Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9181 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,280 Year: 5,537/9,624 Month: 562/323 Week: 59/143 Day: 2/19 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Logic
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 49 of 302 (318527)
06-07-2006 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Someone who cares
06-07-2006 12:01 AM


I think you missed something very important.
I think you missed something very important - reptiles do have follicles - scale follicles. I mean, did you miss this? It's from the very article you link to:
quote:
Epidermis: characterized by complete covering of keratin (the same stuff that makes up mammalian hair and mammalian, avian, and reptilian nails/claws also makes up the plates we call "scales").
That would seem to undercut almost every conclusion in your post.
But you cannot prove this. "Almost certainly" doesn't cut it.
Almost certain isn't good enough for you to come to a conclusion? Even about stuff that happened so long ago?
Why the high standards? Why so high only for evolution stuff? I'm fairly certain that you don't apply this same standard to anything else, do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 12:01 AM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 12:23 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 77 of 302 (318638)
06-07-2006 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Rob
06-07-2006 12:54 AM


As you eluded to 'swc', if evolution is true, we need evidence of an increase in genetic information. We can test and find over and over in the lab that mutations cause a loss of information.
That's a common misperception. Actually, quite the opposite is true - we observe that mutations cause a gain in genetic "information." New genes and novel structures develop through mutation, and are refined through natural selection.
Can you imagine the problem (in evolutionary terms) for the first asexual creature that evolved into a heterosexual creature?
No, because the gulf between sexuality and asexuality is not nearly as large as you think. Almost all asexual creatures still have some means of genetic exchange with their conspecifics. The first sexual organism might simply have lost the ability to recieve certain kinds of genetic "payloads", without losing the ability to transmit them.
Even assuming that is possible, I'm no geneticist, but the amount of genetic information needed to produce these organs is enormous
It isn't, actually. The major discovery of the Human Genome Project was how few genes it actually takes to "construct" a human being - less than 25,000 if I remember correctly. That's 20 times less than the number of genes in an onion, or a staggering 200 times less genes than it takes to describe an amoeba. Information-wise, our genome is not significantly more complex than the genome of Drosophila melanogaster, the common fruit (or vinegar) fly.
My certainty is only proportionate to my capacity to 'reason' objectively.
Much like Aristotle, your mistake is that you believe you can simply reason your way to truth about the natural world. This idea has been discredited for centuries. Empiricism, not deduction, is the key for understanding the truth about the natural world. Until you educate yourself in the field of genetics, your conclusions about genetics - no matter your ability to "reason" objectively - will not be correct.
Dna is the most complex language in the known universe!
Like this, for instance. Absolutely wrong. DNA is a remarkably simple language. Here it is:
Four base nucleotide "letters"; three letters for every "word" in the language. Each word either stands for one of 20 amino acids used in our bodies to construct proteins, or it stands for "stop" - the end of the polypeptide sequence. It's not at all complex. I've just showed you how to read DNA. If I can do that over the internet, how complex can it really be?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Rob, posted 06-07-2006 12:54 AM Rob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Wounded King, posted 06-07-2006 8:46 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 81 of 302 (318656)
06-07-2006 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Wounded King
06-07-2006 8:46 AM


To be fair the codon table is not really adequate.
It's a start, though. When most people say "DNA is a complex language", what they're actually saying is "I have absolutely no idea how DNA works."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Wounded King, posted 06-07-2006 8:46 AM Wounded King has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 90 of 302 (318761)
06-07-2006 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Rob
06-07-2006 9:18 AM


