Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do "novel" features evolve?
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 121 of 314 (659978)
04-20-2012 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Pressie
04-20-2012 1:00 AM


Hi guys
Thanks for your patience in explaining so many things on here. I really learned a lot. It will take me quite a few weeks to digest all this new information (to me).
Multiple allelles explained in a way that is easily understandable. So simple when you think about it. It all makes sense. What a wonderful world.
However, I know it must be very frustrating to convey and try to explain something about our world to somebody with the mentality of a loaf of bread.
Be assured that not all of us are like that and really appreciate all the knowledge passed on so freely here!
Who the hell was this sarcastic comment directed at? Fuck you, even if it wasn't directed at me.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Pressie, posted 04-20-2012 1:00 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Pressie, posted 04-20-2012 1:34 AM foreveryoung has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 122 of 314 (659979)
04-20-2012 1:29 AM


intellen writes:
1. I knew that accdg to ToE, individual organisms don't evolve but population BUT that is an assertion
Please stop telling untruths. You’ve even been given examples of populations that evolved right in front of our very own eyes. The fact that you just ignore it says a lot about your mentality.
intellen writes:
and an unsupported claim since as I had been saying
What you say is of no interest at all. You’ve been saying a lot of things that are demonstratably untrue. It’s what you can demonstrate that counts.
intellen writes:
here that population cannot evolve since they move to a place in where safety is the first concern,.
Geographical isolation of a part or parts of the population is one of the reasons speciation occurs. You know, those webbed feet developed in that population of dogs in Labrador, not under Yorkshire terriers...
intellen writes:
.. just like the dog in our example here with webbed feet. Unless you show that evolution kicks in,
Evolution doesn’t kick in. It happens continuously.
intellen writes:
then, that is a different story.
It is a different story, because evolution doesn’t kick in.
intellen writes:
2. Thus, both population and individual can only adapt but not evolve.
No, individuals are born with genes for webbed feet. If the circumstances favour individuals with webbed feet, the genes for webbed feet will be spread in the population by reproduction. That’s random mutation coupled with natural selection. It has been explained nicely.
intellen writes:
Therefore, ToE is wrong.
Actually, no. Those dogs are a wonderful illustration of how evolution works. The fact that you don’t know what evolution is, only makes you wrong about it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by intellen, posted 04-20-2012 1:46 AM Pressie has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 123 of 314 (659980)
04-20-2012 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by foreveryoung
04-20-2012 1:08 AM


Who the hell was this sarcastic comment directed at? Fuck you, even if it wasn't directed at me.
If the boot fits, put it on.
Where I come from, your type of language is frowned upon in civilised and educated circles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by foreveryoung, posted 04-20-2012 1:08 AM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by foreveryoung, posted 04-20-2012 1:39 AM Pressie has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 124 of 314 (659981)
04-20-2012 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Pressie
04-20-2012 1:34 AM


{Text hidden - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide text, add banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Pressie, posted 04-20-2012 1:34 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Pressie, posted 04-20-2012 1:59 AM foreveryoung has replied

  
intellen
Member (Idle past 4355 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 05-23-2011


Message 125 of 314 (659982)
04-20-2012 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Pressie
04-20-2012 1:29 AM


To PRESSIE
Hi Pressie,
1. Those population don't evolve. They are just adapting, if you are talking about change in whatsoever "changes" you may call, those change is not evolution. It is only adaptation.
2. What part that I am saying is untrue? I am giving you a scenario of the impossibility of nat selec to be the caused of new species in a given population. It is so impossible since population moves and goes to a better place to live for life. So, what is untrue for that?
3. Geographical isolation, are you talking an island like Galapagos? But those organisms there don't evolve. They are just adapting. So, where is evolution? ToE is making a scenario and you should be sure that that scenario is in favor of ToE for it will surely be blown away by simple argument.
4. Before evolution can continue, it must start first. But the starting stage is impossible since population moves, as I said. Then, where is evolution in your scenario?
5. Now here is the fantasy part:
", individuals are born with genes for webbed feet. If the circumstances favour individuals with webbed feet, the genes for webbed feet will be spread in ..."
You are saying that purely natural processes (PNP) did that genes. Or make it realistic, the dirt did it, is that right?
How do you know? Can I test it? Can we repeat it?
6. Now, you told me that I don't know evolution or ToE? If I don't know it, I cannot argue with you. But one thing that you don't know, ToE has messed science in its naturalistic methodology. 150 years of messing facts and evidences, claiming something that should not be claimed. Let us debate further and you will know.
Edited by intellen, : No reason given.

Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Pressie, posted 04-20-2012 1:29 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-20-2012 2:30 AM intellen has replied
 Message 130 by Pressie, posted 04-20-2012 2:43 AM intellen has replied
 Message 136 by Pressie, posted 04-20-2012 8:40 AM intellen has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 126 of 314 (659983)
04-20-2012 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by foreveryoung
04-20-2012 1:39 AM


Where you come from is the pits of hell
Actually, no. I live in one of the most beautiful countries in the word. I live in a country where just a little bit of education ensures a very comfortable life.
I've got more than enough to eat, I own a house with big garden and swimming pool, two cars paid off, holidays at the coast in my own holiday home where I can fish the ocean from my veranda, etc.
If you call that hell, I prefer living in hell.
{AHEM!!! - Getting dragged down to his level, are we? - STOP IT! - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Big red print.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by foreveryoung, posted 04-20-2012 1:39 AM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by foreveryoung, posted 04-20-2012 2:19 AM Pressie has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 127 of 314 (659984)
04-20-2012 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Pressie
04-20-2012 1:59 AM


Getting down to my level huh? What a hypocrite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Pressie, posted 04-20-2012 1:59 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 128 of 314 (659986)
04-20-2012 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by intellen
04-20-2012 1:46 AM


Re: To PRESSIE
Those population don't evolve. They are just adapting, if you are talking about change in whatsoever "changes" you may call, those change is not evolution. It is only adaptation.
You really are all at sea about the most basic concepts in evolution, aren't you?
Now, you told me that I don't know evolution or ToE? If I don't know it, I cannot argue with you.
Then this would be an excellent time to stop trying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by intellen, posted 04-20-2012 1:46 AM intellen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by intellen, posted 04-20-2012 2:35 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
intellen
Member (Idle past 4355 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 05-23-2011


Message 129 of 314 (659987)
04-20-2012 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Dr Adequate
04-20-2012 2:30 AM


Re: To PRESSIE
Dr. Adequate,
You don't know what I've discovered. Then, why do you say that?

Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-20-2012 2:30 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-20-2012 6:36 PM intellen has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 130 of 314 (659988)
04-20-2012 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by intellen
04-20-2012 1:46 AM


Re: To PRESSIE
You see, intell, you can't argue against evolution if you don't even know what it is. You trying to do it is like a loaf of bread trying to argue against the theory of special relativity. You just can't even try to argue agains evolution, because you don't even know what it is.
You are saying that purely natural processes (PNP) did that genes.
Actually, (PNP is a new one to me) random mutations have been demonstrated right in front of our eyes. In the lab. And in the field. Natural selection ensured the development of new species, right in front of our eyes. In the lab. And in the field.
Or make it realistic, the dirt did it, is that right?
You see, here you are telling untruths again. Mutations happened in the DNA, not in dirt. No scientist has ever said that mutations happen in dirt.
How do you know? Can I test it? Can we repeat it?
DNA and mutations have been tested numerous times in a variety of labs all over the world since the 1920's. The fact that you don't even know about one of those tests, testifies that you are not in a position to even try and argue against evolution.
6. Now, you told me that I don't know evolution or ToE? If I don't know it, I cannot argue with you.
You don't. You demonstrated that numerous times in this thread.
But one thing that you don't know, ToE has messed science in its naturalistic methodology.
So, the cell theory, the atom theory, the theory of plate tectonics and all those other scientific theories have "messed in it's naturalistic methodology"? Why do you want anyone to think that nuclear power stations work on ghost power?
150 years of messing facts and evidences, claiming something that should not be claimed. Let us debate further and you will know.
It's funny that all those hundreds of thousands of biologists, all over the world, who know something about the theory of evolution because they study biology every day, disagree with you.
And then all those other hundreds of thousands of other relevant natural scientists, like paleontologists, also disagree with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by intellen, posted 04-20-2012 1:46 AM intellen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by intellen, posted 04-20-2012 3:06 AM Pressie has replied

  
intellen
Member (Idle past 4355 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 05-23-2011


Message 131 of 314 (659990)
04-20-2012 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Pressie
04-20-2012 2:43 AM


Re: To PRESSIE
To: Pressie,
OK, then, let us roll.
So, since mutation or random mutation is the main mech of ToE for new species, as many had been saying here, then, you believe that it is the correct one, OK, with testable evidences? Mark the word: test.
Mutation is a process. Is it a natural process or a purely natural process (PNP) or intelligent process? We need to remember that nature, as we see it, can make many processes.
If natural process or PNP, why you said that it is not intelligent process?
For me, mutation is a PNP process for it did not help life of any living organism.
For example, the causes of mutation are
"Mutations are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication.[1][2][3] They can also be induced by the organism itself, by cellular processes such as hypermutation." from Wiki
No error can help any living organisms. If you disagree, then, let us roll again and discuss.
Now, I need ur answer about this.

Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Pressie, posted 04-20-2012 2:43 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Pressie, posted 04-20-2012 3:57 AM intellen has not replied
 Message 137 by Pressie, posted 04-20-2012 8:52 AM intellen has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 132 of 314 (659992)
04-20-2012 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by intellen
04-20-2012 3:06 AM


Re: To PRESSIE
intellen writes:
So, since mutation or random mutation is the main mech of ToE for new species, as many had been saying here, then, you believe that it is the correct one, OK, with testable evidences? Mark the word: test.
Actually, random mutation is one of the mechanisms. We’ve got a few others as well, you know. It’s not hard to find out. You can even some other mechanisms on the internet. Mechanisms: the processes of evolution - Understanding Evolution
intellen writes:
Mutation is a process. Is it a natural process or a purely natural process (PNP) or intelligent process?
Oh, is mutation a process? Why do you think it is a process? Do you consider radioactive decay a process?
intellen writes:
We need to remember that nature, as we see it, can make many processes.
No, nature doesn’t make it. In nature phenomena occur.
intellen writes:
If natural process or PNP, why you said that it is not intelligent process?
There’s no evidence for any form of intelligence involved in any form of mutations.
intellen writes:
For me, mutation is a PNP process for it did not help life of any living organism.
Say that to those nylon-eating bacteria.
intellen writes:
For example, the causes of mutation are
OK
intellen writes:
No error can help any living organisms. If you disagree, then, let us roll again and discuss.
Say that to those nylon-eating bacteria. http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm The altered part of the DNA (resulting from a frame shift mutation) which provides the coding for digestion of nylon is even shown. Remember to look at those references! From the reference:
Dave Thomas writes:
The image below shows just a part of the 400+-long nucleotide string for the key enzyme (see the Susumu Ohno paper). The original ("old") enzyme's amino acid sequence appears on top, and the frame-shifted ("new") sequence on bottom. The DNA nucleotides appear in the middle for both the old species and the new (one T inserted). Over this small portion of the enzyme, the old DNA coded for the amino acids Arginine, Glutamic Acid, Arginine, Threonine, Phenylalanine, Histidine, Arginine and Proline.
But the NEW DNA strand, which includes one extra T nucleotide, is shifted, and the new string of amino acids is completely changed. The addition of the thymine nucleotide produces a new Methionine amino acid, which, like the conductor tapping his baton, indicates the Start of a new Protein. This is followed by other new amino acids because of the frame shift: Asparagine, Alanine, Arginine, Serine, Threonine, Glycine and Glutamine. The new string of amino acids - the new protein - is completely different from the original.
intellen writes:
Now, I need ur answer about this.
I’ve given you my answer. You know, it’s not very difficult to get them. This research is published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. You can look it up if you’re interested and stop just reading creationist pseudo-science.
Now, if you think that mutation was caused by intelligence, please provide testable evidence for that intelligence. Mark the word: test.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by intellen, posted 04-20-2012 3:06 AM intellen has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 133 of 314 (659993)
04-20-2012 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by intellen
04-19-2012 11:23 PM


Re: how populations evolve - when is it "novel"?
int writes:
PANDA, I knew since ToE had been claming that. So, we can switch to mutation, right?
There is no 'switch'.
If you are talking about biological evolution then you are also talking about mutations.
int writes:
Again, nat selec is only for changes, aka, adaptation, not for origin of new species, aka, evolution of new species.
"changes, aka, adaptation" is evolution.
And if there are enough of the changes you also get a new species.
quote:
Natural selection is the gradual, nonrandom process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers.
It is a key mechanism of evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
quote:
Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
quote:
Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution.
Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
You think that Natural Selection is not connected to the evolution of a new species - but that is clearly wrong.
You think that Natural Selection and mutation are not connected - but that is also clearly wrong.
In summary: you do not understand even the most basic premises of the ToE.

Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by intellen, posted 04-19-2012 11:23 PM intellen has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 134 of 314 (659997)
04-20-2012 7:43 AM


Moderator Request
Please do not post messages consisting of nothing more than comments along the lines of, "You do not understand evolution," or whatever it is you feel is not being understood. If you're not willing to explain the correct understanding patiently and in sufficient detail then please do not post.
Already posted before seeing this message? Better go back and fix it.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 135 of 314 (659999)
04-20-2012 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by foreveryoung
04-19-2012 11:24 PM


Re: slightly off topic ... but we can redirect
Hi foreveryoung,
... It is my opinion ...
Opinion is not science, nor has it been shown to have any effect on reality in any way.
... It is an example my mind came up with that seems logical in its presentation. ...
To you, however without any evidence to show that your premises are correct it is just your opinion again. Logic based solely on opinion is not necessarily valid in any way, and is as likely to be wrong as not (if not more so - there are more ways to be wrong than right).
... Does a thought experiment have to have evidence? ...
If it is a scientific thought experiment it would need to be based on evidence. Otherwise it is just fantasy, made up.
... As for support, if the conclusion is supported by the underlying reasoning, it has support. If you are going to claim it is unsupported, you are going to have to show how the reasoning is faulty.
If the premises are faulty or imaginary there is every reason to expect the conclusion would be faulty or imaginary. A house of cards only stands if each layer is supported by the one below and the bottom layer rests on a firm foundation - you can't build a house of cards in the air.
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 113 by foreveryoung, posted 04-19-2012 11:24 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by foreveryoung, posted 04-21-2012 11:43 AM RAZD 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