Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where is the evidence for evolution?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 213 of 367 (33233)
02-26-2003 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Percy
02-26-2003 8:28 AM


Not me, Guv!
I haven't been discussing the analogy, just commenting on Gitt and his "information theory". For some reason nobody wants to explain why Gitt's ideas are relevant to DNA - could it be that everyone already knows that they are not ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Percy, posted 02-26-2003 8:28 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by derwood, posted 02-26-2003 12:52 PM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 214 of 367 (33268)
02-26-2003 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Percy
02-26-2003 8:28 AM


Re: I'm not participating! Really!
quote:
I'm not participating in the discussion, so I reserve my right to moderate this thread. I'm only posting a clarification since my name was mentioned.
quote:
Sonnikke writes:
In conclusion, I think that the language analogy seems still relevant (as apparantly did Percy), and it also appears that mutations causing alleles are either harmful or neutral.
I love the language analogy because of its explanatory power, but no analogy is perfect, and this one is no exception, as Scott and PaulK point out. The only perfect analogy to something is the thing itself. All other things produce imperfect analogies and break down at some point.
Analogies are used not because they are proof or evidence, but because they help explain by putting a difficult concept into a familiar context. A common mistake that you see made here at EvC Forum is for something to be explained using an analogy, and then for the analogy to be attacked, as if breaking the analogy has any effect on the concept itself. That's not to say that false analogies can't be drawn, but even when that mistake is made it only means a mistake has been made in explication and doesn't mean the underlying concept is wrong. It certainly doesn't say it is right, either, but I just thought it was important to point out that I've seen a lot of false conclusions being drawn in discussions where analogies are used.
Indeed, as I explicitly stated, I use the language analogy to get the basic points across, but I also explain that above that level, the language analogy breaks down.
Unfortunately, many creationists - including those that should know better, such as the "information" hawks - either fail to grasp the limitations of the analogy or ignore tham and use it for propagandistic purposes.
I know this occurs - for I have explained the shortcomings of the analogy for, for example, gene duplication, and later seen the same creationist continue to use the language analogy to proclaim gene duplication damaging to evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Percy, posted 02-26-2003 8:28 AM Percy has not replied

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


Message 215 of 367 (33269)
02-26-2003 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by PaulK
02-26-2003 8:37 AM


Re: Not me, Guv!
quote:
I haven't been discussing the analogy, just commenting on Gitt and his "information theory". For some reason nobody wants to explain why Gitt's ideas are relevant to DNA - could it be that everyone already knows that they are not ?
Well, Sonnike dropped his argument from Gitt's "authority", so maybe it has sunk in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by PaulK, posted 02-26-2003 8:37 AM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 216 of 367 (33280)
02-26-2003 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by DanskerMan
02-25-2003 12:10 AM


questions
quote:
Sonnike:
Would you mind elaborating on these "exceptions"?
Yes, I would mind. I was being cautious and tentative when I wrote that. I do not know of any offhand, then, I have not looked into that aspect of duplication. I would say that an example could be Down's syndrome, though that is a bit different than 'mere' gene duplication.
However, since the example I gave referred to developmental genes, I think that it holds more import in this discussion (gene dup. as a mechanism of evolution while not necessarily adding information thereby refuting the "evolution requires new information" argument).
quote:
quote:
There are several ways that organisms control the amount of each gene product being expressed. For instance, we do not need or want huge amounts of growth hormone being produced all the time. There are feedback mechanisms, where, for example, the gene product itself or some metabolic byproduct either enhances or slows down further production.
There are ways to turn genes off permanently, such as those used during embryonic development. There are ways to turn genes off temporarily, and so on.
How does evolutionary thinking explain such control mechanisms?, ie. how they evolved.
I don't know, personally. I would assume, however, that the same way everything else did - mutation of some sort followed by selection of some sort.
quote:
Increasing the amount of gene product is not just like reading a sentence twice, at least not in most cases. There are interactions between proteins and other molecules, many of which are concentration dependant. Small amounts of protein X are fine, but double it and all sorts of new interactions occur.
In what cases is it like reading a sentence twice?[/quote] Why would that matter?
quote:
Can you post a link again to this mice experiment. In a search I found that the limbs got shorter but not longer.
No. I have citd on this forum a few times and I do not feel like finding it again.
------------------
Signature too long, 200 chars max.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by DanskerMan, posted 02-25-2003 12:10 AM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by DanskerMan, posted 02-26-2003 2:40 PM derwood has replied

