Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-19-2019 3:19 PM
125 online now:
Diomedes, dwise1, Meddle, PaulK, Tanypteryx (5 members, 120 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,459 Year: 3,496/19,786 Month: 491/1,087 Week: 81/212 Day: 11/31 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2324252627
28
Author Topic:   The Truth About Evolution and Religion
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19754
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 406 of 419 (562133)
05-25-2010 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 400 by Straggler
05-25-2010 7:06 PM


wrapping it up time?
you just need to put it in rap ...

... it would be a good way to wrap up this thread

(certainly there is nothing new being discussed)

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by Straggler, posted 05-25-2010 7:06 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19754
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 407 of 419 (562137)
05-25-2010 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by dkroemer
05-25-2010 4:19 AM


Let's play a little dice game ...
Hi dkroemer, you do understand that repeating falsified assertions doesn't make them true don't you?

Even with the filtering, there is no explanation for the increase in the complexity of life.

But there is, it is a simple matter of probability in a constrained system.

Evolution in general, and natural selection (with the real meaning, as used by biologists) in particular, selects for phenotypes that work within an ecology. That's the simple part.

Every adaptation can either add to complexity of the parent species, reduce complexity of the parent species, or have the same complexity as the parent species.

Because the degree of "complexity" is not a hereditary trait that is subject to evolution, each of these conditions have an equal probability of occurring.

So how does increased complexity occur in evolution?

The problem - for you - is that the probability field is biased towards increased complexity, because it cannot end up with less than 0 complexity.

Now we will take a single die, and designate 1 and 2 as reduced complexity, 3 and 4 and maintaining the same level of complexity, and 5 and 6 as increased complexity. Thus we have equal probability to increase, decrease or stay the same, yes?

Next we have a line with tick marks from 0 to 1,000


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ...
_|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|_

Start at 0. Now throw the die 10 times.

Every time you get 1 or 2 move you move 1 tick towards the 0 end ... except that if you are at 0 you stay there (there is no negative complexity).

Every time you get 3 or 4 you stay where you are.

Every time you get 5 or 6 you move 1 tick away from 0.

Where do you end up?

Throw 10 die and see where each one ends up.

Throw the die 100 times - where do you end up?

Throw 100 die and see where each one ends up.

Throw the dice 1000 times - where do you end up?

Do the same thing with 1000 die and and see where each one ends up. See how their distribution looks as you keep throwing the die.

Any bets on the shape of the curve?

Any bets on the limit of movement away from the 0 mark?

Evolution explains the diversity of life.

Life can increase in complexity or decrease in complexity or stay the same as far as fitness\adaptation\selection is concerned.

Complexity increases over time due to the biased probabilities of increasing complexity versus decreasing complexity.

You end up with increasing complexity in some life forms over time, in the same way that neutral drift explains how variations not subject to evolution in one ecology spread within the population/s.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : now Im done

Edited by RAZD, : better die picture

Edited by RAZD, : neutral drift

Edited by RAZD, : scale added

Edited by RAZD, : added


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by dkroemer, posted 05-25-2010 4:19 AM dkroemer has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by barbara, posted 07-19-2010 1:50 AM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 408 of 419 (562199)
05-26-2010 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 400 by Straggler
05-25-2010 7:06 PM


Re: misunderstanding or misrepresentation?
OK you win the smartass of the thread award. I tried - and failed.

Oh, I've only just got started.

I've posted this on these forums before, but I think it's worthy of another outing.

The Cuttlefish And The Flying Pig: An Aureate Amphigory

By way of prologema, I should explain to the less sagacious of the maculate multitude the appearance of order Sepiida in the rubric of these dithyrambic versicles. It is an allegorical figure, signifying those sophistical sciolists who, like the cuttlefish, expend superfluous quantities of tenebrous fluid in order to obscure their own position.

I'll not obnubilate my views by waxing metaphorical;
eschewing all hyperbole, I'll state as categorical:
a supermundane altitude's a feat that's quite prosaic for
domestic Ungulata deemed uncleanly by Mosaic law.

When acephalic aolists aver that I'm erroneous
I'll ply my polysyllables and won't be parsimonious.
My argument's bromidical, that just as every pigeon is
the genus Sus is volant and ascends to heights vertiginous.

When hireophants of orthodoxy prate that I'm heretical
I postulate a syllogism wholly anthetical;
with words sesquipedalian and vatic as a Druid I
explain the airy element's not alien to Suidae.

When obscurantists obfuscate, whatever my opponent says
I'll get quite logorrheic and in sundry altitonant ways
point out the airborne habits and the aviform taxonomy
of suiforms explicitly condemned in Deuteronomy.

I'll answer every eroteme with marvels of magniloquence
and show my view's veridical with erudite consilience.
With plethorae of syllables and logic that is Boolean
I'll prove that porcine genera inhabit the cerulean.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by Straggler, posted 05-25-2010 7:06 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 409 of 419 (568933)
07-19-2010 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by dkroemer
05-16-2010 2:31 AM


Re: The Truth About Evolution and Religion
The truth about evolution and religion is that they do not tell the truth. The original text in religions have been altered to fit its agenda of controlling the masses. Science that is governed by a peer group committee will only accept new information if it fits and supports previous accepted information. It is a well known fact that many scientists had to get their information out to the public and other scientists by publishing it themselves. They take an enormous gamble by doing this but they have accomplished in proving many untruths told by others scientists that altered the facts for their own agenda of success of being the one that makes evolution true.

