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:   Where is the evidence for evolution?
hughboydint19
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 367 (32201)
02-14-2003 2:16 AM


Dear Dr.Borger
I am new here, but it seems that there is a lot of talk about your GUToB. Do you have any sort of publication that has a comprehensive description of your theory. I would very much like to see your theory as a whole.
Thanks

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


Message 169 of 367 (32205)
02-14-2003 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by DanskerMan
02-13-2003 11:49 PM


sonnikke writes:
Evidently (at least so I've been told many times) abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.
Not that they don't have anything to do with each other, but that they are not the same thing. When a Creationist says, "Evolution is impossible because life couldn't come from non-life," then it must be explained that evolution and abiogenesis are separate theories. But of course they're related to one another, they're even both within the same science of biology. A clarifying example might be physics and chemistry - two difference sciences, but they *are* related to one another.
Anyway, Scott was only pointing out that his probability explanation applies equally to both evolution and abiogenesis.
Something that isnt neutral, doesn't cause genetic disease or other harm, something that would add an entirely new function superior to any other equivalent function. I suppose that is what the creators of Spiderman, The Hulk, etc envisioned. And in comic book land, it works beautifully, but unfortunately not in this world.
And not in evolution, either. Spiderman and The Hulk "evolved" as individuals. In evolution individuals do not evolve. It is in the production of progeny, ie, reproduction, that evolution occurs. This is where genes are mixed (in sexual reproduction and gene sharing) and where mutations resident in the parents sexual gametes are passed on (only sexual reproduction, of course).
The point being made about beneficial mutations is that they are relative to the environment. If the first person who received the mutation causing sickle cell anemia lived in the northern regions then the mutation would not have been beneficial, but if he lived in equatorial Africa it would have been very beneficial since it confers some protection against maleria.
In other words, beneficial mutations are beside the point. Which mutations occur will be random, and whether the mutation is beneficial in the current environent will also be random. The important point is that each mutation represents an experiment by nature to fine-tune the organism to the environment. Most of the time the experiment fails, but every once in a while it succeeds, which is sufficient since these experiments are performed with every reproductive act, ie, quadrillions of times a day across the planet, at least.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by DanskerMan, posted 02-13-2003 11:49 PM DanskerMan has not replied

Zephan
Inactive Member


Message 170 of 367 (32212)
02-14-2003 6:59 AM


quote:
When a Creationist says, "Evolution is impossible because life couldn't come from non-life," then it must be explained that evolution and abiogenesis are separate theories
Why? That's a non-answer Percy, which clearly indicates a concession from the evolutionist that the creationist is correct on this point. The explanation of how non-life (a molten rock) creates life by itself is the logical imperative of evolution. Thus, it would be more profitable to scientifically explain, with the requisite peer-reviewed references of course, the possibility of non-life creating life naturally. Until then, the whole theory is suspect and the true skeptic will continue to wonder if such an event is even scientifically plausable under the circumstances of the naturalistic philosophy of evolution. Holding a belief in the clearly unnatural event of abiogenesis is as scientifically unreasonable as special creation. Science allows neither.
Meanwhile, SLPx's lottery example is as spurious an analogy one will ever come across. Comparing the mutations of populations with the non-populations of abiogenesis which have no mutations doesn't work. Even so, the alleged result of abiogenesis is a single self-reproducing organism yet to be defined (it has been said that later on it will turn into a fish, then a reptile, a mammal, a dinosaur, a bird, a banana, then a human). As such, there wouldn't be "millions of chances" each second on this one organism which randomly created itself from a molten rock; rather, the probability of evolutionary success would be defined in part by its reproductive cycle, which no one is saying occurs millions of times a second. Getting back to abiogenesis:
Where is the line of demarcation between abiogenesis and evolution?
Consider that 100 million chances a second for [precicely what to occur?]the infinite probability of abiogenesis even occurring is still a goose egg. Perhaps "millions of chances each second" (er, reference here please? or are we to assume this is a closely held non-scientific belief like the creationist?) referred to another phenomenon besides abiogenesis? Anyway, add that we don't have millions of seconds to work with since abiogenesis was apparently the most opportunistic of all events in the universe; re: without undue delay, taking advantage of the very earliest time possible to create itself from a rapidly cooling molten rock. In short, abiogenesis didn't have very much time to be such a huge success.
Most important, the bastard child of abiogenesis couldn't survive anyway, much less reproduce itself to create a population.
It is indeed a Thorn in the Side for the evolutionist.
Ouch!
However, I do admire the tenacious faith of the evolutionist in this area in light of the voluminous lack of evidence for abiogenesis.

