Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


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 181 of 314 (660159)
04-21-2012 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by RAZD
04-21-2012 2:35 PM


Re: logic, assumption, opinion, belief, and the need for evidence
We are going to go around and around in circles until I get a full grasp of what you mean by support by evidence. You have not told me yet so I guess you enjoy going around in circles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by RAZD, posted 04-21-2012 2:35 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by RAZD, posted 04-21-2012 3:38 PM foreveryoung has not replied

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


Message 182 of 314 (660160)
04-21-2012 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Coyote
04-21-2012 2:32 PM


Re: Evidence
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.
Where has my claim been shown to be incorrect and why do you feel it has been shown to be so?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Coyote, posted 04-21-2012 2:32 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Coyote, posted 04-21-2012 2:53 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 187 by dwise1, posted 04-21-2012 3:06 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 183 of 314 (660161)
04-21-2012 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by foreveryoung
04-21-2012 2:49 PM


Re: Evidence
See Message 61.
That showed formation of a new structure where it had not previously existed.
That alone falsifies your claim.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by foreveryoung, posted 04-21-2012 2:49 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by foreveryoung, posted 04-21-2012 2:58 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 184 of 314 (660162)
04-21-2012 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by RAZD
04-21-2012 2:35 PM


Re: logic, assumption, opinion, belief, and the need for evidence
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.
It isn't always possible to obtain the "rock" but that doesn't mean the "rock " doesn't exist or is a fantasy. Asking someone to provide that kind of evidence before they will consider the validity of your argument is a ridiculous requirement. If you won't consider any arguement I make until I provide you with the "rock" then I guess there is no reason for you to speak with me. That condition is impossible for anyone to meet. I guess that is why you always demand that condition of creationist's. You know it stops the discussion dead cold and you get to claim victory even though you were too chickenshit to try and dismantle the argument presented.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by RAZD, posted 04-21-2012 2:35 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 185 of 314 (660163)
04-21-2012 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Coyote
04-21-2012 2:53 PM


Re: Evidence
That doesn't falsify my claim because you are defining a new structure way too broadly. I define new structure as something along the lines of a tonsil. You cannot produce a tonsil from random mutation and natural selection where there was no tonsil before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Coyote, posted 04-21-2012 2:53 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by JonF, posted 04-21-2012 3:53 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 205 by Tangle, posted 04-21-2012 5:56 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 186 of 314 (660164)
04-21-2012 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Chuck77
04-21-2012 6:51 AM


Re: how populations evolve - when is it "novel"?
I forget which class it was where we were given these terms -- I think it was linguistics (I was a German major at the time) and the terms were used to distinguish between two different ways to compare languages. Here are the terms:
1. synchronic -- at the same time. This form of comparison would compare differences and similarities between related languages at a fixed point in time.
2. diachronic -- through time. This form of comparison would compare features of the same language at two different points in time and thus would study how that language had changed over time.
I think that keeping those terms and concepts in mind will help here.
Do you mind elaborating on this for me? A bunch of "individuals" do make up a population don't they?
That is correct. But you need to also keep in mind what we're discussing.
Consider one definition of evolution which also gives us a way to measure it: change in a population's genome over time. Or, to avoid the appearance of arbitrarily defining evolution in terms of a population, we could reword that to be change in the genomes of the individuals within a population over time.
OK, you and I are individuals within our human population. Our genetic make-ups (AKA our genotypes, AKA our DNA), are slight variations of the overall human genome. Where did you get your DNA from? From your parents, as they had gotten theirs from their parents and so on back through time. When we were conceived, two random packets of half of each parent's DNA combined to give us our own DNA. And that's what we're stuck with for our entire lives.
So then, if we observe an individual diachronically from conception to death, do we ever observe that individual evolving? Do we ever observe his DNA, his genotype, changing over time? No, we do not. Therefore, individuals do not evolve.
Now observe a population of individuals. First, we observe the population synchronically, comparing its constituent individuals with each other. We find that they have mostly the same traits, though with some variation (eg, some are larger, some have slightly different pigmentation) and we note the kinds of variation and how extensive and prevalent those variations are. We might even observe that some individuals have one or a few traits that the others don't have and we note what percentage of the population has that trait.
After we have made a number of synchronic surveys over time (over enough time for the individuals of the previous survey to have died out, so the population now consists of new individuals), we can now observe the same population diachronically. We compare our synchronic observations from different times to see how they may have changed. We may observe that the extent and prevalence of some of the variations have changed; eg, subdued camoflaging coloration may have become more prevalent. We may also observe that some of those new traits have become much more prevalent and are now the norm, or that they have all but disappeared. What we do observe is that the overall genome of the population will have changed over time. Therefore, populations evolve.
So then, individuals do not evolve, but populations do. QED
But let's take it one step further. Individuals themselves consist of individual cells, each of which contains and uses a copy of the individual's DNA and each of which copies that DNA when it reproduces; even though we as individuals reproduce sexually, our cells are constantly reproducing asexually through mitosis. These cells can experience mutation, for example light-skinned individuals exposed to bright sunlight (ie, UV irradiation) over time can suffer mutations in the skin cells that create lesions (actinic keratosis, AK for short) that can develop into skin cancer. However, these mutations are all localized and do not change the individual's overall DNA. Also, these mutations that occur in body cells will die with the individual and not be passed on to any offspring; it is only the mutations arising in germ cells (ie, the cells that produce gametes) that will have any chance of being passed on to the next generation.
I hope that all made sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Chuck77, posted 04-21-2012 6:51 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 187 of 314 (660165)
04-21-2012 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by foreveryoung
04-21-2012 2:49 PM