Not without the rest of the cell components.
Oh, nonsense. The fact that you can get DNA to replicate itself with nothing more than some nucleotide bases and some Tac polymerase is what has made modern DNA analysis possible. If we couldn't get DNA to replicate outside of a cell, you wouldn't be able to do those genetic tests you see on CSI, or do paternity testing, or perform the kind of phylogenetics work my wife does.
Evolution is a theory that is testable. The testing and evidence just don't support it.
More nonsense. The tests do support it.
Why don't you post exactly what tests you're referring to? What tests has evolution failed, specifically?
Here's a sample of quotes:
A bunch of quotes absent their original context don't mean anything. And it's not terribly honest. I could quote you out of context, piece together statements that you actually posted, and make it seem like you support evolution. Wouldn't be that hard, actually.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Rob, posted 06-07-2006 9:18 AM Rob has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 122 of 302 (319311)
06-08-2006 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 9:27 PM


Re: Great example
Those creatures could not have evolved into whales because there are limits in variation, which would not permit this type of change.
Where do you observe evidence for these limits, and how do you make predictions about what variation is and is not allowed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 9:27 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:31 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 131 of 302 (319344)
06-08-2006 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 10:09 PM


Re: bump for SWC
But those little microevolution changes would not be adding up to macroevolution, they don't add up to it, they can't, really
Sure they can.
See how much fun this is, when both of us make assertions and then don't provide anything to prove them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:09 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:49 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 136 of 302 (319356)
06-08-2006 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 10:28 PM


Re: bump for SWC
It has no transitional forms to show us macroevolution.
Sure it does. The transitional forms are the families, taxons, creatures etc that you refer to - the ones that appear suddenly.
Why wouldn't the transitional forms appear suddenly? You say those two things like they're mutually inconsistent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:28 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:56 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 138 of 302 (319359)
06-08-2006 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 10:31 PM


Re: Great example
Fish have remained humans.
I think you meant "fish have remained fish."
But, yeah. Here's the thing - there's more different breeds of dogs now than before. There's more different species of monkey now than before. There's more families of fish now than before.
There's more different kinds of mammals now than before. More different kinds of plants. More different kinds of everything. That's the definition, and proof, of evolution. Evolution is not one organism changing into another. It's populations of species giving rise to new species. "Mammal" used to encompass a single species. Now it encompasses thousands. There used to be one kind of insect. Now there are millions.
That's evolution. And when we see new species arise, even now, that's observing evolution in action.
And you still haven't answered my question. Instead, you're reasoning circularly - your proof that evolution can't happen is because there's this barrier. But your proof that the barrier exists is your assertion that evolution can't happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:31 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 11:05 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 153 of 302 (319390)
06-08-2006 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 11:05 PM


Re: Great example
No, that is not macroevolution. That is variations within a kind.
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."
Yes, I believe that originally, all dog species probably came from one dog type, but that's still dogs! Not like they evolved into a different creature!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 11:05 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Someone who cares, posted 06-09-2006 10:27 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1585 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

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 196 of 302 (319835)
06-10-2006 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Someone who cares
06-09-2006 11:55 PM


Re: Allow me to defend myself
But then, ultraviolet rays of the sun break up hydrogen molecules, which would in effect release oxygen, which would kill the surrounding amino acids.
You really need to look stuff up while you're typing it, because this sentence doesn't make a lick of sense. "Hydrogen molecules" don't contain oxygen.
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...
And this? I mean, what are you talking about? Of course there's charts for how plants evolved. Plant evolution is a huge deal, particularly in agroscience, where it's super-important. There's a lot of work being done on plant evolution.
You really need to be checking your statements more carefully.

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 234 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 9:00 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 200 of 302 (319920)
06-10-2006 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by ReverendDG
06-10-2006 4:32 AM


Defending plants
they have, but plants have less features than animals and evolve at a slower rate, i figure because they can't move much. i've seen "trees" for non-seed plants and seed-plants. the thing is we don't learn all that much from plants evolution so why make priorities about something that really doesn't progress us in understanding?
Damn, why all the hating on plants all of a sudden? "Less features"? "Don't learn all that much?"
I get it that plants are a lot less sexy, but if you like to eat, thank a plant and the people who study them. And they're no slouch in the features department, either.
Norman Borlaug studied plants. As a result of what he learned he saved over a billion human lives. "Don't learn all that much?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by ReverendDG, posted 06-10-2006 4:32 AM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Belfry, posted 06-10-2006 3:24 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 223 by ReverendDG, posted 06-10-2006 8:10 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 202 of 302 (319938)
06-10-2006 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Rob
06-10-2006 10:59 AM


