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: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution: a red herring?
EODoc
Junior Member (Idle past 6260 days)
Posts: 23
Joined: 02-05-2007


Message 76 of 120 (382829)
02-06-2007 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by anglagard
02-06-2007 4:11 AM


Re: Your Sources Would Like For You to Stop Emarrasing Them
I do not know what AIG is and my only source to this point is from my own brain and experiences as a research scientist.
. . . This is not true, since some changes do confer an advantage in some situations. Rather, we should say, “We have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information, even in those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage.”
OK, but I was referring specifically to fruit flys, the organism with the most genetic experiments done on it to date, and I don't think you will find a single example of a mutation that is advantageous to the organism in its natural environment. And since you brought it up, have we even a single example of a mutation that increases genetic information?
. . . Can't speak toward enzymes at the moment without further research but here are several examples of new speciation:
Observed Instances of Speciation
I have not read the article yet so please tell me, does it give a concrete experimental example of a genetic mutation giving rise to a new species?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by anglagard, posted 02-06-2007 4:11 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by anglagard, posted 02-06-2007 4:48 AM EODoc has replied
 Message 87 by Wounded King, posted 02-06-2007 5:35 AM EODoc has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 77 of 120 (382831)
02-06-2007 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by EODoc
02-06-2007 3:52 AM


Re: tiktaalik
I am sorry but have you seen the picture of the bone fragments for this species?
we have the whole front half, nearly complete. specifically intriguing are the forelimbs, which alone would have been enough to indicate a good transition. the fact that they are at a mid-way point between the forms of lobe-finned fish and tetrapods, homologous to both, is enough indication that it is a "transitional species."
This is the case will pretty much all fossils.
i'm sorry, where did you get your paleontology degree from?
What I really wish more than anything that one of you biologist or evolutionists out there could honestly and logically address my previous point about chemical evolution.
if you want to talk about chemistry, ask a chemist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by EODoc, posted 02-06-2007 3:52 AM EODoc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by EODoc, posted 02-06-2007 4:57 AM arachnophilia has replied

EODoc
Junior Member (Idle past 6260 days)
Posts: 23
Joined: 02-05-2007


Message 78 of 120 (382832)
02-06-2007 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by anglagard
02-06-2007 4:36 AM


Re: Laws of Thermodynamics
. . . Been there, done that. For one thing the second law only works in a closed system, which is not Earth due to the sun.
I was not talking about the earth but the entire universe. Surely you can agree that the universe is a close system, correct? So that we can focus like a laserbeam I want to go stepwise with you (you won't see it yet but it is relevent to evolution):
Has the universe 1) Always existed or 2) Not always existed ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by anglagard, posted 02-06-2007 4:36 AM anglagard has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 79 of 120 (382833)
02-06-2007 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by EODoc
02-06-2007 4:40 AM


Re: Your Sources Would Like For You to Stop Emarrasing Them
EODoc writes:
I have not read the article yet so please tell me, does it give a concrete experimental example of a genetic mutation giving rise to a new species?
Why should I? The link is there, why can't you read for yourself and make your own conclusions?
If you are actually a research scientist, I would expect more curiosity and less bluster. I am beginning to have my doubts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by EODoc, posted 02-06-2007 4:40 AM EODoc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by EODoc, posted 02-06-2007 5:03 AM anglagard has replied

EODoc
Junior Member (Idle past 6260 days)
Posts: 23
Joined: 02-05-2007


Message 80 of 120 (382834)
02-06-2007 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by arachnophilia
02-06-2007 4:43 AM


Re: tiktaalik
. . . we have the whole front half, nearly complete. specifically intriguing are the forelimbs, which alone would have been enough to indicate a good transition. the fact that they are at a mid-way point between the forms of lobe-finned fish and tetrapods, homologous to both, is enough indication that it is a "transitional species."
Sorry, that just not good enough for me. We still don't really know much about the organs of this organism without significant assumptions.
. . . What I really wish more than anything that one of you biologist or evolutionists out there could honestly and logically address my previous point about chemical evolution.
if you want to talk about chemistry, ask a chemist.
Well, I happen to have a Ph.D. in chemisty, specific areas of expertise are in physical chemistry and organic chemistry with a minor in mathematics. But that is beside the point. Its not really a matter of chemistry in the strict sense. Its only called "chemical evolution" because its the theory that non-living chemicals spontaneously arranged themselves to become the first life form. This breaks the biologist most fundamental law. Why will no one address this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by arachnophilia, posted 02-06-2007 4:43 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by arachnophilia, posted 02-06-2007 5:12 AM EODoc has replied
 Message 86 by PaulK, posted 02-06-2007 5:28 AM EODoc has not replied
 Message 94 by cavediver, posted 02-06-2007 7:09 AM EODoc has replied

