|
Author
|
Topic: Best Evidence Macro-Evolution
|
idscience
Member (Idle past 4423 days) Posts: 40 Joined: 03-01-2012
|
Re: Got evidence or reasoning?
Typical speak. I have found it regular, that when evolutions weak points are discussed, the skeptic is always accused of not understanding how evolution works. Mean while, you have offered no evidence yourself. "looking at the evidence" what evidence? I have been accused of ramblings, so step up, and follow your own advise.
Evolution is being tested. By looking at the evidence, and seeing if it fits with the predictions of the theory. This is what is known as "science".
Interesting! Darwin looks around at all the diversity of life around him. He predicts that the fossil record will show diversity of life. The prediction is found to be true and evolution is confirmed. What about the prediction of "junk DNA"
From a design point of view, pseudogenes are indeed mistakes. So why are they there? Intelligent design cannot explain the presence of a nonfunctional pseudogene, unless it is willing to allow that the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles. Evolution, however, can explain them easily. Pseudogenes are nothing more than chance experiments in gene duplication that have failed, and they persist in the genome as evolutionary remnants of the past history of the b -globin genes. The b -globin story is not an isolated one. Hundreds of pseudogenes have been discovered in the 1 or 2% of human DNA that has been explored to date, and more are added every month. In fact, the human genome is littered with pseudogenes, gene fragments, "orphaned" genes, "junk" DNA, and so many repeated copies of pointless DNA sequences that it cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design. Yet the introns within genes and the long stretches of intergenic DNA between genes, Mattick says, "were immediately assumed to be evolutionary junk."
That assumption was too hasty. "Increasingly we are realizing that there is a large collection of 'genes' that are clearly functional even though they do not code for any protein" but produce only RNA, Georges remarks
In fact, some inherited diseases have stumped researchers because, in their diligent search for a mutant protein, the investigators ignored the active RNA right under their noses. If Id was given a fair shake, maybe we would be further ahead in fighting disease, as it is linked now to "junk DNA". In 1994 Mims III submitted a paper about junk dna and it was rejected. http://www.forrestmims.org/publications.html"December 1994 Letters Science 1333 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 To the Editor: Finally, Science reports "Hints of a Language in Junk DNA" (25 November, p. 1320). Those supposedly meaningless strands of filler DNA that molecular biologists refer to as "junk" don't necessarily appear so useless to those of us who have designed and written code for digital controllers. They have always reminded me of strings of NOP (No OPeration) instructions. A do-nothing string of NOPs might appear as "junk code" to the uninitiated, but, when inserted in a program loop, a string of NOPs can be used to achieve a precise time delay. Perhaps the "junk DNA" puzzle would be solved more rapidly if a few more computer scientists would make the switch to molecular biology. Forrest M. Mims III Geronimo Creek Observatory" Another prediction is that the fossil record would show innumerable successive intermediate organisms, but the Cambrian explosion would seem to contradict that. Since then many have taken fossils and made declarations that this one is transitional to that one, which is subjective. This prediction seems lacking. Tiktaalik was hailed as an example of a transitional form and arrived exactly as predicted in time. Until Tetrapod tracks were found predating tiktaalik by millions of years.
http://www.nature.com/...al/v463/n7277/full/nature08623.htmlDetermining Tiktaalik as a transitional form is again subjective anyhow, and not something you can hang you hat on to deflate any other possibility. To look at fossil millions of years old and say, yup, "this is a transition from that" to the exclusion of all other theories is not "science", its opinion. How many times has paleo opinions been over turned? My point is not that there is much to learn, that there is not reasonable cause to accept macro as a possible hypothesis. My objection is with the dogmatic rejection off everything that calls it into question. Clearly, there is reason to be skeptical. "Science" is supposed to be skeptical. The mocking and ridicule doesn't come from opposition to interpretation of evidence, it comes from religious bigotry. Creationist is used as a derogatory word around evolution circles. "flat Earthers", "geocentric throw backs", "young Earthers", all designed to offend, and has nothing to do with ID hypothesis. More often than not, the motives of ID proponents are attacked not the substance.
|
idscience
Member (Idle past 4423 days) Posts: 40 Joined: 03-01-2012
|
|
Message 32 of 164 (654513)
03-01-2012 11:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 18 by RAZD
03-01-2012 8:48 PM
|
|
Re: so can you define macroevolution or not?
And are you aware of any evidence of such a shared component that is not due to common descent? Look at the premise of your question. "that is not due to common descent". Common descent is not a fact, it is an inference from a predetermined bias that it did indeed happen. An unbiased question would be, do I know of any evidence that would tend to contradict a common ancestry. The only way I thing this will occur is as we dig deeper into the genome. interpreting fossil evidence is not very convincing or conclusive. How do you determine what descended from what accurately? how many human missing links have turned out to be just monkeys, or lemurs in Ida's case?, or pigs jaws for that matter. Fossils are subjective interpretation, not facts.