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Percy, posted 02-14-2003 10:38 AM Zephan has not replied

Karl
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 367 (32213)
02-14-2003 7:38 AM


quote:
The explanation of how non-life (a molten rock) creates life by itself is the logical imperative of evolution.
So, if God supernaturally created the first life and then it evolved naturally, that wouldn't be evolution?
If it would be, then abiogenesis is not a logical imperative of evolution.

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Zephan, posted 02-14-2003 8:02 AM Karl has not replied

Zephan
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 367 (32215)
02-14-2003 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Karl
02-14-2003 7:38 AM


Karl,
So you agree that abiogenesis is as viable as special creation?
Are you now willing to embrace Intelligent Design and teach the same alongside abiogenesis?
Until you are, the only permissible logical imperative of evolution will continue to be abiogenesis.
It is nice to see an evolutionist open his/her mind to the possibility however. If only the olive branch was sincerely offered....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Karl, posted 02-14-2003 7:38 AM Karl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by mark24, posted 02-14-2003 9:13 AM Zephan has not replied

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


Message 173 of 367 (32219)
02-14-2003 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Zephan
02-14-2003 8:02 AM


Zephan,
quote:
So you agree that abiogenesis is as viable as special creation?
Are you now willing to embrace Intelligent Design and teach the same alongside abiogenesis?
Until you are, the only permissible logical imperative of evolution will continue to be abiogenesis.
It is nice to see an evolutionist open his/her mind to the possibility however. If only the olive branch was sincerely offered....
Evolution is consistent with the three possible alternatives, abiogenesis, intelligent design, & eternality of self replicators. Therefore, no one one of those is the only permissible logical imperative of evolution. Abiogenesis is separate to evolution. Evolution works no matter which one you pick.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Zephan, posted 02-14-2003 8:02 AM Zephan has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 174 of 367 (32223)
02-14-2003 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by peter borger
02-13-2003 8:21 PM


quote:
PB: Because the original allele is expressed and regulated. Do you wanna claim that an inactivated gene is information?
Why wouldn't it be? Unused information is still information.
If not, then GUToB better come up with a system whereby huge amounts of information can be generated ex nihilo in a living organsism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by peter borger, posted 02-13-2003 8:21 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by peter borger, posted 02-14-2003 11:33 AM derwood has replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 175 of 367 (32224)
02-14-2003 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by DanskerMan
02-13-2003 11:49 PM


quote:
Sonnike:
Evidently (at least so I've been told many times) abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.
It doesn't. I mention abiogenesis in reference to the calculations of its 'improbability' and the chances assigned to it. I hope this clarifies it for you.
quote:
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of couse, it is relatively easy to find a genetic cause for a disease. But do diseases take away limbs? That is, anti-evolution?
Since the claimed 'requirement' for evolution, as described by creationists, is 'beneficial mutations' that do things like produce 'new body parts', why then do not detrimental mutations - genetic diseases - cause a substraction of body parts?
Take away the ability to appreciate music, etc.?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How about loss of hearing, sight, loss of limbs due to deadly viruses. Would that count?
What 'deadly virus' did you have in mind?
If it was a 'deadly' virus, wouldn't the victim be... dead?
This is, of course, an attempt at diversion. Please address the substantive issues substantively instead of trying to go off on irrelevant tangents, or do not address anything at all.
quote:
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, please define for us YOUR use of "beneficial mutation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Something that isnt neutral, doesn't cause genetic disease or other harm, something that would add an entirely new function superior to any other equivalent function.
I suppose that is what the creators of Spiderman, The Hulk, etc envisioned. And in comic book land, it works beautifully, but unfortunately not in this world.
Does that suffice?
In com9ic book land, yes.
In real life, no.
As is so often the case, creationists make unrealistic demands via personal definitions.
Why an "entirely new" function?
Would not a function that works better also be caused by mutation?
Keep in mind of course that "mutation" involves more than single point mutations, which are what creationists usually like to argue about.
So, in the end, no, Son, your 'definition' does not suffice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by DanskerMan, posted 02-13-2003 11:49 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by DanskerMan, posted 02-14-2003 9:58 AM derwood has replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 176 of 367 (32225)
02-14-2003 9:55 AM


