|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Definition of Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Nuggin writes:
quote: He's basically being pedantic. There's a joke of the engineer, the physicist, and the mathematician on a train. While looking out the window, the engineer says, "Look! There's a goat in that field." The physicist looks and says, "Yes, there is a white goat in that field." The mathematician looks and says, "Yes, there is a goat in that field, and the side that is facing us is white." Basically, he wants to be able to say that the various laws of physical nature only work back to some point in the past and beyond that, absolutely nothing can be said. Depending on how far he wants to take it, it is nothing but a thinly veiled variant of the, "Were you there?" argument: That because humans were not physically present to directly observe the biological processes of the past, then we cannot say anything about what happened, as if we had no physical evidence of what did. He can help allay this suspicion by answering a direct question: Assuming that we do see evolutionary processes happening now, what is to prevent them from having happened in the past? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Vashgun responds to me:
quote: But nobody is a uniformitarianist. So, what's your point? Do you know what the term "strawman" means?
quote: Incorrect. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge made their careers off of punctuated equilibrium. Why? Because the fossil record shows nothing but major change.
quote:quote: But that fails your own standard: "Observable change shouldn't be coupled with unobserved pretenses." Question: Wouldn't a "flooded" world leave physical remnants of having been flooded? So if we examine the geologic column (and yes, it does exist in totality in multiple locations across the globe) and find that there is no physical remnant of a global flood, then can't we conclude through direct observation (after all, the rocks were there and we are directly observing the rocks) that there was no global flood? Your argument is nothing more than an insistence that forensics is a sham. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Vashgun writes:
quote: But there's no such thing as a "kind." Why would we want to change the definition to include something that doesn't exist? We've seen evolution happen right before our very eyes, both below and well above the species level to include new genera, families, and orders. Are you about to claim that a "kind" is really a class? And with your claim of a "pre-flood world" and since the flood, according to chronology, happened only about 4500 years ago, that would mean not only does evolution happen, but it happens more rapidly than anybody has ever claimed it could. In fact, it would have to happen so rapidly that no life could possibly survive past a single generation: Every individual offspring would be its own species, incapable of reproducing with any other individual on the entire planet, and thus all life dies in the first generation after the flood. This goes against your own standard of "unobserved pretenses." Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Vashgun writes:
quote: So hie thee to a bio lab! What are you waiting for? Here's an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab. It doesn't cost much and you can get the materials from any reputable biological supply house. Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage. What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too. But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage. How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it. But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died. Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage. But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage. What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form. But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they should all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on. Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear. So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity. There is a similar experiment where you take bacteria that have had their lactose operons removed and they evolve to be able to digest lactose again. You might want to look up the information regarding the development of bacteria capable of digesting nylon oligimers. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation.
quote: Yeah. They got a different "kind" of fly. This proves your claim that somehow there is a "kind" barrier preventing evolution to be false. And no "unobserved pretenses" need to be invoked. You can watch it happen right before your very eyes. What were you expecting? They'd come up with an ostrich? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Vashgun writes:
quote: Then that means every individual is its own kind. Thus, it is impossible for anything to "reproduce after its own kind" for all individuals are unique kinds. Instead, we find different kinds coming together to make new kinds. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Tazmanius Devilus responds to me:
quote: What are we? Twelve? (Yes, I know of RRHAIN's existence.)
quote: True. Silly me didn't think I would have to start from sand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Vashgun responds to me:
quote: Indeed. So give us a definition of "kind" that allows for the variation of species that we currently see that doesn't require evolutionary rates so rapid that each individual would necessarily be a separate "kind." That's the problem: Set "kind" to low down the cladistic level, and the ark becomes a floating city. Set it too high, and you have alligators giving birth to ostriches. If you gave your definition before, please state it again for I have not seen it. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Doddy writes:
quote: But what is a "kind" and how does the genome know that it isn't allowed to evolve beyond that limit? Is a "fox" part of the "dog" kind? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Admin writes:
quote: OK...so how does one respond to that? It would seem that the thread would become nothing more than a laundry list of posters saying, "I think evolution is defined thusly" if one isn't allowed to put forward the proposition that the definition is insufficient, flawed, impractical, or conflicting with other established facts or standards. While I can see a possible usefulness to such, I don't think the thread would last very long. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Xaruan writes:
quote: Oh? Why? Shouldn't the definition of evolution indicate if it is bounded in what it can accomplish?
quote: The problem is that an implication isn't an actuality when it comes to science. Yes, evolution provides us with some very wonderful possibilities for how life arose, but evolution is not dependent upon any particular method. Life could have arisen any way you wish: Chemically through abiogenesis, supernaturally through god zap-poofing it into existence, extraterrestrially through panspermia or alien seeding, interdimensionally through a rift in space-time, or any one of a host of possibilities I haven't mentioned. So long as that life did not reproduce perfectly from generation to generation, evolution is satisfied. So while the chemical nature of biology and the iterative structure of evolution certainly make us think that it might be possible to develop life from non-biotic reagents and spurs us to investigate that possibility, evolution doesn't really say one way or the other.
quote: But that isn't an implication, that's an observation. It actually happened and evolutionary processes are consistent with such an outcome, but it isn't necessarily a forced outcome. After all, for most of the time this planet has had life, it was prokaryotic and unicelluar.
quote: Again, that is an observation, not a definition. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Doddy responds to me:
quote: Then how can we say that the genome can't evolve beyond a kind? How is it supposed to know that it isn't allowed to go beyond the externally-defined boundary?
quote: Well, no. Indeed, the genome doesn't evolve consciously, but it certainly does know how to evolve: Replication is a chemical process. No chemical process is ever perfect every single time. Therefore, there will necessarily be offspring genetically distinct from its parents. Because there is a differential between one generation and the next, there will necessarily be a differential in reproductive success among various offspring. Those with better reproductive success compared to the others will have a different genetic makeup than those who came before. And that, by definition, is evolution.
quote: But what is this physical law? How is it that each individual genetic change is allowable but the aggregation of them is prohibited? What is to prevent it?
quote: Now, assuming that the chromosome is "information" (it isn't), why? Is it allowed to duplicate a gene? Is it allowed to alter a gene? Then how is it that duplication and alteration is not allowed? If we go from "a" to "aa" to "ab," haven't we gained information?
quote: But what is it? How does one define this "kind" so that one can delineate one "kind" from another? If you can't actually use your definition to make a distinction, then it isn't a definition.
quote: Acutally, it does. If you cannot use your definition to draw a distinction, then your definition is worthless. Surely using your definition, you can develop a process that will allow you to see if something satisfies the definition. What is a "kind" such that we can determine of a "fox" and a "dog" are of the same or differing "kinds"? [Yes, I know you're trying to answer for a creationist.] Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024