Re: Evidence
Where has my claim been shown to be incorrect and why do you feel it has been shown to be so?
In my reply, Message 89, for example. Quite conclusively, I felt.
Why do you feel that my reply did not show your claim to be incorrect?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by foreveryoung, posted 04-21-2012 2:49 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 188 of 314 (660166)
04-21-2012 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by foreveryoung
04-21-2012 1:57 PM


Re: It really is simple
Okay, so you understand what is in that post.
Now you understand how evolution happens and that Creationism or Intelligent design are simply irrelevant.
Is that correct?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by foreveryoung, posted 04-21-2012 1:57 PM foreveryoung has not replied

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


(1)
Message 189 of 314 (660167)
04-21-2012 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by intellen
04-21-2012 12:20 PM


Re: how populations evolve - when is it "novel"?
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!
This is so far from actual genetics that it's not even clear what it is you're trying to be wrong about. It's as though someone was to pretend to be knowledgeable about sports by saying: "The second baseman was caught leg before wicket, so the goalie was awarded a slam-dunk" ... it's not merely that this is a description of something that never happened, it's not even a description of something.
Perhaps you should begin by learning the meaning of the word "trait". A trait is a possible variant of a character: e.g. if the character is eye color, blue eyes would be a trait; if the character is whether or not one has earlobes, then having earlobes is a trait.
Now, obviously it make no sense to talk of the order of traits, there's no difference between having blue eyes and earlobes and having earlobes and blue eyes. The idea of "the same traits in a mixed order" doesn't mean anything.
You see, ToE is messing up science. You messes science!
Either that, or geneticists know about genetics and you don't.
I think you should be reading and using a critical thinking.
I have followed your advice and concluded that you are spouting ignorant claptrap.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by intellen, posted 04-21-2012 12:20 PM intellen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by intellen, posted 04-21-2012 3:40 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 190 of 314 (660170)
04-21-2012 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by foreveryoung
04-21-2012 2:47 PM