quote:
Zephan:
Meanwhile, SLPx's lottery example is as spurious an analogy one will ever come across. Comparing the mutations of populations with the non-populations of abiogenesis which have no mutations doesn't work.
And thus appears the sophistic bilge of the creationist.
I see the intent of my "analogy" shot skyward across your head, as well.
Of course, according to creationist electrical engineer and self-proclaimed information theoryu expert - who also boasts of having had 'advanced math' in college Fred Williams, as you exceed the odds, your chances become essentially 100%, and you have no chance until then. So, if the chances of winning the lottery are 1 in 100 million, according to Fred, the person buying the 100,000,001st ticket will be the winner.
Where were you when he offered this 'explanation'?
quote:
Even so, the alleged result of abiogenesis is a single self-reproducing organism yet to be defined (it has been said that later on it will turn into a fish, then a reptile, a mammal, a dinosaur, a bird, a banana, then a human).
"Turn into"? More sophistic gibberish. Too many creationist websites, I imagine.
quote:
As such, there wouldn't be "millions of chances" each second on this one organism which randomly created itself from a molten rock;
And here it is - MISREPRESENTATION!
Please point out where I mentioned "this one organism". And why do you keep mentioniung "molten rock"? Does misrepresenting reality nmake your comic book beliefs more palatable to the uninformed, perhaps (most likely) including yourself? It would appear so...
quote:
rather, the probability of evolutionary success would be defined in part by its reproductive cycle, which no one is saying occurs millions of times a second.
That is right, and it is not what I said either.
quote:
Getting back to abiogenesis:
Where is the line of demarcation between abiogenesis and evolution?
Consider that 100 million chances a second for [precicely what to occur?]the infinite probability of abiogenesis even occurring is still a goose egg.
So you say. Please provide the requisite peer reviewed publications supportive of your mere assertion.
quote:
Perhaps "millions of chances each second" (er, reference here please? or are we to assume this is a closely held non-scientific belief like the creationist?)
I have no ref - I assumed it. I am not so foolish as to presume that there was only one organism. Indeed, prior to 'life', there would have been no organisms at all, as I should have hoped would beself evident.
In order for "abiogenesis" to occur, - wait, what is your definition of abiogenesis?
Do you subscribe to the stupid "complete funbctioning cell sprining from nothing" version propogated by imbeciles from such scholarly institues as ICR? Or do you subscribe to a more rational model?
quote:
Anyway, add that we don't have millions of seconds to work with since abiogenesis was apparently the most opportunistic of all events in the universe; re: without undue delay, taking advantage of the very earliest time possible to create itself from a rapidly cooling molten rock. In short, abiogenesis didn't have very much time to be such a huge success.
Relevance of assertions and opinions? None.
quote:
Most important, the bastard child of abiogenesis couldn't survive anyway, much less reproduce itself to create a population.
If you say so. I guess you must have ultimate knowledge. Must be nice.
quote:
It is indeed a Thorn in the Side for the evolutionist.
Not really. Because no matter how creationists try to shoehorn disparate theories, they do not succeed.
Also I suggest that you actually read my post:
http://EvC Forum: Where is the evidence for evolution? -->EvC Forum: Where is the evidence for evolution?
your rant does not indicate that you did.
[This message has been edited by SLPx, 02-14-2003]

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 367 (32226)
02-14-2003 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by derwood
02-14-2003 9:32 AM


quote:
It doesn't. I mention abiogenesis in reference to the calculations of its 'improbability' and the chances assigned to it. I hope this clarifies it for you.
Zephan dealt with this impossible event(life from non-life) in an earlier post.
quote:
Would not a function that works better also be caused by mutation?
Okay, so that must be your definition. Now then, will you give me several examples of this kind of mutation?
Thanks,
S
------------------
Dr. D.M.S. Watson: "Evolution is accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Nature, Aug 10, 1929, p. 233

