially the same sort (kind) of organisms, yes?
Do you agree that this is no different than "dog is dog" variations? If no why not?
Once we have established the "micro"evolution aspects of the fossil record of events like this we can move on to the next level.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added one line
Edited by RAZD, : fixed link

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

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:52 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 8:52 PM RAZD has replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5868 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 192 of 302 (319789)
06-09-2006 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by crashfrog
06-08-2006 11:30 PM


Re: Great example
One kind gives rise to several kinds, but each of those kinds is part of the original kind. It's hierarcheal, do you see? Kinds contain kinds. We use the term "taxa", though, or sometimes "clade."
Who said one kind gives rise to several kinds? What if one kind remained one kind?
Eventuallly, dogs will give rise to a different creature; but that creature will still be a dog. The dog "kind", that you recognize, will give rise to new kinds, but those kinds will still be part of the "dog kind." Just as the first mammal gave rise to many different kinds of creatures that are all still mammals. Just as the first vertebrate gave rise to many, many different kinds of creatures, all of which are still vertebrates.
Evolution doesn't predict that the decendant of dogs will not be dogs. They're be dogs, but they'll be something else, too, just as humans are both mammals and humans at the same time.
This isn't magic or mysticism, this is the imprecision of describing a hierarcheal concept in linear language.
Who said the dog kind will give rise to new kinds? What if it remains the dog kind? You have to consider the other views as well...

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 06-08-2006 11:30 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by crashfrog, posted 06-09-2006 11:11 PM Someone who cares has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1584 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 193 of 302 (319804)
06-09-2006 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Someone who cares
06-09-2006 10:27 PM


Re: Great example
Who said one kind gives rise to several kinds? What if one kind remained one kind?
Who said? That's what we observe. We see it happen.
It does stay one kind, though. One kind that contains an increasing number of kinds.
What if it remains the dog kind?
It will. But that kind contains a bunch more kinds. Is it just that you don't get the idea of a hierarcheal system of classification?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Someone who cares, posted 06-09-2006 10:27 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 8:54 PM crashfrog has not replied

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 5868 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 194 of 302 (319831)
06-09-2006 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by kuresu
06-09-2006 1:57 AM