Re: on pairs and tells
Technical mumbo jumbo, dumbo...
Gosh, you mean to say that a discussion of scientific findings became technical? Who would have thought?
Look, if you want to understand the issues at hand, here, you're going to have to get over your deep hatred for all things intellectual.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Rob, posted 06-10-2006 10:59 AM Rob has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 221 of 302 (320180)
06-10-2006 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Someone who cares
06-10-2006 7:28 PM


Re: "Macro"evolution still undefined.
Would you be willing to explain to me how tiny variations within the kind could accumulate to make a new kind?
When one group acccumulates enough change that it's sufficiently different from other groups within the same kind, it's in a new kind. In other words:
We have a kind called "wobbles", containing all wobbles. Wobbles live in the east and the west, but they're all wobbles. But a mudslide seperates all the wobbles into two groups that, now, can't have anything to do with each other. The eastern wobbles change, over time, in different ways than the western wobbles do. The eastern wobbles become tall and thin, and the western wobbles become short and furry. Eventually the mudslide clears, but neither side recognizes the other as fellow wobbles - they're too different - and they keep their distance.
Where there was once only plain-old wobbles, taxonomists now recognize two new kinds of wobbles - Wobblus orientalis, the tall thin wobble, and Wobblus occidentalis, the short furry wobble. The wobble kind now contains two new kinds of wobbles. Wobbologists analyze their evolutionary history and discover that these two kinds of wobbles are both decended from a common ancestor, which was of the wobble kind but wasn't in either of the two current wobble sub-kinds.
What once might have been a species - wobble - is now a genus, the next-highest category, because it contains two kinds of its own, that are new. Both those new kinds of wobble arose from a kind that they still belong to, but an ancestor that wasn't a member of either of those kinds.
Hierarcheal classification of species. Pretty simple, when you think about it.
I still repeat my claim, no one has yet shown me a transitional fossil that is undebatable, and no one can.
Adelobasileus cromptoni. There. That's an undebateable transitional organism from the fossil record.
Someone said we cannot rely on AIG for information. I said, that I could use the same reasoning and say we cannot rely on TO.
No, you can't. You can't employ the same reasoning. The reason that you cannot rely on Answers in Genesis for information is because the "information" they promulgate is objectively wrong, a fact which they're aware of. It's definately been demonstrated to the AiG crew over and over again, so we know that they're dishonestly promulgating information that they know is wrong. Moreover, AiG does not employ persons who are experts in the fields in which they comment.
The same cannot be said of talkorigins.org. The information at talkorigins.org is objectively accurate, and when any inaccuracies are discovered, the talkorigins crew corrects them, regardless of who pointed out the error. The contributors to talkorigins are persons with advanced degrees and research experience in the fields in which they contribute.
Objectively, the information from AiG is not reliable, whereas the information from Talkorigins is. So you can't turn the reasoning around. You can't simply dismiss TO because they're pro-evolution, because we're not dismissing AiG simply because they oppose evolution. We dismiss AiG because their resources are objectively wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 7:28 PM Someone who cares has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1585 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 248 of 302 (320360)
06-11-2006 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Someone who cares
06-11-2006 12:19 AM


Re: Allow me to defend myself
Do you have some elbow room? Then there are not too many humans on the earth. Unless you have every square meter of space near you filled with humans, one human per square meter, for miles away, then we do not have way too many humans.
Um...
If we've got humans standing on every square meter of the Earth, where are we going to grow all the food?
Or did it escape your notice that human beings have to eat?
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Someone who cares, posted 06-11-2006 12:19 AM Someone who cares 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