Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 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:   Neither Evolution nor Creation are
joz
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 72 (5508)
02-26-2002 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Robert
02-25-2002 11:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Robert:
So my question still remains: Has evolution demonstrated that single-celled animals behave the way they have claimed to behave 10 billion years ago?
Its going to have to wait unanswered untill an adherent of exogenesis (life from space)comes along then given that the earth is only about 4.5 billion years old...
10 billion is the aproximate age of the universe and I think the consensus of opinion would be that single celled organisms didn`t appear imediately after the big bang.....
Probably why no one answered it, just a thought....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Robert, posted 02-25-2002 11:11 PM Robert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by gene90, posted 02-26-2002 9:02 AM joz has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 72 (5534)
02-26-2002 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by nator
02-26-2002 8:41 AM


quote:
Robert-
Are you saying that Darwinism does not say that life started in the oceans 10 billion years ago with the first formation of single-celled animals in the primordial goo?

quote:
Scraf-
Allison (quoting myself): This is better, and more a accurate representation of the theory. This is not what you said in your first post, however.
Schraf I think you are missing the fact that 10 billion years ago is (aproximately) when the big bang happened and the Earth only formed about 4.5 billion years ago........
I don`t think there were even oceans let alone primordal goo 10 billion years ago....
[This message has been edited by joz, 02-26-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by nator, posted 02-26-2002 8:41 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by gene90, posted 02-26-2002 9:24 AM joz has not replied
 Message 30 by nator, posted 02-26-2002 10:10 PM joz has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 72 (5549)
02-26-2002 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Robert
02-26-2002 11:36 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Robert:
1)This is a rather self-serving statement nor is it true. Those alleles which are necessary for between species change are unable to change whereas those alleles which are capable of changing are not responsible for between species change....
2)...Evolutionists have not demonstrated that between species change is possible, nor have they shown any type of example where it has actually been accomplished.
Robert

1)Why can`t those alleles change? Which ones are they? What evidence do you have that these "species alleles" are a) different from the plain old garden variety, and b) unable to change?
Or is it an off shoot of some a priori notion that speciation cannot occur?
2)Well lets define species as organisms that can breed sucsessfully to produce fertile offspring....
Are horses and donkeys the same species? they can mate to produce hybrid offspring but those offspring are sterile... Surely if they were the same species they would produce fertile offspring....
So I`d advance the example of horses and donkeys as an example of a recently diverged (speciated) (macroevolved) line........

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Robert, posted 02-26-2002 11:36 AM Robert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by nator, posted 02-26-2002 10:25 PM joz has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 72 (5555)
02-26-2002 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Robert
02-26-2002 12:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Robert:
1)Do we now have a new species of mules who can reproduce on their own? Your example does not fit your assertions concerning evolution.
2)As to the other part I will look up my references and get back to you.
Robert

1)Are you being deliberately obtuse? First as I pointed out in my post mules are sterile hence not a new species. Secondly mules are not a species they are a hybrid, the species involved are horses and donkeys....
2)You mean that despite a grand claim that alleles responsible for an organisms species cannot change you cannot back this statement up with an identification of which alleles are the special ones and why they can`t change? Alarm bells are ringing Robert....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Robert, posted 02-26-2002 12:51 PM Robert has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 72 (5628)
02-27-2002 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by nator
02-26-2002 10:25 PM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
Actually, very occasionally a fertile mule is produced.
Yeah but aren`t they always female?
So you can`t breed mules with mules to set up a new (sub?)species....
And don`t the fertile mules have to be bred to horses or donkeys?
So all you can get out is a horse, donkey or (most of the time sterile) mule...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by nator, posted 02-26-2002 10:25 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by nator, posted 02-27-2002 12:14 AM joz has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 72 (5643)
02-27-2002 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Robert
02-27-2002 1:16 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Robert:
Insofar as your number 2 is concerned I would seriously suggest that a large amount of success is necessary for you to claim that horses and donkeys produce a new species. Since you point out that mules are not a species according to Darwinism, then I do not believe that your example proves your point.
Also, horses and donkeys are put together by artificial selection not natural selection: they do not willingly mate. This fact also seems to be a flaw in your reasoning since Darwinism is concerned with natural selection.
I am all eyes to read your reply
Robert