"scientists had hoped that gene sequencing would help them piece together the tree of life, but instead it showed conflicting results. For instance, some species that are closely related based on their DNA are not closely related at all based on their RNA. In order to make sense of the conflicts, biologists had to reconstruct Darwin's tree, which assumed that organisms primarily pass their traits down to their offspring. Besides this "vertical" gene transfer, organisms may also share traits through "horizontal" gene transfer with other species, or even by reproducing with other species to produce genetic hybrids. Horizontal transfer and hybridization would result in a web of life, with species sharing some traits but not others, as the molecular evidence shows... But more recently, evidence suggests that complex organisms also have an evolutionary history of horizontal gene transfer and hybridization. It seems that viruses are constantly cutting and pasting DNA from one genome to another; in humans, up to half of our DNA may have been imported horizontally by viruses. In addition, hybridization occurs more commonly than previously thought. Evidence even shows that early Homo sapiens may have hybridized with some extinct related species, such as Homo erectus and the Neanderthals." This discontinuity is what I am talking about. Here we have species mating with other species. I thought the def of separate species was that they were isolated and unable to breed with each other. Horizontal Gene Transfer seems like a work around for what was not predicted. It certainly isn't natural selection acting on random mutation and being passed on to descendants. If you look at enough contradictions to predictions, at some point you need to step back and take a look. Evolutionists, won't do that because, the fixed dogma is that it happened, and they just have to figure out how it happened. That is the bias that blinds observation and discoveries like non coding DNA having function. What is your evidence for common descent other than some paleo saying in his opinion it did? cite your sources. The fact that we are three pages into this and not one piece of empirical evidence has been brought forth tells me this may be troublesome to find.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 18 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2012 8:48 PM | | RAZD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-01-2012 11:36 PM | | idscience has replied | | | Message 53 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2012 2:56 AM | | idscience has replied | | | Message 88 by Taq, posted 03-02-2012 12:29 PM | | idscience has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 303 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 33 of 164 (654514)
03-01-2012 11:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 31 by idscience
03-01-2012 10:47 PM
|
|
Re: Got evidence or reasoning?
Your chosen title for this thread was, I believe, "Best Evidence Macro-Evolution" and not "Every Dumb Mistake That Any Creationist Has Ever Made About Anything". I am disinclined to participate in a Gish Gallop, so why don't you pick your very favorite creationist blunder and start a thread in which it would be on topic?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 31 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 10:47 PM | | idscience has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 35 by idscience, posted 03-02-2012 12:04 AM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 303 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 34 of 164 (654515)
03-01-2012 11:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 32 by idscience
03-01-2012 11:14 PM
|
|
Re: so can you define macroevolution or not?
Look at the premise of your question. "that is not due to common descent". If I was asked for (let us say) an instance of a fire that is not due to a fire-breathing dragon, I would just answer the question. I wouldn't whine about the fact that the question included the words "that is not due to a fire-breathing dragon". But then, I'd be right, and so I would in fact be able to produce such instances with ease.
Common descent is not a fact, it is an inference from a predetermined bias that it did indeed happen. Interesting lie. What a shame you can't argue for it. But you can say it. I bet you can say it a whole lot.
Horizontal Gene Transfer seems like a work around for what was not predicted. To render that sentence accurate, you'd want the words "to mad people" between the words "seems" and "like".
If you look at enough contradictions to predictions, at some point you need to step back and take a look. Evolutionists, won't do that because, the fixed dogma is that it happened, and they just have to figure out how it happened. That is the bias that blinds observation and discoveries like non coding DNA having function. That is a falsehood so vast it would make Satan himself shudder. Who do you think found out about the functionality of non-coding DNA and passed that information on to you and your pathetic cult? Do you suppose it was a bunch of dumbass creationists? You think that one day they paused from spewing out fatuous gibberish about subjects of which they were ignorant and did some sodding science? No, it was done by evolutionists, and now that they've informed you about it, you have the gall to whine about how they are "blind" to the stuff they looked for, painstakingly discovered, and then spoonfed to you while you were sitting on your flatulent creationist ass whining about them.
The fact that we are three pages into this and not one piece of empirical evidence has been brought forth ... ... apart from the whole of morphology, the whole of the fossil record, the whole of the genetic record, and the whole of biogeography. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 32 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 11:14 PM | | idscience has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 36 by idscience, posted 03-02-2012 12:18 AM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
idscience
Member (Idle past 4423 days) Posts: 40 Joined: 03-01-2012
|
Re: Got evidence or reasoning?
Typical.