EODoc
Junior Member (Idle past 6260 days)
Posts: 23
Joined: 02-05-2007


Message 81 of 120 (382835)
02-06-2007 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by anglagard
02-06-2007 4:48 AM


Re: Your Sources Would Like For You to Stop Emarrasing Them
Why should I? The link is there, why can't you read for yourself and make your own conclusions?
If you are actually a research scientist, I would expect more curiosity and less bluster. I am beginning to have my doubts.
Sorry if I've offended you. I was merely trying to save myself some time. I thought that if you had read it thoroughly already you could just tell me that one point so that I could decide whether or not I want to dedicate my time to going through it myself. I am perfectly prepared to prove my qualifications if need be.
By the way, what is your background/profession?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by anglagard, posted 02-06-2007 4:48 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by anglagard, posted 02-06-2007 5:25 AM EODoc has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 82 of 120 (382836)
02-06-2007 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by EODoc
02-06-2007 2:41 AM


Re: Some questions for Limbosis
By the same token we cannot design experiments to disprove evolution.
i suggested you one. someone else suggested another.
It seems to me that if a dog spontaneously gave birth to a cat (or vice versa)it would be a great thing for evolution.
yes, it would seem like good evidence for evolution to you, because you do not understand what evolution is, and all your claims about it are strawmen stemming from that misunderstanding.
This would be hard evidence for one genus evolving into another,
no, it would evidence for one genus spontaneously giving birth to another, which, as i explained, would positively blow just about everything evolution has to say out of the water. evolution holds that dogs and cats had a common ancestory, which split into different lineages. one producing eventually producing felines, the other canines. should felis suddenly emerge from the womb of canis, this idea about common ancestry would be wrong. we would have to significantly re-examine our consideration of these being separate species. and since the cladistic model backs up evolutionary model so very well, which backs up the genetic model so well, we'd need to seriously re-examine just about every law of genetics. it would mean that, for all intents and purposes, everything under the order carnivora would be interchangeable. pandas would be the same as hyenas, skunks and sea lions. etc.
It is easy to understand how different species of Feline could evolve.
it's also easy to understand how a basal species of carnivora could develop two very similary daughter species, one vaguely cat-like, the other vaguely dog-like. and then it's easy to see how that cat-like (feliformia) species could produce another daughter species even more cat-like.
it's the same model.
Its not sow easy to see how Feline could evolve into Canine for example. You can mate any cat with another species of cat but you you cannot get an offspring by mating a cat with any species of dog.
you're thinking of hybrdization. hybrids (to the best of my knowledge) don't work outside of the genus level. and even then. only in very recently related species. the fact that they work but tend to be sterile on that level generally demonstrates that two species (say, lions and tigers) are very genetically similar, and only recently split into two separate breeding populations.
I would agree that if something discredits the theory you have to discard the theory and create a new theory but it would not be very useful to just build upon the old theory if its based on something that you later find to be untrue. For example if I state a the "Theory of Only Life on Earth" and I later find concrete evidence of life on Mars it wouldn't make much sense to rename my theory to "Theory of Only Life on Earth and Mars".
you must have never taken a higher math class. each new theorem builds on the last. it's, um, kind of evolutionary.
more specific to biology, we have the origin of species by means of natural selection. but we can also produce species ourselves by means of artificial selection. should we toss the other theory?
Your statement makes no logical sense. I would love for you to give me an example of evidence against a creator?
maybe it makes no logical sense because you didn't understand what i said. because that was not it. i said nothing about any evidence (for or) against a creator. just against creationism. when the vast majority (read: "all") the evidence points to a very old earth, and that evolution is the mechanism entirely responsible for the diversity of life on this planet, it's rather hard to maintain the stance that evolution isn't real, and the planet is young. you have to ignore the evidence -- unintentionally, purposefully, whatever.
So while it is impossible for you to provide evidence against a creator I could give you a proof of a creator but the proof would have to rely upon your acceptance of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. If you reject those laws then I would be wasting my time.
so science cannot disprove the supernatural. but it can prove it. an my statement makes no logical sense?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by EODoc, posted 02-06-2007 2:41 AM EODoc has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 83 of 120 (382838)
02-06-2007 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by EODoc
02-06-2007 4:57 AM