Insofar as No.2 is concerned you should go back and read my post again, upon close examination you will find...
-That I never said mules were a species...
-That I said horses and donkeys were species....
-More than that the fact that horses and donkeys can mate to produce (apart from rare exceptions) sterile offspring (this is where mules come in) shows that these two species diverged very recently....
-And no donkeys and horses are not the same species...
IOW species A and species B mate to produce a sterile hybrid C. A and B are not the same species as is evidenced by the infertility of C. From this we conclude that A and B ancestry diverged recently, what we are basically seeing is a speciation in its end stages, as more changes are accumulated we expect that after some time A and B will no longer be able to produce C. We infer this because other obviously recently divergent species have lost the ability to interbreed, i.e Chimps and Gorillas...
Does that help explain?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Robert, posted 02-27-2002 1:16 AM Robert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Robert, posted 02-27-2002 2:46 AM joz has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 72 (5644)
02-27-2002 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Robert
02-27-2002 1:16 AM


I`ll make it easy for you to find...
Here is the original post:
quote:
2)Well lets define species as organisms that can breed sucsessfully to produce fertile offspring....
Are horses and donkeys the same species? they can mate to produce hybrid offspring but those offspring are sterile... Surely if they were the same species they would produce fertile offspring....
So I`d advance the example of horses and donkeys as an example of a recently diverged (speciated) (macroevolved) line........

And here is where I answered your misunderstanding the first time round:
quote:
1)Are you being deliberately obtuse? First as I pointed out in my post mules are sterile hence not a new species. Secondly mules are not a species they are a hybrid, the species involved are horses and donkeys....
Now if you still can`t get what I mean all I can offer is to mentor you for reading comprehension 101.......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Robert, posted 02-27-2002 1:16 AM Robert has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 72 (5646)
02-27-2002 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Robert
02-27-2002 2:19 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Robert:
I would not say that they think their opponents "less than human" but to criticize someone as "non-scientific" simply because he/she disagrees with your theory is a part of the fundamentalistic mindset.
Not really I don`t really care if someone is scientific or not provided that if they involve themselves science they switch on their "scientific" side.....If they don`t want to be scientific they shouldn`t be involved in science...
If they want to be non scientific playing sports, painting pictures, selling things etc fine but if science is the subject a scientific approach is necessary.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Robert, posted 02-27-2002 2:19 AM Robert has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 72 (5677)
02-27-2002 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Robert
02-27-2002 2:46 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Robert:
Ah! yes - thank you Joz I understand your point now and I hope I did not frustrate you too much with my thickheadedness!
"Recent" in evolutionary terms could be millions of years I guess. So I assume that there is no current evidence of where horse (A) and donkey (B) came from? Some missing link that has eluded evolutionists after 150 years of looking? Or, has this missing link been found?
A lion and a tiger are both considered "cats". Yet a "Liger" is just as sterile as the mule. Close association producing (predominately)sterile offspring does not necesarily "prove" a "recent" branching off from one another. If they did produce a (predominately) fertile offspring then I would truly be amazed, and my respect for evolution would go up a notch.
Robert