Allow me to defend myself
wrong. Whales are thought to have come from a more hippo like species, if I remember correctly.
Actually, evolutionists say whales came from hippos, pigs, cattle, buffalo, etc. Creatures that have one certain hoof structure. I believe it was even on this thread, someone who was an evolutionist made the claim that whales came from hippos, pigs, cattle, etc, maybe a little while back.
This is from where you are explaining the fossil inconsistencies. Since when were insects not animals? I do believe their classification is Animalia, Arthropoda, Uniramia (the original Insecta). That's Kingdom, Phylum, Class. We are Animalia, Chordata, Mammalia, Primata, Hominidae, Homo, sapiens.
I meant mammals and reptiles and the rest of those. Yes, insects are animals. But they are very different in several ways from the rest of the animals.
I was unaware the Neanderthalensis had a civilization. I knew they had a culture, but not civilization. An entire race of cripples? I don't think it was arthritis that did this. In fact, they did not stoop, but walked properly.
Are you willing to support your claim, that they walked properly and upright? Please do.
Wow, okay. This is in reference to Homo erectus, everyone. Their brain volume varied within this range--750 - 1250 cc
. That's 3/4 of a liter to 1 and 1/4 liters. The modern human's brain volume is--a good chunk more, with less than one percent of the total human population reaching just under a liter in volume. Most of us have a brain capacity of almost 1.5 liters. Are you saying that the average European is stupid? Because if you are, I take offense to that (hey, I am half swede, so . . .).
No way, I do not mean you are in any way unsmarter than others. Just that the average brain size of a European is generally a bit smaller, like Homo erectus' brain size. Hey, I'm European too, don't think I would mean offense to myself.
And your point is? Humans are hominids. Hominid = The common name for humans and their ancestors, members of the family Hominidae. It consists of the genus Australopithecus and the genus Homo. Since the species in question is a Homo, then he is a hominid. Or perhaps you meant hominiod, of which we and erectus also belong. BY the way, homo is latin for "man" (I'm pulling this from the translation of Homo sapiens being "wise man" or "knowing man", and because their are different species in Homo)
I was meaning hominid as in the part of the supposed primate human ancestors, as it is in this definition: hominid: "an adjective referring to primate human ancestors and the rest of the human line or family, starting from Australopithecus" define:hominid - Google Search
An accepted timeline for the Homo genus and when each species was alive is this: Hominid Species (if an admin can link this, I don't know how, please do).
As you can clearly see (if you look at the picture) Homo erectus was gone by the time we were on the scene. Neanderthalnesis was just about gone, and questions are being raised as to whether or not they were still around in Europe by the time we were there.
Take a look at this chart. It's not exactly the one I would like, but, notice here, that archaic homosapiens lived during the times of homoerectus; and Neanderthal and modern homosapiens, and archaic homosapiens all lived in the same time period. Each graph differs, this one isn't quite the one I need, but you can see how they tie in here: No webpage found at provided URL: http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/images/table_of_hominid_evolution.gif
And here homo erectus is shown to be alive during Neanderthal: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Summer_2004/ling001/images/human_evolution.gif
See?
That double negative is throwing me for a loop. This is continuing in your vein of humans not being hominids. Which is showed just above to be wrong.
Sorry for the double negative, but the point is, Cro Magnon Man is not a hominid, or primate human, he is a fully developed human.
Can you tell me why a primitive man, with no form of toothbrushes, toothpaste, or flossing would not have tooth decay?
Because they didn't have refined sugars, and chocolate back then. They didn't eat as much sugar as we do today. Their sweets would be like honey, not cookies, and chocolate, and cakes, and frosting, and candy, and sticky candies, and brownies, and cupcakes, and gum, and pastries, and ice cream, etc..., as ours are today.
This is in a new paragraph in your paper, and it comes from Henry Morris saying who we are related to. And the quote is your answer. Actually, we are related to all of them, though some quite distantly (the butter bean being the most distantly related).
Actually, I was referring to Henry Morris' quote, I just followed the rules about making a new paragraph for a quote. But see, no one is claiming that our common ancestor is a butter bean! Or a chicken, or garter snake! Maybe I should have used the words "common ancestor" instead of "related to." That would have made it clearer.
If you want to argue this point, I recommend taking it to my thread, titled about morality and charity and how they fit into the evolutionary paradigm. Point is, they do. Also, we are not the only animal with intelligence, language, or altruism.
Humans are the only ones with a complex SPOKEN language. Yes, some creatures have their own form of communication, but not complex spoken languages...
This one might be long. The first part of that quote makes me think of this show called "Way of the Master", which was quite ridiculus with trying to disprove evolution by using this argument. Actually, this answer will be short. Reason being, in order to explain why it is wrong, I need to explain all of evolution and how it works--something which you seem to not understand by this and many other statements you made (or make for the moment). You are right in that evolution can't tell a creature to evolve the right stuff for the right things, but this is not proof against evolution. They get the right stuff for the right things through natural selection, which isn't all that unguided. We can discuss this at a later point.
By "unguided", I mean unguided by an Intelligent Being.
Well blow me down and shiver me timbers, I never knew this! or wait, are you possibly wrong again? Me thinks it's the latter choice. They are similar in that they are eyes, and the interpret light stimulation, however, as far as the mechanisms they operate off of, the octupus eye is much different (like how each type of eye focuses). It's equivalent to saying a bird and bat wing are similar. Oh yeah, for those who couldn't tell, this part of the paper is trying to explain why things have similar things without using common ancestry, and in this case, it's God using the same design over and over.
The octopus eye is very similar to the human eye. That doesn't mean there aren't any differences.
