Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Study of Intelligent Design Debate
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7884 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 151 of 210 (3593)
02-06-2002 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by mark24
02-06-2002 8:44 PM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
Unfortunately, those long boring experiments are exactly what provide evidence for evolution. If you can't understand them yet, perhaps you should hold judgement on your Dwarves & Elves.
We do have different races, & pygmies & caucasians look at least as different as dwarves & elves, I think you'll find.
There is morpholological, immunological sera reaction, gene sequence, protein amino acid sequence, Pseudogene loci commonality, retroviral insertion loci commonality, non-coding interspersed elements commonality, providing evidence of common descent of primates. Such evidences, used singly, all produce remarkably similar phylogenies (evolutionary trees), when compared to each other.
Why would that be? Can you give an answer that explains all of these evidences away, in a manner that doesn't imply common descent?
It's going to take a lot more than the baseless assertion that it would be "different without ID", to make science look up from it's collectice bunsen burners & test tubes.
Mark
ps FYI, the plural of Dwarf, is Dwarfs, not Dwarves (according to Tolkien), for some wierd reason!

well there were some experiments that i was linked to that were several pages long and difficult to understand. werent pygmies a result of breeding rather than evolution? i dont know much about them.
well its tolkien's world so tolkien can do whatever he wants :-). i havent read tolkien's books but i do play dungeons and dragons and it uses dwarves and so do a few other games, like utopia (games.swirve.com/utopia). so take your pick.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by mark24, posted 02-06-2002 8:44 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by mark24, posted 02-07-2002 5:01 AM KingPenguin has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 210 (3602)
02-06-2002 11:05 PM


Hm.. ok, I'm at a loss here, I missed quite a few posts, so what is it we are trying to prove happend, prove feasability, give evidence of, and whatever is up the sleves of you people now?
------------------

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by KingPenguin, posted 02-06-2002 11:14 PM TrueCreation has not replied

KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7884 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 153 of 210 (3604)
02-06-2002 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by TrueCreation
02-06-2002 11:05 PM


why humans arent drastically different than eachother. like the differences between humanoids in tolkien's books.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by TrueCreation, posted 02-06-2002 11:05 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by gene90, posted 02-06-2002 11:25 PM KingPenguin has not replied
 Message 156 by joz, posted 02-07-2002 12:18 AM KingPenguin has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 154 of 210 (3606)
02-06-2002 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by KingPenguin
02-06-2002 11:14 PM


The last other species of human was killed off thousands of years ago. And a few thousand years in a species with a generation span of a couple decades or so is not sufficient to cause speciation. Particularly when there isn't so much isolation between populations.
By the way, people would be unlikely to ever diverge like that in Middle Earth without complete isolation between populations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by KingPenguin, posted 02-06-2002 11:14 PM KingPenguin has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 210 (3608)
02-06-2002 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by KingPenguin
02-06-2002 9:59 PM


Um bud Hom. sap. (i.e. homo sapiens) is human.....
So asking if hom. sap. has been around to become human is a bit of a silly question.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by KingPenguin, posted 02-06-2002 9:59 PM KingPenguin has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 210 (3620)
02-07-2002 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by KingPenguin
02-06-2002 11:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
why humans arent drastically different than eachother. like the differences between humanoids in tolkien's books.
Ok lets take the example of humans and orcs from Tolkiens books
First there were humans then some big evil git (either Morgoth or Sauron can`t remember which) took some men and "twisted" them to form orcs IOW he *designed* orcs and took some material, men, and made them....
So if to form a new species takes design (as in Tolkiens work) how is it a valid argument to claim that because there is no such speciation of humans there must be design.... Surely in the (rather unlikely) case that Tolkiens work is a highly accurate portrayl of how speciation occurs the opposite conclusion would be far more logical.....
(added by edit having thought about it some more I think Tolkien had orcs created fom elves and trolls from humans or something like that.... The basic proceedure remains the same though.)
[This message has been edited by joz, 02-07-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by KingPenguin, posted 02-06-2002 11:14 PM KingPenguin has not replied

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


Message 157 of 210 (3629)
02-07-2002 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by KingPenguin
02-06-2002 10:06 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
well there were some experiments that i was linked to that were several pages long and difficult to understand. werent pygmies a result of breeding rather than evolution? i dont know much about them.