Your chosen title for this thread was, I believe, "Best Evidence Macro-Evolution" and not "Every Dumb Mistake That Any Creationist Has Ever Made About Anything". If you noticed the title was for your participation. There is nothing in the title about me defending my position. It is a request for evidence from you. Typically, there are some who will side step the issue by turning tables. In stead of a simple response of "here is my best evidence", my positions have been questioned, and I was asked to cite sources, which I did. apparently they are not enough for you either. I have noticed you offer no rebut, but, have found it reasonable to denounce me for stating and citing my position. Now typically, the one to offer no evidence throws in the towel after one last insult. I am not surprised but I am disappointing. I know there are some good people here with some constructive, and defensible arguments. Maybe even convincing. I will wait for them. I am not here to prove or discredit anything. If I am asked to state why I adhere to theory or hypothesis, I will respond. I don't hold to mutation and natural selection being sufficient to produce the variety of creatures we enjoy on the planet, but I know there are some good reasons too suggest it did. I am after those reasons in this thread. I am not interested in debating the weaknesses as I see them with evolution here, but won't shy away if I am asked. ID has many questions too, and problems. The point of this thread is to find the best empirical reasons to side with step by step slow building of organisms. Homology and morphology I can see the logic to conclude common ancestry. Is there any empirical evidence? ID is continually slammed for not producing empirical evidence. The question of this thread is, Do you have any? I will take TWO. Edited by idscience, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-01-2012 11:27 PM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
idscience
Member (Idle past 4423 days) Posts: 40 Joined: 03-01-2012
|
Re: so can you define macroevolution or not?
Who do you think found out about the functionality of non-coding DNA and passed that information on to you and your pathetic cult? Do you suppose it was a bunch of dumbass creationists? You think that one day they paused from spewing out fatuous gibberish about subjects of which they were ignorant and did some sodding science? No, it was done by evolutionists, and now that they've informed you about it, you have the gall to whine about how they are "blind" to the stuff they looked for, painstakingly discovered, and then spoonfed to you while you were sitting on your flatulent creationist ass whining about them. I am sorry, was there a cite source in there anywhere? Hey guys, why am I the only one who is asked to cite source? Here is a guy making all sorts of claims and blanket statements and no one is calling him on it. Here is a guy who has no rational retort to my stated positions, other than bigotry and insults. Yet, no one calls him on it. Interesting! I did cite a source from 1994 that suggested the so called junk DNA had function. I didn't see any source in your reply that predates that, or one that shows who did make the discovery. I don't think you are interested in discussion, so I won't be replying to your rants. There not bad, but they are for another thread.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-01-2012 11:36 PM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 303 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 37 of 164 (654519)
03-02-2012 12:20 AM
|
Reply to: Message 35 by idscience
03-02-2012 12:04 AM
|
|
Re: Got evidence or reasoning?
If you noticed the title was for your participation. There is nothing in the title about me defending my position. It is a request for evidence from you. Typically, there are some who will side step the issue by turning tables. In stead of a simple response of "here is my best evidence", my positions have been questioned, and I was asked to cite sources, which I did. apparently they are not enough for you either. I have noticed you offer no rebut, but, have found it reasonable to denounce me for stating and citing my position. Now typically, the one to offer no evidence throws in the towel after one last insult. I am not surprised but I am disappointing. You are now lying about the course of this thread. So much evidence has been pointed out to you that it would take you several lifetimes to look at it all. You have responded by reciting random bits of creationist dogma.
I am not interested in debating the weaknesses as I see them with evolution here ... Then you have dissimulated your disinterest with great care.
The point of this thread is to find the best empirical reasons to side with step by step slow building of organisms. Homology and morphology I can see the logic to conclude common ancestry. Is there any empirical evidence? ID is continually slammed for not producing empirical evidence. The question of this thread is, Do you have any? I will take TWO. See my first post on this thread.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 35 by idscience, posted 03-02-2012 12:04 AM | | idscience has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 303 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 38 of 164 (654520)
03-02-2012 12:27 AM
|
Reply to: Message 36 by idscience
03-02-2012 12:18 AM
|
|
Re: so can you define macroevolution or not?
In 1994 Mims III submitted a paper about junk dna and it was rejected. That's not a paper. That's a letter. A paper has more than one paragraph, does not begin with the words "To the Editor", and traditionally contains some actual research.
