|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do "novel" features evolve? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4355 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
dwise1 POSTED: Yes! Precisely! Exactly what we have been telling you over and over again! Individuals do not evolve, but rather populations do! Here is a very important resource for you to actually learn something: Introduction to Evolutionary Biology: Version 2. And here's a very important quote from that very important resource: quote: The process of evolution can be summarized in three sentences: Genes mutate. [gene: a hereditary unit] Individuals are selected. Populations evolve. Yeah, I knew that there are changes BUT those changes cannot produce new species! Is that hard to understand? I knew that population is composed of individuals. I knew that population changes but they don't change to become new species. Yes, gene mutates. But let me get straight: If gen1 has the following traits, t1, t2, t3, t4, t5, t6, t7, t8, t9, t10..., then, the gen2 may get the same traits in a mixed order: t10, t2, t6, t4, t5, t1, t7, t8, t9, t3,...and the third generation, gen3, may get another mixed traits...but the gene cannot mutate traits that are NOT present in gen1! But why do we see changes? We see changes because genes are being mixed up. Say, t1 is a genius trait, t1 can be present in gen1, but it will never be present in gen2, but it doesn't mean that gen2 has no t1 trait! It is very simple! To quickly jump to another species is a fantasy! You see, ToE is messing up science. You messes science!
Please read it and learn it. Then maybe you will be able to say something meaningful about evolution. Because so far all you've been able to mutter is complete nonsense that demonstrates beyond a doubt that you have absolutely no clue what evolution is.
I think you should be reading and using a critical thinking. Don't just say, "Amen, Darwin, you are right!"Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi foreveryoung,
That is irrelevant if you wish to falsify my claims. You assume that I need to falsify any fantasy you construct. In effect you want me to do the work that YOU should do if you want me to consider your concept to be anything but fantasy. I don't need to falsify fantasy, I can simply ignore it.
Yes, it is an opinion that I am asking you to falsify. Repeating the same old "give me evidence" doesn't falsify a thing. Curiously, I can just assume that your opinion is pure fantasy, and proceed with my life unaffected, just as I proceed to do after reading Harry Potter stories. Now if you gave me a reason that I should consider your imagination to involve some valid aspect regarding reality, then I might need to pay attention to it, investigate the empirical evidence that shows whether such a concept is valid or invalid. This reason would involve you substantiating that it is something other that fantasy. I have a clay figurine of a three horned toadThe maker showed me information that the figurine is based on an actual species of toad Therefore the figurine represents actual three horned toads that actually exists Can you falsify this conclusion?Can you falsify the premises? Do you need to? Could I substantiate the first premise by providing a picture of the figurine?Could I substantiate the second premise by providing a notarized affidavit from the maker with a photo of the toad? Is my logical structure valid? Would you then need to consider that my premises and conclusion are true?
Message 52: Changes in the composition of traits in breeding populations cannot create new structures where none existed before. ... This is a falsified assertion. See Message 61 for one example. There are many examples. This is also a PRATT (point refuted a thousand times): CB101.2: Mutations and new features.
quote: If we look at plants we can also see incidences of new features arising that did not exist in the population in previous generations.
... It cannot change keratin into collagen no matter how many different traits occur in a population. This claim has been refuted by several replies already, and it is also refuted by point 4 above. Thus there IS plenty of evidence that your opinion is wrong, and it has already been provided. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrtyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You observe it.
Reality is what we can observe and test. Nonsense like Creationism and Intelligent Design are NOT science, they are fantasy, real fantasy at best, more often simply lies. And did you read Message 51 where I outlined how "novel" features evolve. Is there anything in Message 51 that you do not understand or where you need further explanation?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 582 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Reality is what we can observe and test. Nice little unsubstantiated claim. Prove it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 582 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
You assume that I need to falsify any fantasy you construct. In effect you want me to do the work that YOU should do if you want me to consider your concept to be anything but fantasy. I don't need to falsify fantasy, I can simply ignore it. Calling something a fantasy is an easy way out of disproving an argument. Are you calling every argument a fantasy? If so, why do we argue any point at all if they are all fantasies?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I did.
Did you read Message 51 where I outlined how "novel" features evolve. Is there anything in Message 51 that you do not understand or where you need further explanation? Instead of trying to run away by playing word games, or try to draw people down attractive rabbit holes, please address the issues. Did you read Message 51 where I outlined how "novel" features evolve. Is there anything in Message 51 that you do not understand or where you need further explanation?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 582 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Message 52: Changes in the composition of traits in breeding populations cannot create new structures where none existed before. ... This is a falsified assertion. See Message 61 for one example. You are going to have to do better than that. How does message 61 falsify my assertion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2105 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
I want to proceed with my argument, but now it is impossible because my opponent refuses to address my argument, and so I look at him with a blank stare. Your argument is only as good as the evidence supporting it. Here are some definitions that might help: Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 582 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
I don't come here to read a textbook that will occupy 2 hours of my time before I reply to a point being made. Is there something about the posts you referred that you can tell me about, if it so supremely important to you? Argue with me; don't send me to the library for hours effectively making me disappear from the pages of our argument.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi intellen,
Yeah, I knew that there are changes BUT those changes cannot produce new species! ... The question on this thread is the evolution of new features, not speciation.