It occurred to me that I wasn't clear when I mention Pygmies. I meant Pygmy HUMANS.
http://www.historywiz.com/pygmies.htm
"Indigenous peoples known as Pygmies live in the tropical rain forests of Central Africa, Southeast Asia, New Guinea, and the Philippines. They are the earliest known inhabitants of the Congo Basin in Africa and are estimated to number 150,000 to 300,000. The best-known tribe, the Mbuti or Bambuti, are the shortest of all human groups, averaging near 51 inches in height.
Adults usually grow to be only three or four feet tall. In fact, their name, "Pygmy," is derived from the Greek word, pyme, which means "a cubit in height." "
Pygmies are the result of evolution, as a response to the vagaries of their environment, & not selective breeding.
http://www.humanevolution.net/a/pygmy.html
"In this scenario, small body size was specifically selected for in the pygmies in order to increase the amount of surface area available for heat loss via convection cooling. The unlikelihood of losing sufficient heat by this mechanism in the hot, humid rainforest has resulted in a shift toward the view that small size was selectively advantageous due to the absolutely (though not relatively) lower levels of heat production (e.g., Cavalli-Sforza, 1986; see also Lewin, 1991)." (Shea, B.T. & Bailey, R.C. (1996) Allometry and adaptation of body proportions and stature in African pygmies. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 100(3): pp. 332)"
quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:

without ID humans would be so drastically different that we wouldnt even be able to mate after the 20000 years weve supposedly existed. wed have different races like dwarves, elves, etc. since there is no way humans could have migrated then, through my understanding and according to evolution we would have evolved in the similar way of monkeys and apes and orangatangs. we would have to be that different.

The tallest humans are the Watusi tribe, & average 6' 5"
The shortest are pygmies & average 4' 4"
That is greater than the Elf Dwarf differential. Nor have I ever heard of black/yellow Elves or Dwarves.
So, now I have shown that humans differ MORE amongst it's own races than elves & dwarves.
YOU made a prediction of evolution, that humans should differ as much as elves & dwarves etc. As I have shown this to be MORE than true, would you now stand by your claim, & now regard morphological dissimilarity in separate populations of humans as evidence of evolution, rather than falsification?
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-07-2002]
[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-07-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by KingPenguin, posted 02-06-2002 10:06 PM KingPenguin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by toff, posted 02-07-2002 8:26 AM mark24 has replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 158 of 210 (3630)
02-07-2002 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by John Paul
02-05-2002 5:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
Actually Peter there is more to ID than just lack of evidence to the contrary. Design is detected in biology pretty much like archeologists, forensics, arson detectives et al. detect design.
Also explaining something and demonstrating that explanation to be indicative of reality are two different worlds.
If we have absolutely no substantiated evidence that something, like life, could originate via purely natural processes, is it OK to infer purely natural processes are responsible for its origin?

We also have no substantiated evidence that life originated via
intelligent design.
The arguments I have seen concerning intelligent design (and I'll
leave abiogenesis out of the equation for now so that I can focus
on the question at hand) seem to be saying little more than :
"I can't believe that something so complex could have come about
naturally, so there must be a designer."
Arguments also run to saying things like "Show me any complex
form which was not designed."
The former is simply an opinion (to which everyone is entitled), and
ceratinly not scientific or logical in any sense.
The latter results in a cyclic argument whereby anything quoted as
complex and NOT designed is claimed as the design of this IDer.
Explanation and demonstrating a match with reality ARE different
I agree. There are many aspects of evolutionary theory which have
not be refuted by eveidence, however. (In an aside I noticed
another post in which you refer to not proving negatives ... as far
as I am aware scientific method is NOT concerned with proving anything
only in refuting current theories. The inference is that anything
that cannot be refuted must be considered a reasonable explanation. Evolutionary theory has been around for some time, and seems to hold
up pretty well).
I would also like to understand HOW design is detected in bilogical
systems (apart from the complexity == design thing).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by John Paul, posted 02-05-2002 5:14 PM John Paul has not replied

toff
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 210 (3631)
02-07-2002 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by mark24
02-07-2002 5:01 AM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
Pygmies are the result of evolution, as a response to the vagaries of their environment, & not selective breeding.