The continuation of the last quote. Actually, we do claim that we have a common ancestor with octupi. In fact, we claim that all living organisms today have a common ancestor (or at the very most a few common ancestors).
Are you saying that the octopus and the human came from one ancestor?!?
Not that great a definition of natural selection, so I might want to introduce it now, as it makes sense here.
First of, NS (natural selection) applies to all living organsisms, not just animals and plants.
Secondly, this is how NS operates.
Let's take a population of deer. The habitat can support 1000 deer.
Now then, more offspring are created than the habitat can support. Lets says, for simplicity's sake, that the parents are all gone.
And let's say they made 3000 fawns. We now have 3000 fawns competing for those 1000 spots. The 1000 that make it to sexual maturity are the ones who get to reproduce, and they pass their genes off to their offspring. The reason they are in the top 1000 is becuase they were the most "fit"--best adapted to their environment.
The other 2000 of the second generation (parents are first generation, then the offspring, offsprings offspring not included) die before they can pass off their genes, or they move out of the habitat. Either way, those 2000 were not "fit" enough, and do not pass off thier genes in this population of deer.
Let's use a real world example, like Sickle Cell Anemia. It is generally a deletorius gene--that means it's bad. However, in regions in the world with a high incidence of malaria, it is no longer deleterious so long as the person with is not homozygous recessive. The normal, dominant condition is AA. The SCA condition is either Aa or aa. The last is what is known as homozygous recessive, and it kills you before the age of five, well before we reach sexual maturity. The heterozygous condition (Aa) is also deleterious, except in places with malaria.
Another fact to remember, malaria kills those without SCA much more easily, so they often do not reach sexual maturity.
THis means that the most "fit" are the ones with the heterozygous condition, becuase they survive to sexual maturity and procude more offspring than the others. And becuase the others are not passing their genes on, fewer and fewer are going to be AA or aa, until most of, if not all of, the population is Aa.
And if someone else can better explain this, please do, because I realize I'm not the best at explaining.
Thanks for the explanation. But it really doesn't mean much to my essay. Most people already know what natural selection is, the name gives it away! So I didn't go on explaining it.
Do you know how many genes humans have? about 25,000, based off of the research done by the Human Genome Project. Do you know how many the common fruit fly, Drosophilia melanogaster, has? Something like twice as many. So does this mean that the fruit fly is more complex than man? Because that is what you are implying--you need more information for more complexity, and lo and behold, man has relatively few genes. I guess that means were pretty simple, huh?
No, that's not what it means. But take the bacteria, and take a human, which has more genetic code information?
Actually, it fits in perfectly with NS, as Darwin realized. Those that die before they can reproduce will not pass on these deletorius genes, and hence NS is verified, not falsified.
But what about evolution in general? How is that single cell going to get to a human, if 99% or so of mutations are harmful or neutral?
Mutations in somatic cells (body cells) will not make a monkey walk upright. In order to do that, the mutations would have to change the monkey's skeletal structure while it is living, as well as reposition the entrance of the spinal cord into the skull and doing a few other odds and ends, and no matter how much the transformers may look real, those sort of mutations aren't possible. Our bodies just can't reorient that quickly without being excrutiatingly painful as well as possibly deadly (for those who read everything in Metroid Prime, think back to what happened to the Space Pirates that tried to use Samus' morph ball--death).
I didn't say mutations would do it. I just said IF a monkey did learn to walk upright, it's decsendants wouldn't. So how did stooped monkeys evolve into upright humans?
Not quite true. Starfish empty their stomachs onto their food. Reptiles don't have diaphrams. Insects don't use thier mouths to breathe, and they don't have noses. many animals don't even have lungs. We might need them, but that doesn't mean that they don't work without those other parts or can't be used without the other parts.
Notice the word "our" that I used. This means I was speaking of humans, the only ones able to read my essay.
Again, I refer you to the morality, charity, and evolution thread of mine to see why you are wrong. with this. Oh, and natural selection doesn't evolve anything, it is the mechanism by which organisms evolve. It's like saying that the computer monitor runs the computer, but it is actually the mechanism by which the computer displays graphic representations of data.
I know natural selection doesn't do the evolving part. But how could those emotions evolve WITH THE HELP of the mechanism - natural selection? I'm new here, I haven't gotten to all the threads I'd like to, so maybe a bit later I can see your thread.
And this disproves evolution how? Remember, there was no life, and then there was. Even if God made life, he still made it out of non-life--you know, the whole from the dust of the earth bit, from which you are made you shall return.
Biological evolution only starts when there is life present, it doesn't matter how said life arose.
God doing it, and random processes doing it, are two different things. God can do anything. Random processes cannot form life from non life, that goes against scientific principles.
Oh, so you say it doesn't matter how life arose? You aren't even the least bit curious? Wish you would spend a little more time thinking about that, maybe you will come to the conclusion that God did it.
And this disproves evolution? Who said a plant cell had to be simpler, they could just as well be more complex. After all, they are our relatives (and the possible descendants of the animal kingdom, at any rate, they appear after animals do). If evolution is supposed to increase complexity, like you imply, then you contradict yourself. At any rate, we know fairly well how chlorophyll converts solar energy into chemical energy.