... Is that hard to understand? I knew that population is composed of individuals. I knew that population changes but they don't change to become new species. Well it is usually hard to understand falsified comments. Speciation has been observed to occur by just this process, therefore the irrefutable evidence is that speciation in fact occurs.
Yes, gene mutates. But let me get straight: If gen1 has the following traits, t1, t2, t3, t4, t5, t6, t7, t8, t9, t10..., then, the gen2 may get the same traits in a mixed order: t10, t2, t6, t4, t5, t1, t7, t8, t9, t3,...and the third generation, gen3, may get another mixed traits...but the gene cannot mutate traits that are NOT present in gen1! Amusingly that is not how it works.
But why do we see changes? We see changes because genes are being mixed up. Say, t1 is a genius trait, t1 can be present in gen1, but it will never be present in gen2, but it doesn't mean that gen2 has no t1 trait! It is very simple! ... This is also an absurd and total misunderstanding of how genes (= traits) work and how the reproductive process works.
... To quickly jump to another species is a fantasy! Indeed, this is your fantasy, and not how science has determined that evolution works. Conclusions based on false premises are false.
You see, ToE is messing up science. You messes science! Curiously, you have still failed to show what you mean by the THEORY of evolution, all you have provided is your totally mixed up, messed up, misrepresentation of evolution ... and this totally mixed up, messed up, misrepresentation of evolution if yours would certainly mess up science, if scientist in general and geneticists in particular would do anything more than laugh at it. What you have shown is that a ridiculous straw man is a ridiculous straw man. WOW.
I think you should be reading and using a critical thinking. Don't just say, "Amen, Darwin, you are right!" Seeing as we look at real world evidence, and real world science, and already use critical thinking, AND base it on reality instead of fantasy, we don't need to assume Darwin was right: we just look at the evidence that demonstrates it. Interestingly, we also use critical thinking when reviewing concepts like yours that have been invalidated. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So you have not read that post.
Okay. Here it is again and I really doubt it will take you two hours to read or require you to go to the library or read a text book (God forbid someone should actually read a text book).
quote: Now, is there anything in that which you feel needs more explanation?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 582 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Now, is there anything in that which you feel needs more explanation? No. Why did you think I didn't understand that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 582 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Your argument is only as good as the evidence supporting it. Here are some definitions that might help: Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws. Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source] When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith. Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices." Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess. Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred. Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study. How is anyone supposed to do any of that when typing a post? You still haven't told me what you mean by evidence. I have an argument that everyone refuses to address. You just told me how science is conducted. I ALREADY KNOW THAT!!! What the hell do you fucking want me to do when you ask for evidence to support my argument? I said this outcome is not likely if such and such are true. Why can't anyone fucking tell me why that claim is false? Edited by Admin, : Reduce number of consecutive exclamation marks, makes page too wide.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2105 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
What the hell do you fucking want me to do when you ask for evidence to support my argument? I said this outcome is not likely if such and such are true. Why can't anyone fucking tell me why that claim is false? The only claim I can find in this thread is the following:
Changes in the composition of traits in breeding populations cannot create new structures where none existed before. It cannot change keratin into collagen no matter how many different traits occur in a population. Message 52 You have already been shown by several posters how your claim is incorrect. If you persist in your claim, even after being shown that it is incorrect, what you need to do is show some evidence that supports it. This can be done in either of two ways: 1) show where the counter claims made by other posters are incorrect, or 2) provide a model, with supporting evidence, that shows how new structures appeared if they did not do so through evolution.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi foreveryoung
Calling something a fantasy is an easy way out of disproving an argument. Are you calling every argument a fantasy? If so, why do we argue any point at all if they are all fantasies? ... Every argument that is not substantiated by evidence is by definition fantasy. Fantasy Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
quote: ... If so, why do we argue any point at all if they are all fantasies? Because those that are restricted by reality, ie supported by objective empirical evidence, are not fantasies by definition.
Message 172: You are going to have to do better than that. How does Message 61 falsify my assertion? Because it tells you there is objective empirical evidence that shows the formation of a new feature actually occurring in an actually living species, AND it gives you the information necessary to review that information and verify it in an objective manner. I have a rock in my hand. This is objective empirical evidence that rocks exist. I tell you that I have a rock in my hand and I provide you with the means to verify this - a picture. Thus my assertion that there is a rock in my hand is supported by objective empirical evidence, and the FACT that I have a rock in my hand supports the assertion that rocks exist. If you are still skeptical you can come visit and I can show you the rock and you can put it in your hand. Can you say that it is a fantasy that rocks exist based on this evidence? Yes No Alternatively I tell you that I have a bloxstifl in my hand and provide you no means to determine what a bloxstifl is or any means to determine if bloxstifls exist. Can you say that it is a fantasy that bloxstifls exist based on this evidence? Yes No Enjoy.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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024