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by derwood, posted 02-14-2003 9:32 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by derwood, posted 02-14-2003 10:23 AM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 180 by Percy, posted 02-14-2003 10:51 AM DanskerMan has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 178 of 367 (32227)
02-14-2003 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by DanskerMan
02-14-2003 9:58 AM


quote:
Sonnike:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't. I mention abiogenesis in reference to the calculations of its 'improbability' and the chances assigned to it. I hope this clarifies it for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Zephan dealt with this impossible event(life from non-life) in an earlier post.
He did so exceedingly poorly.
quote:
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would not a function that works better also be caused by mutation?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, so that must be your definition. Now then, will you give me several examples of this kind of mutation?
Sure:
Are Mutations Harmful?
Now, will you provide citations by Gitt in the peer-reviewed literature in which one can see for themselves his "expertise" in biological information and how it is he is recognized as a 'world's leading information scientist'?
Or have you decided (smartly) to concede that argument?
[This message has been edited by SLPx, 02-14-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by DanskerMan, posted 02-14-2003 9:58 AM DanskerMan has not replied

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


Message 179 of 367 (32228)
02-14-2003 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Zephan
02-14-2003 6:59 AM


Zephan writes:
Why? That's a non-answer Percy, which clearly indicates a concession from the evolutionist that the creationist is correct on this point. The explanation of how non-life (a molten rock) creates life by itself is the logical imperative of evolution.
Others have already addressed this point, but if it's not beating a dead horse too severely let me address it in my own words. There's no concession. It is simply a fact that evolution tries to explain how new species arise from old species, which is life arising from life, while abiogenesis tries to explain how life arose from non-life. Once this is understood then it becomes clear why the statement "Evolution is impossible because life couldn't come from non-life" is nonsensical.
Meanwhile, SLPx's lottery example is as spurious an analogy one will ever come across. Comparing the mutations of populations with the non-populations of abiogenesis which have no mutations doesn't work.
You've misunderstood what was said. Scott was only pointing out that his probability explanation applies equally to both evolution and abiogenesis.
By the way, while you are probably correct to say that forms of non-life on their way to being life didn't experience mutations, you should qualify that to be "mutations in the sense of what we see in life". Life most likely did not arise from non-life in a single step, but through a long process of successive steps characterized by change and selection.
Even so, the alleged result of abiogenesis is a single self-reproducing organism yet to be defined (it has been said that later on it will turn into a fish, then a reptile, a mammal, a dinosaur, a bird, a banana, then a human). As such, there wouldn't be "millions of chances" each second on this one organism which randomly created itself from a molten rock; rather, the probability of evolutionary success would be defined in part by its reproductive cycle, which no one is saying occurs millions of times a second.
You began the paragraph with statements about populations, but completed it with this extended non-sequitur focusing on the individual. You needed to stick with populations if you're going to apply what I said about quadrillions of experiments per day across the planet. The genetic information for a species is represented by the genome of the species, which in a simplistic way can be thought of as the sum of all alleles across all genes of all individuals of the entire population. Each act of reproduction in the population represents a genetic experiment where, if we can stick to just asexual cell division reproduction for the sake of brevity and simplicity, errors in copying can occur. The offspring with copying error in an allele may be better suited, equally suited, or less suited to the existing environment. If better suited he'll have more offspring than those with the original allele, and the new allele will increase in representation in the genome of the population. If equally suited he'll have no better or worse change to reproduce than others of his species. And if less suited then he'll have less offspring than those with the original allele, and the new allele will be infrequently represented in the population, perhaps even become extinct. Indeed, if the new allele is fatal then it becomes extinct in its very first generation.
Where is the line of demarcation between abiogenesis and evolution?
When does a boy become a man? Where do the mountains meet the plain? As forms of non-life gradually changed over time they came to more and more resemble what we might identify today as life. At what point did it actually become life? Who could say for sure? Certainly there will be many opinions, and my own opinion is that anyone who attempts to draw a specific line is wrong.
Perhaps "millions of chances each second" (er, reference here please? or are we to assume this is a closely held non-scientific belief like the creationist?) referred to another phenomenon besides abiogenesis?
Hopefully by this point the "millions of chances each second" issue has been answered for you, but in case not, consider a population of some species of bacteria in a petri dish, say a million of them. Each cell division of one of our bacteria represents a genetic experiment because of the possibility of copying error. Let's say that on average this bacteria reproduces (ie, cell divides) every 4 hours. That would work out to around 280 cell divisions (genetic experiments) per second. Now add all the cell divisions/second of all the rest of the bacteria in the world outside our petri dish. You can also add all the acts of reproduction of all other non-bacterial species, but they probably won't contribute a significant amount more. I bet my guestimate of quadrillions per day is low.
But it isn't the specific numbers that are important. I only used specific numbers to improve clarity. What's important is the principles involved. While mutations that improve the ability of an organism to produce offspring are rare, the low probability is dwarfed when considered across the huge total number of mutations across all the acts of reproduction, making favorable mutations not only common but inevitable.
Look at it this way. If the odds of winning the lottery are 1 in a billion, and if you play the lottery a trillion times, how many times will you win? Answer: about a thousand times. What are the odds of you never winning? Pretty tiny!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Zephan, posted 02-14-2003 6:59 AM Zephan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by nator, posted 02-16-2003 9:54 PM Percy has not replied