Re: tiktaalik
Sorry, that just not good enough for me. We still don't really know much about the organs of this organism without significant assumptions.
i'm sorry, where was your paleontology degree from again?
we can tell a good deal more about an animal from its fossil remains that you seem to even be aware of. marks on the bones can tell us about musculature, even internal organs. those "significant assumptions" are that the laws of nature are uniform, and that if there is a god, he's not simply trying to decieve us.
Well, I happen to have a Ph.D. in chemisty, specific areas of expertise are in physical chemistry and organic chemistry with a minor in mathematics. But that is beside the point.
i'm not sure i believe you. your vast ignorance of biology leads me to believe that you haven't even been through a four year degree in the sciences, where this sort of thing is explained quite well.
Its only called "chemical evolution" because its the theory that non-living chemicals spontaneously arranged themselves to become the first life form.
are you unaware of the famous miller-urey experiment? i'd think they'd covered that somewhere in your chemistry degree. that's a rather good first step of the model, isn't it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by EODoc, posted 02-06-2007 4:57 AM EODoc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by EODoc, posted 02-06-2007 5:38 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 84 of 120 (382840)
02-06-2007 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by EODoc
02-06-2007 3:36 AM


Re: Some questions for Limbosis
We have been doing fruit fly experiments for over 100 years now, involving thousands of generations in order to try and force a genetic mutation that is actually beneficial to the organisms viability, but in fact the mutations are almost always detrimental to the organism and in the best cases they are neutral in terms of viability.
This is simply untrue and indeed was just neatly rebutted in another thread by Obvious Child. I myself have rebutted this umpteen times, Ill give you the same challenge I did the last person to bring this up to me.
Can you provide any evidence that any of these drosophila experiments were actually designed to 'try and force a genetic mutation that is actually beneficial to the organisms viability'. This is a popular bit of anti-evolution clap trap which ignores the fact that most of the large scale mutational screens, such as the seminal Nusslein-volhard and Wieschauss screen (Nusslein-volhard and Wieschauss, 1980), on drosophila were specifically performed to identify genes which were embryonic lethals or for other equally apparent large scale phenotypic effects and in most cases were the product of induced mutations by crude methods such as radiation exposure of treatment with mutagens.
If you think that is not the case then please provide some references for these drosophila experiments over 100 years and thousands of generations which were meant to 'force a genetic mutation that is actually beneficial to the organisms viability'.
There are many examples of successful selection experiments to enhance specific traits which might be considered beneficial such as longevity , pesticide resistance or differing levels of geotaxis but virtually all mutational screens set out with the specific intention of breaking genetic systems to see how they work.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by EODoc, posted 02-06-2007 3:36 AM EODoc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by EODoc, posted 02-06-2007 5:55 AM Wounded King has replied
 Message 106 by jar, posted 02-06-2007 11:19 AM Wounded King has replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 85 of 120 (382842)
02-06-2007 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by EODoc
02-06-2007 5:03 AM


Re: Your Sources Would Like For You to Stop Emarrasing Them
EODoc writes:
By the way, what is your background/profession?
I am a college dean in charge of a library system with several degrees in the physical sciences.
A major part of my multidisciplinary job is to know the difference between shit and shinola. Something a very few seemingly overspecialized people, however well educated, can still miss due to the lack of a well-rounded knowledge base.
{ABE}However, I still have doubts about your claims. Can you provide some evidence of your purported background?
Edited by anglagard, : spelin
Edited by anglagard, : Clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by EODoc, posted 02-06-2007 5:03 AM EODoc has not replied

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


Message 86 of 120 (382844)
02-06-2007 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by EODoc
02-06-2007 4:57 AM