The pictures of a human embryo developmental stages showing that we evolved from those animals were fake. The story that whales were once land animals is not true. The new one that bacteria are evolving to be resistant to antibiotics is not true for they already had those genes well before they were ever exposed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by dkroemer, posted 05-16-2010 2:31 AM dkroemer has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 411 by Huntard, posted 07-19-2010 2:05 AM barbara has not yet responded
 Message 415 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2010 4:24 AM barbara has not yet responded

    
barbara
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 410 of 419 (568934)
07-19-2010 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 407 by RAZD
05-25-2010 9:54 PM


Re: Let's play a little dice game ...
Science have found no proof that evolution increases complexity because only mutations have been found and although it might give the organism an advantage it comes with a price. They lose another equally important gene in order for the mutation to work. Too many mutations renders the organism non functional.

Perhaps we need to re-evaluate how species emerge in the first place. If we stop trying to fit and link every species to another species and to view the DNA pool as a global library that all different life forms are made from. The similarities is found is because the same piece of DNA instruction is used in many different species but it does not mean that they are related to each other.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by RAZD, posted 05-25-2010 9:54 PM RAZD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 412 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2010 2:09 AM barbara has not yet responded
 Message 413 by Huntard, posted 07-19-2010 2:11 AM barbara has not yet responded
 Message 414 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2010 3:57 AM barbara has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 411 of 419 (568936)
07-19-2010 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 409 by barbara
07-19-2010 1:37 AM


Re: The Truth About Evolution and Religion
barbara writes:

The pictures of a human embryo developmental stages showing that we evolved from those animals were fake.


Well, kinda. They were exagerated. Anyway, who pointed this out again? Oh yes, other scientist who believed in evolution.

The story that whales were once land animals is not true.

Yes it is.

The new one that bacteria are evolving to be resistant to antibiotics is not true for they already had those genes well before they were ever exposed.

Actually, the experiment goes something like this:

Take a single bacteria, grow a population )or several) out of it and introduce an antibiotic to the environment. Lots of them will die, but some will survive. If the original bacteria had the gene to survive this, then why did so many die? There's only one conclusion possible. It didn't. It evolved within the population somewhere between you starting to grow them and you introducing the antibiotic.

Som that one is true as well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by barbara, posted 07-19-2010 1:37 AM barbara has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 412 of 419 (568937)
07-19-2010 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 410 by barbara
07-19-2010 1:50 AM


Re: Let's play a little dice game ...
They lose another equally important gene in order for the mutation to work.

Not the case. For instance, one type of mutation is duplication of genes; due to strand slippage during DNA replication it's possible for genetic sequences to be replicated multiple times.

This is a type of mutation that takes nothing from the genome; it only adds. When these duplicate genes are mutated further they can result in additional function in the genome with no loss or tradeoff. New genes can and often are added to the genome.

Perhaps we need to re-evaluate how species emerge in the first place.

Allow me to politely suggest that you need to evaluate it for the first time, as you appear to have been fed a steady stream of inaccuracies about one of the best-supported theories in science. (And your idea that scientific information is being suppressed is a conspiracy theory.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by barbara, posted 07-19-2010 1:50 AM barbara has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 413 of 419 (568938)
07-19-2010 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 410 by barbara
07-19-2010 1:50 AM


Re: Let's play a little dice game ...
barbara writes:

Science have found no proof that evolution increases complexity because only mutations have been found and although it might give the organism an advantage it comes with a price. They lose another equally important gene in order for the mutation to work. Too many mutations renders the organism non functional.


Not neccessarily. The original gene could've been duplicated (meaning the organism now has two of that gene) and only then mutate into a new gene, meaning no gene was lost, but a new one was created.

Perhaps we need to re-evaluate how species emerge in the first place.

Since all the evidence we have points to the fact that they evolved from prior species, I wouldn't see why we'd need to "re-evaluate how species emerge", we seem to know.

If we stop trying to fit and link every species to another species and to view the DNA pool as a global library that all different life forms are made from.

But why do that if the evidence points to exactly that being the case?

The similarities is found is because the same piece of DNA instruction is used in many different species but it does not mean that they are related to each other.

Really? What other explanation do you have? Someone wanted to trick us into thinking this was the case?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by barbara, posted 07-19-2010 1:50 AM barbara has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 414 of 419 (568942)
07-19-2010 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 410 by barbara
07-19-2010 1:50 AM


Re: Let's play a little dice game ...
Science have found no proof that evolution increases complexity because only mutations have been found ...

That's something of a non sequitur.

I notice that like all creationists you have failed to explain how to quantify complexity. However, there are a couple of ways to show that you're wrong even if you can't be bothered to attach meaning to the terms you're using.