A bit of care needs to be taken with the above - selective breeding, too, can be part of evolution. Evolution includes not only natural selection, but sexual selection, which is precisely about breeding - people choosing who to mate/breed with based on some perceived trait. This could very easily have been some part (small or large) of what contributed to the pygmy's current height.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by mark24, posted 02-07-2002 5:01 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by mark24, posted 02-07-2002 8:37 AM toff has not replied

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


Message 160 of 210 (3632)
02-07-2002 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by toff
02-07-2002 8:26 AM


quote:
Originally posted by toff:
A bit of care needs to be taken with the above - selective breeding, too, can be part of evolution. Evolution includes not only natural selection, but sexual selection, which is precisely about breeding - people choosing who to mate/breed with based on some perceived trait. This could very easily have been some part (small or large) of what contributed to the pygmy's current height.
Quite right, but the context was artificial selective breeding.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by toff, posted 02-07-2002 8:26 AM toff has not replied

KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7884 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 161 of 210 (3733)
02-07-2002 5:53 PM


if the pygmies had evolved/breeded for this then wouldnt every territory have a vastly different appearance, since a few populations didnt make major migrations, such as europeans. wouldnt indians have to have evolved for their new environment. i meant human pygmies too maybe it just came out wrong. how can evolution predict where human life will spring up? wouldnt there be several variations from the start. I mean if they'res a definite that humans came from around europe wouldnt they're be a chance that something similar to human would spring up?
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by joz, posted 02-07-2002 6:10 PM KingPenguin has not replied
 Message 165 by mark24, posted 02-07-2002 7:09 PM KingPenguin has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 210 (3738)
02-07-2002 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by KingPenguin
02-07-2002 5:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
if the pygmies had evolved/breeded for this then wouldnt every territory have a vastly different appearance, since a few populations didnt make major migrations, such as europeans. wouldnt indians have to have evolved for their new environment. i meant human pygmies too maybe it just came out wrong. how can evolution predict where human life will spring up? wouldnt there be several variations from the start. I mean if they'res a definite that humans came from around europe wouldnt they're be a chance that something similar to human would spring up?

Ever noticed that aboriginal peoples of regions with very strong direct sunlight tend to have darker skin?
The fact is there are morphological differences between the human populations of geographical areas, your average Watusi looks quite different from your average caucasian....
When you say indians do you mean dots or feathers (or even west)?
There were several variations from the start.... one word for you neanderthal (or homo hablis for that matter)......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by KingPenguin, posted 02-07-2002 5:53 PM KingPenguin has not replied

KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7884 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 163 of 210 (3740)
02-07-2002 6:23 PM


i meant native americans. i guess you might never be able to change my mind because there too many assumptions and guesses that have to made for the ToE to be proven.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by mark24, posted 02-07-2002 6:26 PM KingPenguin has not replied
 Message 169 by LudvanB, posted 03-08-2002 8:08 PM KingPenguin has replied

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


Message 164 of 210 (3741)
02-07-2002 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by KingPenguin
02-07-2002 6:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i meant native americans. i guess you might never be able to change my mind because there too many assumptions and guesses that have to made for the ToE to be proven.

Who is this in reply to?
If you click the reply, or reply quote at the bottom of the message you're replying to, then the author of the message can see who has replied, & respond
Gets confusing otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by KingPenguin, posted 02-07-2002 6:23 PM KingPenguin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by joz, posted 02-07-2002 8:48 PM mark24 has not replied

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


Message 165 of 210 (3745)
02-07-2002 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by KingPenguin
02-07-2002 5:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
if the pygmies had evolved/breeded for this then wouldnt every territory have a vastly different appearance, since a few populations didnt make major migrations, such as europeans. wouldnt indians have to have evolved for their new environment. i meant human pygmies too maybe it just came out wrong. how can evolution predict where human life will spring up? wouldnt there be several variations from the start. I mean if they'res a definite that humans came from around europe wouldnt they're be a chance that something similar to human would spring up?