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


Message 217 of 367 (33281)
02-26-2003 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by DanskerMan
02-25-2003 2:19 PM


quote:
sonnike:
I am simply acting like a curious student who asks many questions of his professor in trying to get a grasp of the whole picture being presented. Is questioning disallowed?
Not at all. But it seemed to me, as Percy rightly explained and I alluded to, that the questions were intended not to learn more, but to find ammunition.
On another forum, a creationist was aghast that I did not agree with his sentiment that there was nothing wrong with asking questions in class designed to make the professor look stupid (yes, those were his words - 'to make the prof look stupid.').
Can you see why I would not agree with that sentiment, and why I find litle reason to 'respect' someone that does?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by DanskerMan, posted 02-25-2003 2:19 PM DanskerMan has not replied

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


Message 218 of 367 (33283)
02-26-2003 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Admin
02-25-2003 4:56 PM


ahem...
quote:
Percy:
The last time Scott and I exchanged email I think he said something like, "You @#$%&*@%, how dare you suspend me, I'm never visiting your two-bit board again." (Sorry, Scott, couldn't resist )
I thought I sent that to moose?
Well, I was angry, for it seemed that I was getting made an example of.
Though I do not think I used the phras "two-bit"....
quote:
No, Scott and I are not communicating, I'm just reading what he wrote for everyone to see, including you, in Message 203: "Did you understand what I did write?" That's why I said Scott has no idea whether you understood his explanation, because he said so openly, not because we're secretly plotting against you. As Admin I'm neutral on the issues, but highly biased against obfuscated discussion. Only in that sense am I taking sides.
Indeed. I hate to keep bringing up other boards, but in my experiences elsewhere, I have found nice examples of many of the things that get brought up here.
There is a poster named "bertvan." She is active of the ARN forum now, and used to be very active on the old, old incarnation of the Internet Infidels board several years ago. She was probably the most frustrating creationist I have encountered. These were the days when I would take sometimes hours to dig up refs and write lengthy posts to support my points. Bertvan would ask some question (or more usually, a series of questions), I (and others) would take the time to address each of them in detail, and she would blow off 99% of your post, and just focus on some minor trivial point, or ask more questions on just one of the many responses, then refuse to even entertain the other informaiton provided to her. (She still does this - she is now a proponant of EAM, which is similar in a way to GUToB except without the imaginary particles. One of the basic tenets of EAM is directed mutations. Back when I posted on ARN, I provided with a list of citations similar to the one I provided Borger on how these mutations do not occur. She ignored it. she has recently been presented with similar lists on many occasions. She drops the thread, only to bring up the same issue later...).
Sonnike is not yet to that stage, but he is getting there.
We are getting along much better, but it is difficult to keep it up when the opponent refuses to discuss the issues they bring up...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Admin, posted 02-25-2003 4:56 PM Admin has not replied

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


Message 219 of 367 (33285)
02-26-2003 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by DanskerMan
02-26-2003 2:00 AM


HOX
quote:
quote:
SLP:
For example, I have posted here on more than one occasion (I think) a citation for a paper in which some experimentation had been done in mice on their HOX 11 gene, which is involved in development. Introducing mutations in the gene caused, as one might expect, deformities in the mouse pups. However, when the invesigators added a second, non-mutated copy of the gene, not only were the defects 'corrected', but phenotypic changes were introduced. If I recall, these included some extra vertebrae and longer limbs.
In this example alone, we see a demonstration of the fallacy of the language analogy. Writing a sentence twice will not change its meaning, at best just the emphasis (as has 'explained' to me by a creationist "information hawk"). However, duplicating a gene can definitely have significant phenotypic effects.
Let me give this a shot. An allele is a copy of a gene with a slight variation in the DNA sequence. Genes code for proteins which have stuctural, functional and regulatory roles in our bodies.
You are saying that alleles can cause significant phenotypic changes in an organism, and that is why it is different than two almost identical sentences. Okay so far?
I think so...
quote:
However, copy errors in sentences could have significant effects depending on the message in the sentence (ie. changing "hug" to "mug"). Furthermore, according to this link
http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/...s/bodypatterns/mutation.cfm
it was a "downward" change due to the mutated gene (ie. loss of function), not longer limbs as you said (also no mention of vertebrae).