Re: logic, assumption, opinion, belief, and the need for evidence
Hi foreveryoung,
We are going to go around and around in circles until I get a full grasp of what you mean by support by evidence. You have not told me yet so I guess you enjoy going around in circles.
Well you are the one that keeps going back to the beginning, while apparently ignoring all the comments that have been made to guide you to a better understanding.
Objective evidence is something that can be verified by someone else as actually existing.
You can pick up a rock, put your hand on another rock and smash it with the first, and you will have substantial objective evidence that rocks exist.
I can do the same. The existence of rocks is a fact of reality, and denial of rocks would be delusional, yes?
de•lu•sion -noun (American Heritage Dictionary 2009)
  1. a. The act or process of deluding.
    b. The state of being deluded.
  2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
  3. Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.
Do you agree that denial of the existence of rocks would be a false belief or opinion? Yes No
Do you agree that denial of the existence of rocks after smashing your hand with one would be a false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence? Yes No
Message 182: Where has my claim been shown to be incorrect and why do you feel it has been shown to be so?
In the replies to your posts - you can go back and look at them - and if you don't understand how they refute your assertion THEN reply to those posts on that issue.
Message 174: I don't come here to read a textbook that will occupy 2 hours of my time before I reply ...
So you would rather occupy 2 hours of your time here trying to learn something available in a textbook? AND waste 2 hours of our time trying to teach you fairly simple concepts? Are we supposed to be nursemaids for incomplete education?
Message 184: It isn't always possible to obtain the "rock" but that doesn't mean the "rock " doesn't exist or is a fantasy. Asking someone to provide that kind of evidence before they will consider the validity of your argument is a ridiculous requirement. ...
Curiously, this is precisely the level of evidence required by science and the scientific method. This level of evidence is what separates scientific theory from hypothesis and conjecture.
If it is too much work for you, then perhaps you are not cut out to be a scientist or to debate scientific concepts ...
This is precisely why scientific experiments need to be verifiable and precisely why scientific articles on the development of new science information are peer reviewed before they are published in scientific journals.
Do you agree that an argument supported by a rock is much stronger than one that is not supported by a rock? Yes No
... If you won't consider any arguement I make until I provide you with the "rock" then I guess there is no reason for you to speak with me. ...
There is little reason for you to make posts that cannot supported by that level of evidence if you want them to be considered as scientifically valid rather than fantasy. The choice of how you present your arguments is up to you.
... That condition is impossible for anyone to meet. ...
And yet you concede that rocks exist, so obviously it is possible to talk about concepts supported by this kind of evidence.
The fact that this level of evidential support is required by science means that if you are going to challenge science you need to do it with the same level of support, and not by make believe fantasy.
... I guess that is why you always demand that condition of creationist's. ...
That is why people demand that condition for anyone that challenges science. Creationists just tend to be a particular subset of that category.
You challenge scientific concepts by doing science, not by popular vote or under educated opinion.
... You know it stops the discussion dead cold ...
Yes it stops the discussion of any and all unsupported imaginary fantasies dead cold, just as it SHOULD when talking about science and scientific concepts.
Concepts that cannot be supported by evidence are not scientific concepts. They are hypothetical and philosophical concepts at best, fantasy and delusion at worst
... and you get to claim victory ...
It is a loss every time someone fails to understand and refuses to learn.
... even though you were too chickenshit to try and dismantle the argument presented.
Or because you are "too chickenshit to try and" support "the argument presented" ... ?
Or are you just completely unable to support your argument, and you want us to just accept it out of some bizarre misguided sense of pity, thinking it will somehow make you a better educated person as a result?
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

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 181 by foreveryoung, posted 04-21-2012 2:47 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
intellen
Member (Idle past 4356 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 05-23-2011


Message 191 of 314 (660171)
04-21-2012 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Dr Adequate
04-21-2012 3:18 PM


Re: how populations evolve - when is it "novel"?
To: Dr Adequate
This is so far from actual genetics that it's not even clear what it is you're trying to be wrong about. It's as though someone was to pretend to be knowledgeable about sports by saying: "The second baseman was caught leg before wicket, so the goalie was awarded a slam-dunk" ... it's not merely that this is a description of something that never happened, it's not even a description of something.
Perhaps you should begin by learning the meaning of the word "trait". A trait is a possible variant of a character: e.g. if the character is eye color, blue eyes would be a trait; if the character is whether or not one has earlobes, then having earlobes is a trait.
Now, obviously it make no sense to talk of the order of traits, there's no difference between having blue eyes and earlobes and having earlobes and blue eyes. The idea of "the same traits in a mixed order" doesn't mean anything.
I knew that. That is why I had given you example so that you will know where you will be using that word "trait" because ToE loves to make explanation without any realistic application.
Let us go back to our example:
If generation1 (gen1) had the following traits as a whole (take note: as a whole)
t1, t2, t3, t4, t5...., t100, (from t1 until t100)
then gen1 will reproduce the same traits to gen2, but since there is no "perfect clone", then, the traits will be mixed up in arrangement, like this
t3, t50, 67, 80, ....t1...(the same complete genes/traits with gen1).
That is how we see "changes" that was incorrectly labeled by ToE as "evolution" to the point of making new species.
The problem is: when gen1 reproduces gen2, will t200 or t500, new traits, will be formed? No! Since how could genes mutates if that t200 or t500 is not present in gen1?
You see, ToE is messing up science and making fantasy.
Am I rght?
Edited by intellen, : No reason given.
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 189 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-21-2012 3:18 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by JonF, posted 04-21-2012 3:47 PM intellen has not replied
 Message 193 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-21-2012 3:48 PM intellen has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 192 of 314 (660172)
04-21-2012 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by intellen
04-21-2012 3:40 PM