Re: tiktaalik
quote:
Its only called "chemical evolution" because its the theory that non-living chemicals spontaneously arranged themselves to become the first life form. This breaks the biologist most fundamental law. Why will no one address this?
It doesn't break a fundamental law. Unless you assuem that life has existed for all time there msut be an exception to the "law" of biogenesis. And in fact the "law" supports evolution, since universal common descent requires only a single violation while creationism requires multiple violations - in the extreme as many as one per species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by EODoc, posted 02-06-2007 4:57 AM EODoc has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 87 of 120 (382847)
02-06-2007 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by EODoc
02-06-2007 4:40 AM


Re: Your Sources Would Like For You to Stop Emarrasing Them
And since you brought it up, have we even a single example of a mutation that increases genetic information?
Yes, we have lots. Of course whether they will satisfy you rather depends on your definition of 'genetic information' but there are a number of information theory metrics for which an increase can be observed as the result of mutation.
So how do you define 'genetic information'?
and I don't think you will find a single example of a mutation that is advantageous to the organism in its natural environment.
I'll be very interested when you show us the many fruit fly experiments that were actually done with this in mind. Or are you just mentioning in passing that a whole lot of experiments not intended to achieve this result didn't happen to achieve this result as a side effect?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by EODoc, posted 02-06-2007 4:40 AM EODoc has not replied

EODoc
Junior Member (Idle past 6260 days)
Posts: 23
Joined: 02-05-2007


Message 88 of 120 (382848)
02-06-2007 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by arachnophilia
02-06-2007 5:12 AM


Re: tiktaalik
i'm not sure i believe you. your vast ignorance of biology leads me to believe that you haven't even been through a four year degree in the sciences, where this sort of thing is explained quite well.
Please tell me what you would accept as valid proof of my degree. By the way you never told me yours.
...Its only called "chemical evolution" because its the theory that non-living chemicals spontaneously arranged themselves to become the first life form.
are you unaware of the famous miller-urey experiment? i'd think they'd covered that somewhere in your chemistry degree. that's a rather good first step of the model, isn't it?
I must ask you if you are aware of the experiment? Do you really believe that this experiment, in which trace amounts of a few amino acids were formed from a reaction chamber that was supposed to similate the "primordial soup" is anywhere close to being experimental evidence for life evolving from non-living material? Do you have any concept of the difference between an amino acid and a simple protein, not to mention the more complex proteins in living systems. We then have to make the jump to enzymes. You obviously don't have the faintest clue about the chemical complexity of these molecules and far removed even the simplest form of life is away from these more complex chemicals. I would have thought by now evolutionary theory would have graduated from citing miller-urey as evidence for chemical evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by arachnophilia, posted 02-06-2007 5:12 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by anglagard, posted 02-06-2007 5:52 AM EODoc has replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 89 of 120 (382851)
02-06-2007 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by EODoc
02-06-2007 5:38 AM


Blew it Already
EODoc writes:
Please tell me what you would accept as valid proof of my degree. By the way you never told me yours.
Were you accepted to a doctoral program straight out of HS? This is the first time I have heard a PhD refer to their educational background in a singular tense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by EODoc, posted 02-06-2007 5:38 AM EODoc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by EODoc, posted 02-06-2007 6:05 AM anglagard has replied

EODoc
Junior Member (Idle past 6260 days)
Posts: 23
Joined: 02-05-2007


Message 90 of 120 (382852)
02-06-2007 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Wounded King
02-06-2007 5:19 AM


Re: Some questions for Limbosis
I never said that the fruit fly experiments were specifically designed to 'try and force a genetic mutation that is actually beneficial to the organisms viability'. I was merely stating the facts concerning the experiments, not the intention of the experiments.
. . . There are many examples of successful selection experiments to enhance specific traits which might be considered beneficial such as longevity , pesticide resistance or differing levels of geotaxis but virtually all mutational screens set out with the specific intention of breaking genetic systems to see how they work.
Please cite one scientific reference of a genetic mutation experiment in which the mutation creates a new species that is more viable IN ITS NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. You might be able to find new isolated traits which might in seem beneficial but show me the complete mutated organism that more viable in its natural environment than its predesessors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Wounded King, posted 02-06-2007 5:19 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Wounded King, posted 02-06-2007 6:29 AM EODoc has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024