Duplication of the Hoxd11 gene causes alterations in the axial and appendicular skeleton of the mouse.
: Boulet AM, Capecchi MR.
: Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Department of Human Genetics, University of Utah, School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-5331, USA.
: The Hox genes encode a group of transcription factors essential for proper development of the mouse. Targeted mutation of the Hoxd11 gene causes reduced male fertility, vertebral transformation, carpal bone fusions, and reductions in digit length. A duplication of the Hoxd11 gene was created with the expectation that the consequences of restricted overexpression in the appropriate cells would provide further insight into the function of the Hoxd11 gene product. Genetic assays demonstrated that two tandem copies of Hoxd11 were functionally indistinguishable from the normal two copies of the gene on separate chromosomes with respect to formation of the axial and appendicular skeleton. Extra copies of Hoxd11 caused an increase in the lengths of some bones of the forelimb autopod and a decrease in the number of lumbar vertebrae...
"Give me a hug"
"Give me a mug"
"Make a limb this long"
"Mak a limb that long"
The two are not really directly analogous.
"Give me a hug""Give me a hug" = the guy really wants a hug
HOX11D = x-number of vertebrae, limb length Y
HOX11D HOX11D = x-n number of vertebrae, limb length Y+n
Not analogous, either.
As I said, the language analogy is good fopr getting basic points across, not very good as describing events related to complex gene action/evolution.
quote:
Also according to this: http://genetics.gsk.com/link.htm, Most diseases are related in some way to our genes. The information contained in our genes is so critical that simple changes can lead to a severe inherited disease, make us more inclined to develop a chronic disease, or make us more vulnerable to an infectious disease.
Scientists currently believe that single gene mutations cause approximately 6,000 inherited diseases. These diseases are called single gene or monogenic diseases because a change in only one gene causes the disease.
Now, you were also talking about a directed experiment and not a naturally occurring event, correct?
And this questionis leading where?
Yes, it was a "directed" experiment - how else are experiments to be done?
However, gene duplications happen all by themselves. LOTS of them. In fact, huge blocks of the human genome are the result of large scale duplications.
quote:
In conclusion, I think that the language analogy seems still relevant (as apparantly did Percy), and it also appears that mutations causing alleles are either harmful or neutral.
Percy agrees, it seems to me, with me on the analogy issue.
It appeas that the mutations we can characterize are either neutral of harmful.
This is the question I have asked many a creationist - how do we find beneficial mutations?
It is easy (relatively speaking) to find the genetic componant of disease. But how do we find the genetic componant behind, say, not getting a disease? (actually, this has been done - a mutation in a cell surface receptor allowed many to avoid plague in the 1600s, and that allele now confers similar health benefits to the descendants of those with the allele; also, similar mutations confer immunity to HIV infection).
The evidence that gene duplications etc. can and do cause phenotypic change is there. That a human is not born with wings or some such nonsense is not evidence that beneficial mutations do not occur.
I will grant you this - at least you are getting some non-biased information for a change. That is a good start.
Now throw out your Gitt book....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by DanskerMan, posted 02-26-2003 2:00 AM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by DanskerMan, posted 02-26-2003 2:52 PM derwood has replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 220 of 367 (33287)
02-26-2003 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by derwood
02-26-2003 2:05 PM


S:How does evolutionary thinking explain such control mechanisms?, ie. how they evolved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SLPx:I don't know, personally. I would assume, however, that the same way everything else did - mutation of some sort followed by selection of some sort.
In other words, this is pure faith in the hopeful powers of mutation and natural selection. I appreciate your honesty, but it really leaves me asking why don't you want to know for sure.
Is this something science is basically silent on? Evo's are always challenging creationists to provide solid evidence and proof. It's becoming apparant that there is a lot more "faith" in the "scientific" community about certain things, than is openly admitted to. Am I correct?
You didn't really respond to my latest posting, from last night, did you see it?
Also, I'm thankful were getting along better too. I'm honestly not out to make anyone look stupid. I think there are a lot of unanswered questions, and obviously the answers aren't known yet.
We'll keep talking.
Regards,
S
------------------
Signature too long, 200 chars max.
p.s. sorry, just as I posted this I saw your response..stand by.
p.p.s I see "they" are now limiting our signatures.... grrr
[This message has been edited by sonnikke, 02-26-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by derwood, posted 02-26-2003 2:05 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by derwood, posted 02-26-2003 3:05 PM DanskerMan has replied
 Message 225 by Admin, posted 02-26-2003 10:19 PM DanskerMan has replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 367 (33289)
02-26-2003 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by derwood
02-26-2003 2:36 PM