Good now we are getting somewhere....
Well Equus only turned up in the last 2 million years so probably closer to the order of 10`s or 100`s of thousands....
Maybe you`ll find this interesting:
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/Stratmap1.htm
It may be slightly out of date (I think that one of the species involved might now be attributed as a proto-giraffe) but it shows a morphological progression to modern Equines...
I think what you really wanted was a fossil record of horses splitting from donkeys and I`ll look for something like that, however this shows philohippus et al as common ancestors and evolutionary cousins.....
If they produced predominantly fertile offspring they would most likely be the same species...
The fact that they can produce any offspring when other closely morphological species (Chimps and Orangutangs) don`t implies that lines diverge and untill a minimum ammount of changes occur can still hybridize to produce infertile young.....
If not why can horses and donkeys produce mules, lions and tigers produce ligers but Chimps and Orangs not produce Orangazees?
[This message has been edited by joz, 02-27-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Robert, posted 02-27-2002 2:46 AM Robert has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 72 (5678)
02-27-2002 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by toff
02-27-2002 3:36 AM


quote:
Originally posted by toff:
I'm glad you point out what his 'point' is - since it's a point he doesn't make anywhere in the quote given. Nor can it be inferred from what he did say. All he said, in essence, is that life is more complex than we realise. So it is. So is a bridge game. The number of possible bridge hands is also a number so large as to be completely beyond our comprehension. Does that mean nobody can play bridge?
Hey Toff neat little freeware bridge game...
http://www.gamehippo.com/category/5_title_2.shtml
Its second from bottom named easy bridge....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by toff, posted 02-27-2002 3:36 AM toff has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by toff, posted 02-27-2002 9:26 AM joz has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 72 (5698)
02-27-2002 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by toff
02-27-2002 9:26 AM


quote:
Originally posted by toff:
Sorry, I'd like to check it out, but since each bridge hand is so unlikely, it proves that either bridge is impossible or that each hand is designed by someone...and what's the fun in playing if someone works out in advance what cards you'll get?

Well forcing their bidding up to a slam then doubling and taking 3 tricks is always fun......
Ultimately unless the designed hands favor one partnership very heavily it still comes down to how you play your hand(s)...
The really nice features of easy bridge are multiple bidding systems, the ability to deal specific types of hands (slams, games in various suits, etc) (I know dangerously close to "designing" a hand) and the ability to replay hands and tricks if you feel you can do better...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by toff, posted 02-27-2002 9:26 AM toff has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 72 (5700)
02-27-2002 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Robert
02-27-2002 2:46 AM


Mr P raised a good point here:
quote:
....how does the teaching of evolution, for example, differ from the teaching of other subjects in the scientific field, or subjects in the humanities?
Does this objection to ramming down throats apply only to evolution or do you propose to make ALL education an elective pursuit?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Robert, posted 02-27-2002 2:46 AM Robert has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 72 (5710)
02-27-2002 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Robert
02-27-2002 2:40 PM


The quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert:
The results of the last 20 years of research on the genetic basis of adaptation has led us to a great Darwinian paradox. Those (genes) that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes, while those (genes) that seemingly do constitute the foundation of many, if not most, major adaptive changes apparently are not variable within natural populations.
John McDonald from an article entitled, "The Molecular Basis of Adaptation" Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics vol. 14, pg. 93.

I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of the author, he refers to those genes that lie at the basis of major changes as being constant WITHIN genetic populations.
This is an entirely different kettle of fish to those genes that lie at the basis of major changes as being constant BETWEEN DIFFERENT genetic populations which seems to be the meaning you have assigned to the words...
In fact what he says seems to be expected, the genes determining which population the organism belongs to are close to identical to those genes from other members of the population, while "Those (genes) that are obviously variable within natural populations do not seem to lie at the basis of many major adaptive changes." ie the genes that are variable in a population determine things like red or brown hair, brown or blue eyes, height etc.......
It is interesting that he mentioned this as being a "Darwinian paradox" my guess is that this short quote relies for context on some preceeding portion of the original document.....
In short I think you made the mistake of assuming that genetic population refered to all life rather than distinct populations within this uberpopulation, if nothing else the use of populations plural should have allowed you to deduce that this was not the authors intent....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Robert, posted 02-27-2002 2:40 PM Robert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by nator, posted 03-01-2002 12:29 AM joz 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