Fair question.
The Pygmies evolved separately to other humans because they were geographically, & therefore sexually separated. Very little interbreeding took place between these populations, which allowed a divergence of physical form, in adapting to jungle/plains etc. Same as the tall Masai, Zulu, & Waputi, Europeans etc. The pygmies are probably different in that they quickly developed skills & knowledge for their existence in rain forest, & had no need to to come out. Other plains tribes were equally knowledgeable about their habitat, & had no need to exchange it for a jungle existance. The populations were sexually separate, gene flow ceased, & they were able to evolve separately.
http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/humans.htm
"Some types of DNA reveal genetic patterns that seemingly resulted from a recent African origin of our species, while others harbor signs of an older, multiregional origin. One type of DNA that favors a recent Out-of-Africa origin is mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Scientists have now succeeded in studying the entire sequence of the mtDNA molecule, in a worldwide sample of 53 people (Ingman, et al, 2000). As with previous mtDNA studies, this one found Africans to have the most diverse, and therefore the most ancient, mtDNA sequences. It also determined that African and non-African populations diverged not 100,000 years ago, as some other genetic studies have suggested, but as recently as 52,000 years ago. The results also indicated that after their split from Africans, non-Africans began expanding in population about 38,500 years ago."
This study specifically places the most ancient human population in east Africa, on the basis that it has the most genetic variety. That is, a population that is in place for longer, accumulates more mutations.
"Another study has focused on mtDNA variation in Europe and the Near East (Richards, et al, 2000), the former domain of Neanderthals. Researchers analyzed the mtDNA of more than 4,000 people from various European and Near Eastern populations. They found that 5 to 15 percent of the mtDNA pool of present-day Europeans could be traced back to the earliest part of the Upper Paleolithic period, some 45,000 years ago or earlier. They concluded that these earliest mtDNA sequences originated in early modern humans who colonized Europe, most likely from the Near East.
Patterns in our mitochondrial DNA suggest that human populations grew greatly in size some time after modern humans had appeared, consistent with an expansion of modern humans out of Africa and across Eurasia.
(Courtesy of Paolo Francalacci, Sezione di Antropologia, Dipartimento di Zoologia e Antropologia Biologica, Universit degli Studi di Sassari, Italy.)
One of the most significant findings to come out of mtDNA studies is that non-Africans often show genetic signs of a severe reduction in population size, a "bottleneck," some time in the past, followed by a population expansion (Ingman, et al, 2000: 710-712). This bottleneck and expansion is presumed to have occurred when a branch of the early modern human population of Africa split off to form a small subpopulation, which then expanded in size as it spread out to colonize Eurasia. Some evidence from both mtDNA and nuclear DNA suggests that Africans also expanded in population in the past, either at the same general time as non-Africans (Zhivotovsky, et al, 2000), or earlier (Harpending, et al, 1993)."
So genetic data places African migration to Europe, at about 45,000 (plus) years ago. The genetic bottleneck is important. Consider the varied African polulation, if you take a small sample & geographically separate them, their offspring will have the small samples genes & not the huge variety that is existant in the entire African population. So, practically the entire European population is descended from this small "bottleneck population", that migrated out of Africa & into Eurasia. This is called the founder effect.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_5.htm
"It is also possible to find the results of the founder principle even though the original ancestors are unknown. For example, South and Central American Indians were nearly 100% type O for the ABO blood system. Since nothing in nature seems to strongly select for or against this trait, it is likely that most of these people are descended of a small band of closely related "founders" who also shared this blood type. They migrated into the region from the north, mostly by the end of the last Ice Age."
So the Indian population that was ancestral to the south/central Americans were very small in numbers, so much so, that they are almost exclusively blood group O.
Evolution doesn't predict humans would evolve. In fact, if the tape were rewound 3 billion years, & then allowed to run again, the chance of something human like is vanishingly small. Why? The random nature of mutation. There's nothing that says vertebrates as we know them would evolve at all! Scary thought.
So, no, several types of modern humans (I say modern to differentiate from neanderthals)didn't need to "begin together", all that happened was a process of morphological divergance, from a common human ancestor, that genetic & fossil evidence places in Africa.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-07-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by KingPenguin, posted 02-07-2002 5:53 PM KingPenguin 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