Re: how populations evolve - when is it "novel"?
The problem is: when gen1 reproduces gen2, will t200 or t500, new traits, will be formed? No!
Wrong. The answer is yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by intellen, posted 04-21-2012 3:40 PM intellen has not replied

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


(1)
Message 193 of 314 (660173)
04-21-2012 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by intellen
04-21-2012 3:40 PM


Re: how populations evolve - when is it "novel"?
Let us go back to our example:
If generation1 (gen1) had the following traits as a whole (take note: as a whole)
t1, t2, t3, t4, t5...., t100, (from t1 until t100)
then gen1 will reproduce the same traits to gen2, but since there is no "perfect clone", then, the traits will be mixed up in arrangement, like this
t3, t50, 67, 80, ....t1...(the same complete genes/traits with gen1).
Again, you're not exactly painting a picture. What, in the real world, do you want to correspond to the "arrangement" of the traits?
Instead of a hundred traits, let's consider two --- the two I've mentioned. Let t1 = having blue eyes, and t2 = having earlobes.
What is the difference between the "arrangement" t1, t2 and the "arrangement" t2, t1?
The problem is: when gen1 reproduces gen2, will t200 or t500, new traits, will be formed? No! Since how could genes mutates if that t200 or t500 is not present in gen1?
Now you need to learn the meaning of the word "mutate".
You see, ToE is messing up science and making fantasy.
Am I rght?
No. You are pathetically, ludicrously wrong.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by intellen, posted 04-21-2012 3:40 PM intellen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by intellen, posted 04-21-2012 4:00 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 194 of 314 (660174)
04-21-2012 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by foreveryoung
04-21-2012 2:58 PM


Re: Evidence
That doesn't falsify my claim because you are defining a new structure way too broadly. I define new structure as something along the lines of a tonsil. You cannot produce a tonsil from random mutation and natural selection where there was no tonsil before.
OK, then you need to start with an operational definition of a new structure. "Something like a tonsil" isn't any use. You need to supply a set of tests and/or operations that anyone can perform when trying to decide whether or not something is a new structure. Anyone can apply that definition and everyone who does will come the the same conclusion for a particular structure.
Of course, you can't supply such a definition, partly because you don't have a clue and partly because it's just so much easier to dismiss anything we present as "defining a new structure way too broadly".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by foreveryoung, posted 04-21-2012 2:58 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by foreveryoung, posted 04-22-2012 12:19 AM JonF has not replied

  
intellen
Member (Idle past 4356 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 05-23-2011


Message 195 of 314 (660176)
04-21-2012 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Dr Adequate
04-21-2012 3:48 PM


Re: how populations evolve - when is it "novel"?
Again, you're not exactly painting a picture. What, in the real world, do you want to correspond to the "arrangement" of the traits?
Instead of a hundred traits, let's consider two --- the two I've mentioned. Let t1 = having blue eyes, and t2 = having earlobes.
What is the difference between the "arrangement" t1, t2 and the "arrangement" t2, t1?
OK, let us use your scenario.
Yes, that is a change! From this combination: t1, t2 to this combination, t2, t1...that is exactly a change.
If gen1 has t1, and t2, then, gen2 will also must have t1, and t2, too. But since there is no perfect clone, then, t2, t1 is a possibility since we have only two traits. And that is not evolution. That is only a change. In my own discovery, I called it "interrelation."
So, where is evolution and where is mutation? Do you imply that t3 will be formed? That is a fantasy! OK, I'll play. BUT you need to be sure that you know the meaning of "inheritable traits" because this will be the biggest blow to ToE.
How can you show that t3 will be formed by mutation or evolution?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-21-2012 3:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-21-2012 4:06 PM intellen has replied
 Message 199 by RAZD, posted 04-21-2012 4:57 PM intellen 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