Now throw out your Gitt book....
Actually I have a confession....I don't have Gitt's book or Spetner's...I want to get them though. maybe then I'll be able to respond better to the Gitt remarks.
"Give me a hug"
"Give me a mug"
"hug her"
"mug her"
entirely different and not easily deduced. Right?
Regards,
S

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by derwood, posted 02-26-2003 2:36 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by derwood, posted 02-26-2003 3:09 PM DanskerMan has not replied

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


Message 222 of 367 (33291)
02-26-2003 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by DanskerMan
02-26-2003 2:40 PM


you are doing it again...
quote:
S:How does evolutionary thinking explain such control mechanisms?, ie. how they evolved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SLPx:I don't know, personally. I would assume, however, that the same way everything else did - mutation of some sort followed by selection of some sort.
In other words, this is pure faith in the hopeful powers of mutation and natural selection. I appreciate your honesty, but it really leaves me asking why don't you want to know for sure.
Pardon my frankness, but it is this kind of bullshit response that formulates my negative impressions of creationists.
The objective reader will notice that I wrote the word personally. That means that I, SLP, PERSONALLY do not have that information handy to disseminate.
It does not mean that there is no answer at all or never will be, nor does it mean that I don't "want" to know the answer, it just means that I do not PERSONALLY have that information.
Let me explain something to you, Sonnike:
Despite the fact that the creationist propagandists at AIG and such will write about any and every topic under the sun and present themselves as being 'experts' therein, any field of science is prohibitively large and broad to allow any one person to be 'expert' or even knowledgible in all areas, even those closely related to their true area of expertise.
The question you are asking is a theoretical one - you asked for how "evolutionary thinking" explains it. You said nothing about "evidence". You said nothing about "proof." You said "thinking." I am not involved in that line of "thinking." And so, being much more honest than the ReMine's and Sarfati's of the world, I simply say that I PERSONALLY do not know, and then I give my assumption - my 'thinking.'
Then, as a good little creationist is wont to do, you try to turn it into some idiotic "look - you just take it on FAITH blah blah blah" BS.
How is it again that I am supposed to respond to you when you pull this sort of crap every other message? With "respect"?
quote:
Is this something science is basically silent on?
See above
quote:
Evo's are always challenging creationists to provide solid evidence and proof. It's becoming apparant that there is a lot more "faith" in the "scientific" community about certain things, than is openly admitted to. Am I correct?
You are quite wrong.
Again, that I or some specific individual does not have a ready-made answer to any and every question that some creationist can come up with is hardly indicative of the status of an entire scientific field. To imply as much is indictive not of someone trying to learn, but of someone trying to validate their own preconceived notions - of someone more interested in proselytizing and propagandizing than learning.
quote:
You didn't really respond to my latest posting, from last night, did you see it?
Are you kidding me?
Shall I go back through this thread alone and ask you why you did not respond to all of the points that I brought up?
I can guarantee that my list would be about an order of magnitude longer than yours...
quote:
Also, I'm thankful were getting along better too. I'm honestly not out to make anyone look stupid. I think there are a lot of unanswered questions, and obviously the answers aren't known yet.
Maybe you spoke too soon.
I am willing to keep this civil, but this conclusion jumping and ammo-searching needs to stop.
AGAIN, that I PERSONALLY do not have an answer to your every question cannot by any stretch of the imagination be construed to mean that there is some "crisis" in evolution or that all evolutionists just take everything on "faith."
I am not a pharmacologist, but I still take penicillin if I have strep throat. Does that mean that I am just taking it on faith?
That if I - or more analogous, the pharmacist - cannot explicitly and immediately explain exactly how this penicillin will help me fight off the streptococci in my throat that the whole pharmaceutical industry is premised on nothing more than faith?
Come on, Son....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by DanskerMan, posted 02-26-2003 2:40 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by DanskerMan, posted 02-26-2003 4:35 PM derwood has not replied