There are two photosytems, I and II. In each one, there are two types of chlorophyll, A and B. Chl. B surrounds A. Now then, when light hits photosystem II, it excites electrons in the photosystem. These are bounced around until they end up on the chlorophyll A molecule, which then throws it out of the photosystem. This electron passes through what is known as an electron transport chain, and something like 2 ATP is made. Then this electron enters photosystem I, bounces around until it gets to the A molecule in the center, it launched up again, and absorbed by (NADP?). But I'm too far ahead. Remember that first photosystem? Well, when that electron jumped out of it, it split water. This is possibly done by activating an enzyme or through the eletrical charge itself. Then you have 2Hsub2O yielding 2Hsub2 and Osub2. The Hydrogen is accepted by (NADP?) The oxygen will be incorporated into the Calvin Cycle, which makes the sugar molecules that provide the source for chemical energy, which is what the mitochondria does. The (NADP?) becomes NADPHsub2 at the end of all this, at which point it plays a role in the Calvin Cycle. Don't get me started on meiosis.
Oh, and you say a random, chance process did all this?!? ^^ How could it?
Not too far off, but ultraviolet radiation is nothing more than alpha radiation, if I remember correctly. Alpha radiation can be stopped by a piece of paper. Water breaks up Ultraviolet radiation, so in a deeper pool of water, the amino acids would be quite safe from the UV radiation. Again, this doesn't disprove evolution.
But then, ultraviolet rays of the sun break up water molecules, which would in effect release oxygen, which would kill the surrounding amino acids. This only goes to show how impossible the whole thing is, with or without oxygen in the atmosphere in the beginning.
Actually, it can. Do you realize how many simple organisms there are on this planet today? They outnumber the complex ones by a lot. Simple ones can also be simplified. Also, what if they lived at the same time? You use this same argument to say that Homo sapiens lived at the same time as Homo erectus, and thus we didn't come from this "simple" man. Parent species don't have to die out after a speciation event.
But why would these "parent" species be found in "more recent" layers than the daughter species?
No, evolution cannot. But paleontology can. Ever hear of Pompeii? That entire city was buried in a very short period of time (in less than an hour if I'm not mistaken), and everone in the city was preserved. This same phenomenon happens a lot with the fossil record, and a good thing to.
Have you considered that a massive, quick flood would explain this better? Then volcano eruptions and dust and wind and local floods... A massive flood would do this instantly, whereas local floods and small events wouldn't have much of the same power to do it.
Evolution does not require upgrading or degrading. (This one is refering to vestigial organs)
Then how did a single cell evolve into a human?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't your paper state that
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are two basic forms of evolution: microevolution, and macroevolution. Microevolution is just the variations within a kind of an organism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When trying to disprove something, or prove something, its best not to contradict yourself. It just doesn't add credibility to your argument. And unless I'm gravely mistaken, nothing I written here is a contradiction or one as big as the one you made in that paper.
That was not a contradiction. Didn't you read that part, where I said the evolution I will be referring to is macroevolution? So anywhere where I said "evolution", I was referring to macroevolution, therefore, that was not a contradiction.
I've answered this before. You know, about how humans actually have a small number of genes compared to simpler orgranisms, and how evolution doesn't require new information in the manner you mean.
Then how does a single cell evolve into a human, without great increases of new information?
By that same logic, the world should be overflowing with visible bacteria (visible because there are so many). It's called the carrying capacity of the environment, that it, how many organisms the environment can support. And we have a tendency to increase that with our agricultural methods. That began ten-thousand years ago (roughly the time of the agricultural revolution). Before then, we were hunter-gatherers, and that lends itself towards smaller, village like or less numbers in the community. In fact, even with agricuture, the carrying capacity didn't increase too much, as evidenced by the native americans, with a few notable exceptions. It wasn't until mechanized farming that the capactiy wildly increased. And since then, we have grown exponentially in population. Again, not a disprove of evolution.
It shows that evolution is flawed. I mean, if humans have been around for "millions" of years or something, then, according to average reproduction speed, we would have way too many humans!
As a final note. WHy the focus of plants and animals? You really should have included all the kingdoms, and if you want, I can dig through your paper again for more wrong stuff. I jsut spent over two hours on this set of roughly 27 quotes, but I know of more mistakes you made in the paper, I just didn't feel like going through them all.
You know what? Why did evolutionists only make up some charts for how animals evolved? Why didn't they make up a chart of how each plant evolved, and the common ancestors, etc.? Hmmm...
You may continue showing supposed "mistakes." I will continue defending myself. If you don't want to, you don't have to. But I'm ready if you want to. No problem.
Edited by Someone who cares, : Mistake.

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by kuresu, posted 06-09-2006 1:57 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by jar, posted 06-10-2006 12:09 AM Someone who cares has replied
 Message 196 by crashfrog, posted 06-10-2006 12:17 AM Someone who cares has replied
 Message 197 by kuresu, posted 06-10-2006 1:04 AM Someone who cares has replied
 Message 198 by ReverendDG, posted 06-10-2006 4:32 AM Someone who cares has replied
 Message 199 by Belfry, posted 06-10-2006 8:55 AM Someone who cares has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 195 of 302 (319834)
06-10-2006 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Someone who cares
06-09-2006 11:55 PM


Re: Allow me to defend myself
No, that's not what it means. But take the bacteria, and take a human, which has more genetic code information?
Well, I think I responded to that back in Message 161.
The human is about average for the lower end of critterdom, having about the same amount as corn or chimps, but certainly not as much as a lungfish, or common toad or amoeba.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Someone who cares, posted 06-09-2006 11:55 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 8:57 PM jar 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