Here's one thing you might like to consider. We can see mutations that change any base to any other base, that increase and decrease the length of a strand of DNA, and that cause the fission and fusion of chromosomes. There are others, but these are sufficient to prove the following:

There is a sequence of mutations (indeed, an infinite number of such sequences) which will get you from any genome to any other.

This is trivially true. So, for example, there is a sequence (indeed, an infinite number of sequences) of mutations which will get you from a fish to a frog, or from a dinosaur to a bird, or from a monkey to a man.

I cannot say whether you would count that as an "increase in complexity" because you have not said what you mean by that phrase. But it's certainly sufficient for evolution.

They lose another equally important gene in order for the mutation to work.

If the new variant is favored by natural selection then the old variant is obviously not "equally important".

Too many mutations renders the organism non functional.

Too many mutations which impair function render the organism non-functional. And therefore are weeded out of the gene pool by natural selection.

Perhaps we need to re-evaluate how species emerge in the first place.

Biologists seem quite happy with what they've got.

If we stop trying to fit and link every species to another species and to view the DNA pool as a global library that all different life forms are made from. The similarities is found is because the same piece of DNA instruction is used in many different species but it does not mean that they are related to each other.

But when scientists look at genomes, what they see looks like the result of common ancestry rather than modular assembly.

This is a large subject, so perhaps it deserves a thread of its own.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by barbara, posted 07-19-2010 1:50 AM barbara has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 415 of 419 (568945)
07-19-2010 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 409 by barbara
07-19-2010 1:37 AM


Re: The Truth About Evolution and Religion
Science that is governed by a peer group committee will only accept new information if it fits and supports previous accepted information. It is a well known fact that many scientists had to get their information out to the public and other scientists by publishing it themselves.

That's not so much a well-known fact as something you made up.

Look at all the advances that have been made in science over the past century or so, were old ideas were overturned. Relativity, quantum theory, the splitting of the atom, radioactive decay ... all flying in the face of hundreds of years of conventional wisdom. All published first in peer-reviewed journals.

Set against that, I can't think of a single scientific advance that began as a piece of vanity publishing. What on earth do you have in mind?

The pictures of a human embryo developmental stages showing that we evolved from those animals were fake.

Please point out the fakery. What do the developmental stages really look like?

Thank you.

The story that whales were once land animals is not true.

Paleontologist disagree with you, 'cos of all those intermediate forms they've found. The genetic evidence is also rather compelling.

So do you have any actual counter-argument? Only I'm not inclined to take it on your say-so alone.

The new one that bacteria are evolving to be resistant to antibiotics is not true for they already had those genes well before they were ever exposed.

But this is something else you made up.

We can and do watch the evolution of antibiotic resistance in the laboratory starting from a non-resistant population.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by barbara, posted 07-19-2010 1:37 AM barbara has not yet responded

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 416 of 419 (569730)
07-23-2010 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by dkroemer
05-16-2010 2:31 AM


Re: The Truth About Evolution and Religion
Evolution meaning mutation and natural selection for explanation of how life changed over time is no different that religions claiming God did it. Both are not sufficient explanations.

The problem being misinterpretations of the facts in science is a common error and the same is true in religious misinterpretation in the books of their faith.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by dkroemer, posted 05-16-2010 2:31 AM dkroemer has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 417 by jar, posted 07-23-2010 2:47 PM barbara has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 417 of 419 (569731)
07-23-2010 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 416 by barbara
07-23-2010 2:42 PM


Re: The Truth About Evolution and Religion
barbara writes:

Evolution meaning mutation and natural selection for explanation of how life changed over time is no different that religions claiming God did it. Both are not sufficient explanations.

The problem being misinterpretations of the facts in science is a common error and the same is true in religious misinterpretation in the books of their faith.

Nonsense.

Evolution is a fact. That is not even open for discussion.

However not only is there NO evidence of Special Creation, even if it were true it tells us absolutely nothing about how life changed over time. To say "God did it" we next have to ask "How did God do it" and that takes us back to science.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by barbara, posted 07-23-2010 2:42 PM barbara has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 418 by Coyote, posted 07-23-2010 8:44 PM jar has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 180 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 418 of 419 (569794)
07-23-2010 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 417 by jar
07-23-2010 2:47 PM


Re: The Truth About Evolution and Religion
To say "God did it" we next have to ask "How did God do it" and that takes us back to science.

Not necessarily.

The track record of religious belief and apologetics suggests that scientific evidence is not used in differentiating between claims and beliefs.

Otherwise there wouldn't be an estimated 40,000 different sects, denominations, and flavors of Christianity alone.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 417 by jar, posted 07-23-2010 2:47 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 419 by jar, posted 07-23-2010 8:48 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 419 of 419 (569797)
07-23-2010 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 418 by Coyote
07-23-2010 8:44 PM


Re: The Truth About Evolution and Religion
True, they don't have to go on to the next question but it they don't then they are left willfully ignorant.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 418 by Coyote, posted 07-23-2010 8:44 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2324252627
28
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019