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


Message 223 of 367 (33292)
02-26-2003 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by DanskerMan
02-26-2003 2:52 PM


quote:
Son:
"hug her"
"mug her"
entirely different and not easily deduced. Right?
Give me a biological example of what you are getting at and I will try to address your question, bert.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by DanskerMan, posted 02-26-2003 2:52 PM DanskerMan has not replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 224 of 367 (33296)
02-26-2003 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by derwood
02-26-2003 3:05 PM


Excuse me?
I'm not even going to quote that ranting scenario you just exhibited.
Your accusations are projections of the same kind of questioning/statements that evo's are "guilty" of.
Apparantly I touched on a very sensitive nerve which I "obviously" shouldn't have. It is not only discouraging but also dissatisfying to receive such insulting responses to what I genuinely meant as honest inquiry.
If you want to live in your own little world and not talk to anyone else who differs from you or questions your beliefs, then frankly I am at a loss as to why you even bother.
Do you think I am just going to say, "gee Dr. Page, you're right, evolutionism is the answer". No, and I don't expect you to do the opposite. What I did expect was the same kind of honesty you briefly showed, but apparantly you felt that it threatened your community.
I'm trying more and more to answer your questions, which requires much research and learning on my behalf, as I have not been schooled in genetics for years and years.
If you or anyone, can't take a little questioning without fearing your paradigm is lost, well, then maybe it's time to re-think your paradigm.
Sonnikke

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by derwood, posted 02-26-2003 3:05 PM derwood has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 225 of 367 (33315)
02-26-2003 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by DanskerMan
02-26-2003 2:40 PM


Hi Sonnikke,
I saw Scott's reply to this message, and your reply to his reply. Scott's post *was* a rant, but it was also accurate. Look at your reply again:
Sonnikke writes:
S:How does evolutionary thinking explain such control mechanisms?, ie. how they evolved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SLPx:I don't know, personally. I would assume, however, that the same way everything else did - mutation of some sort followed by selection of some sort.
In other words, this is pure faith in the hopeful powers of mutation and natural selection. I appreciate your honesty, but it really leaves me asking why don't you want to know for sure.
Is this something science is basically silent on? Evo's are always challenging creationists to provide solid evidence and proof. It's becoming apparant that there is a lot more "faith" in the "scientific" community about certain things, than is openly admitted to. Am I correct?
As Scott has already explained, these conclusions and questions don't follow from Scott not knowing something, and when inserted into the middle of what was becoming a serious and productive discussion it just looks like you're looking for the faintest excuse to declare evolution faith-based and be done with it.
Look at it this way. Ask yourself if you know everything about your religion. You don't, do you. Maybe there's an area of your religion that you're an expert in, but you're not an expert in all of it, are you. You rely on other experts in other areas, don't you. You rightly believe that the religious questions you don't have answers for *do* have answers, and that the experts in those other areas could provide those answers were they available to ask. And the fact that you personally do not know everything about your religion does not mean your beliefs are founded upon nothing but faith with no evidence or reason, does it. And you'd think it pretty rude if someone inserted such a conclusion into the middle of a serious discussion, wouldn't you.
I hope you two can resume the discussion.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by DanskerMan, posted 02-26-2003 2:40 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by DanskerMan, posted 02-28-2003 1:01 AM Admin has replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 226 of 367 (33402)
02-28-2003 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Admin
02-26-2003 10:19 PM


SLPx:I don't know, personally. I would assume, however, that the same way everything else did - mutation of some sort followed by selection of some sort.
Let me try again.....I'm really not quite sure how to respond to a statement like Scott's.
Admin, if you'd indulge me, pretend you are a creationist for a moment, how would you respond to Scott's statement?
Thanks,
Sonnikke
p.s. I'm serious about this request.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Admin, posted 02-26-2003 10:19 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by PaulK, posted 02-28-2003 2:34 AM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 228 by Quetzal, posted 02-28-2003 7:35 AM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 230 by Admin, posted 02-28-2003 9:21 AM DanskerMan has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 227 of 367 (33407)
02-28-2003 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by DanskerMan
02-28-2003 1:01 AM


Speaking personally I would say that an honest and rational creationist - indeed any honest and rational human being - would have to admit that there was insufficient information to come to any reliable conclusion.
Any pro-creation response would have to be a "God of the Gaps" type argument with no better foundation than personal incredulity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by DanskerMan, posted 02-28-2003 1:01 AM DanskerMan 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