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


Message 180 of 367 (32232)
02-14-2003 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by DanskerMan
02-14-2003 9:58 AM


sonnikke writes:
Zephan dealt with this impossible event(life from non-life) in an earlier post.
First, Zephan didn't deal with it. Unsupported assertions based on personal incredulity do not deal with anything. If you think he "dealt" with it then try reproducing his argument in your next post.
Second, since we don't know how abiogenesis happened, how could he address how possible/impossible it was?
Third, you've drifted off topic. Do you now understand that Scott was only saying that his probability explanation applied equally to both evolution and abiogenesis, not that evolution and abiogenesis are the same theory?
Okay, so that must be your definition. Now then, will you give me several examples of this kind of mutation?
In other words, you're asking for examples of beneficial mutations again. Does this mean that you now grant the possibility in principle of favorable mutations and are just looking for examples of it in the real world? Because if so then Scott's link (Are Mutations Harmful?) should complete this discussion for you.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by DanskerMan, posted 02-14-2003 9:58 AM DanskerMan has not replied

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


Message 181 of 367 (32239)
02-14-2003 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by derwood
02-14-2003 9:26 AM


Hi Page,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Because the original allele is expressed and regulated. Do you wanna claim that an inactivated gene is information?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page: Why wouldn't it be? Unused information is still information.
If not, then GUToB better come up with a system whereby huge amounts of information can be generated ex nihilo in a living organsism.
PB: It can be imagened that preexisting mechanism are operative to generate new genes. Through editing, reverse transcription and reinsertion into the genome. It already has been described for some trypanosomes. Why not for other MPGs?
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by derwood, posted 02-14-2003 9:26 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by derwood, posted 02-14-2003 12:22 PM peter borger has replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 182 of 367 (32246)
02-14-2003 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by peter borger
02-14-2003 11:33 AM


quote:
PB: Because the original allele is expressed and regulated. Do you wanna claim that an inactivated gene is information?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr.Page: Why wouldn't it be? Unused information is still information.
If not, then GUToB better come up with a system whereby huge amounts of information can be generated ex nihilo in a living organsism.
PB: It can be imagened that preexisting mechanism are operative to generate new genes.[/quote] It can also be imagined that monkeys flying out of your arse make mutations happen, but imagining something does not make it real. Like creatons, for example.
quote:
Through editing, reverse transcription and reinsertion into the genome. It already has been described for some trypanosomes. Why not for other MPGs?
Because real mechanisms of what amounts to recombination doe snot an MPG make.
I suggest you start anew in your quest, and start by reading for once the original Venter et al. Human Genome article in Science a couple of years ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by peter borger, posted 02-14-2003 11:33 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by peter borger, posted 02-17-2003 7:54 PM derwood 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