I did cite a source from 1994 that suggested the so called junk DNA had function. Wow, so as far back as 1994 creationists were suggesting that non-coding DNA had function? So, that would be only three decades after real scientists described the structure of tRNA, right? And only two decades after the discovery of introns and alternative gene splicing? And ... I can't even find out how long ago scientists discovered promoter regions. If I google on "discovery of the promoter region", I get such hits as this paper from 1981, but they're talking about the discovery of a particular promoter region for a particular gene, not the discovery of promoter regions in general. That seems to be lost in the mists of time ... can anyone tell me whe the concept was discovered? But, hooray!, as far back as 1994, creationist nutters started lecturing scientists on how it was possible that one day scientists might make the discoveries that they had already made, and when these discoveries had, presumably via the medium of popular science articles, been spoon-fed to the creationists. --- Creationism is, as it were, a parasitic organism. It cannot discover facts for itself; it lacks the necessary organs. Instead, it must leech off evolutionists, who do all the actual work, feeding on the facts and then using its organs of misinterpretation, stupidity, and mendacity to turn them into the putrid slime it finds digestible. The analogy breaks down on one point: there is, so far as I know, no parasitic organism so stupid as to aspire to kill its host. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 36 by idscience, posted 03-02-2012 12:18 AM | | idscience has not replied |
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9130 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.3
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 39 of 164 (654522)
03-02-2012 12:32 AM
|
Reply to: Message 36 by idscience
03-02-2012 12:18 AM
|
|
No he cannot define Macroevolution
Evidently you cannot even define the term you want to discuss. It must be really hard to be against something if you don't even know what it is. Oh and please stop the Gish Gallop. It just makes you look like an incompetent buffoon. Define Macro-evolution and stay on that topic. Oh yeah have you ever heard of spell check or proofreading. You might want to learn about There and They're. That's a real silly mistake that stands out and really makes it tough to take you seriously.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 36 by idscience, posted 03-02-2012 12:18 AM | | idscience has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 40 by idscience, posted 03-02-2012 12:51 AM | | Theodoric has not replied |
|
idscience
Member (Idle past 4423 days) Posts: 40 Joined: 03-01-2012
|
|
|
Message 40 of 164 (654523)
03-02-2012 12:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 39 by Theodoric
03-02-2012 12:32 AM
|
|
Re: No he cannot define Macroevolution
Evidently you cannot even define the term you want to discuss. It must be really hard to be against something if you don't even know what it is. Theodore! I am going to say this sllllllllooooooooooowwwwly for you. The thread was not a request for a discussion. No where in the title or description does it say this is a debate to debunk. It is very simple.... Does anyone, any where on here have any empirical evidence of anything other than variation within a species? I would like to know? When someone has an actual answer to my question, I will respond.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 39 by Theodoric, posted 03-02-2012 12:32 AM | | Theodoric has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 303 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 41 of 164 (654526)
03-02-2012 12:56 AM
|
Reply to: Message 40 by idscience
03-02-2012 12:51 AM
|
|
Re: No he cannot define Macroevolution
The thread was not a request for a discussion. Well, we do tend to discuss things round here. It's a forum. You see at the top of the page where it says:
Understanding through Discussion That would be what we call a "clue".
It is very simple.... Does anyone, any where on here have any empirical evidence of anything other than variation within a species? I would like to know? When someone has an actual answer to my question, I will respond. See my first post on this thread. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 40 by idscience, posted 03-02-2012 12:51 AM | | idscience has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2124 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 42 of 164 (654527)
03-02-2012 1:09 AM
|
|
|
Evidence
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 44 by idscience, posted 03-02-2012 1:22 AM | | Coyote has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 753 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 43 of 164 (654528)
03-02-2012 1:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 40 by idscience
03-02-2012 12:51 AM
|
|
Re: No he cannot define Macroevolution
Does anyone, any where on here have any empirical evidence of anything other than variation within a species? I would like to know? I might, if you will answer a simple, yes-or-no question for me first. Are humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas all of one species? I'm perfectly serious....
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 40 by idscience, posted 03-02-2012 12:51 AM | | idscience has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 45 by idscience, posted 03-02-2012 1:23 AM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
idscience
Member (Idle past 4423 days) Posts: 40 Joined: 03-01-2012
|
|
|
Message 44 of 164 (654539)
03-02-2012 1:22 AM
|
Reply to: Message 42 by Coyote
03-02-2012 1:09 AM
|
|
Re: Evidence
wow, that was specific, thanks. I don't see any papers there but if I did, I suspect 99.9 would consist of variations within a species, or drug resistant bacteria, fruit flies with 2 useless wings, moths that changed color, beeks that grow and shrink again, more bacteria more bacteria more bacteria followed by this is what we don't know this is surprising but it sheds now light this sheds new light missing link missing link missing link Edited by idscience, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 42 by Coyote, posted 03-02-2012 1:09 AM | | Coyote has not replied |
|
idscience
Member (Idle past 4423 days) Posts: 40 Joined: 03-01-2012
|
|
|
Message 45 of 164 (654540)
03-02-2012 1:23 AM
|
Reply to: Message 43 by Coragyps
03-02-2012 1:12 AM
|
|
Re: No he cannot define Macroevolution
Are humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas all of one species? No.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 43 by Coragyps, posted 03-02-2012 1:12 AM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
