Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 496 of 1311 (812357)
06-16-2017 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 495 by aristotle
06-16-2017 6:21 AM


Re: The Nested Hierarchy
I have studied evolution a long time, learned a lot about it, and it is very much like a religion in that it is unprovable by definition. ...
All theories are unprovable by definition, but they are based on facts, facts are what are proven, and theories are designed to explain those facts.
The theory of gravity is "unprovable" but it explains why we don't fly off the surface of the earth and it explains the orbits of planets around the sun.
The process of evolution is observed in every generation, the theory of evolution explains the fossil evidence and the genetic evidence.
... We can only assume that the organisms who survived where the most evolved, we can never prove this.
For someone who "studied evolution a long time, learned a lot about it" you should know that this statement is an incorrect portrayal of evolution. There is no "most evolved" organism -- all life on the planet has evolved the same amount.
Similarly your statements re "survival of the fittest" in your proposed topic are inaccurate at portraying how evolution works.
Evolution occurs through those that survive and reproduce. They don't have to be the best at it, they just need to be good enough to get by.
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.
This process is observed to occur and thus it is demonstrated documented fact.
This is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:
Like walking on first one foot and then the next.
What is demonstrated is that those that survive, reproduce and create the next generation that repeats the cycle of the evolutionary process, they pass on their genes and the new generation adds new mutations.
Again, you can only retrospectively assume that to be the truth. This has never been known to happen, ...
Speciation has been observed in the fossil record, in the genetic record and in the world today, it is a fact that speciation occurs. When you have speciation you have a clade, composed of the parent population and the two daughter populations.
... a mutation has never added information to the genome, it's not that easy.
Evolution occurs whether "information" is added or not.
Yes you lot seem to have trouble with definitions, ...
And you just used a term that is not defined anywhere in a way that is scientifically useful.
'Punctuated Equilibrium' is a ludicrous theory invented by evolutionists to try explain away the trend of saltation in the fossil record. Don't try using it on me, won't work.
One of the predictions for the theory is that the evidence (transitional species) will not be found, so the evidence is that their is no evidence! It's truly ludicrous.
So you're going to ignore the evidence of transitions I posted -- will that make the evidence go away?
According to evolution by natural selection, saltations are impossible, an organism must evolve one genetic variation at a time.
If by saltation you mean "abrupt evolutionary change; sudden large-scale mutation" then yes that does not occur by natural selection. We do however have some novel instances of polyploidy which causes new species that can't interbreed with the parent population.
Is that "one genetic variation at a time" or several all at once?
According to evolution as used in biology, speciation usually occurs over many generations of accumulated changes caused by the process of evolution in response to different ecologies. Thus you are likely to see many small variations occurring within breeding populations before speciation occurs. Study of mutations shows that they can cause such small variations.
Therefore, I expect to see one organism for each genetic variation that lead to the organism's current form.
Bully for you. You didn't answer my question ("Is a black mouse different enough from a tan mouse to make it a new species?"), so let's talk about what happens in the real world: is a mutation that causes black fur in tan mice sufficient to create a new species or is it just a variation? They can interbreed. One variety lives in lava beds the other in surround sandy soil areas. We have two population of black mice with different mutations that have been identified as causing the black fur. We observe that the black fur mice survive and reproduce better in the lava bed ecology and the tan mice survive and reproduce better in the surrounding sandy soil ecology.
Similarly a mutation in Peppered moths has been identified that caused the dark variety that survived and reproduced better in a sooty environment than the typical white variety.
Thus we have organisms with single point genetic variations that lead to their "current form."
If there is not an organism linking each and every genetic advancement to it's predecessor, how can we be sure saltations did not take place?
Because we can observe generation by generation the changes in the frequency of traits in the breeding populations and we don't see the sudden change of saltation ... except in the cases of polyploidy.
We can measure those populations and record all the mutations that occur in each individual in each generation (they are actually rather numerous) and we can determine which are beneficial, and with are neutral and which cause death or inability to breed.
For someone who said "I have studied evolution a long time, learned a lot about it" you seem to make a lot of incorrect assertions.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by RAZD, : image link

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 495 by aristotle, posted 06-16-2017 6:21 AM aristotle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 501 by aristotle, posted 06-16-2017 11:46 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 513 by Dredge, posted 06-17-2017 5:22 PM RAZD has replied

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


(1)
Message 497 of 1311 (812381)
06-16-2017 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 495 by aristotle
06-16-2017 6:21 AM


Re: The Nested Hierarchy
I have studied evolution a long time, learned a lot about it, and it is very much like a religion in that it is unprovable by definition. We can only assume that the organisms who survived where the most evolved, we can never prove this.
RAZD commented on your lack of education in science. This post you made confirms it. Nothing in science is "proved" and those who expect proof are clearly unfamiliar with how science and scientific theories operate.
Here are some definitions which may help in your studies:
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.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process. [Source]
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.
The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!
So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by aristotle, posted 06-16-2017 6:21 AM aristotle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 498 by aristotle, posted 06-16-2017 11:04 AM Coyote has replied

  
aristotle
Junior Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 06-15-2017


Message 498 of 1311 (812399)
06-16-2017 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 497 by Coyote
06-16-2017 9:46 AM


Re: The Nested Hierarchy
Nothing in science is "proved"
So you agree that evolution cannot be proved to be true?
Edited by aristotle, : No reason given.

"I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." - Daniel Dennet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 497 by Coyote, posted 06-16-2017 9:46 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 499 by Coyote, posted 06-16-2017 11:08 AM aristotle has replied

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


(3)
Message 499 of 1311 (812400)
06-16-2017 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 498 by aristotle
06-16-2017 11:04 AM


Re: The Nested Hierarchy
So you agree that evolution cannot be proved to be true?
You are compounding your mistake.
The facts of evolution are proved.
The theory of evolution is the single best explanation for that given set of facts. And theories are never proved, but rather supported or disproved.
If you had read my definitions instead of looking for a cheap "gotcha" you might have learned something.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 498 by aristotle, posted 06-16-2017 11:04 AM aristotle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 502 by aristotle, posted 06-16-2017 11:54 AM Coyote has not replied

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


(2)
Message 500 of 1311 (812408)
06-16-2017 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 483 by CRR
06-13-2017 5:08 AM


Re: maybe we should cholera a new vaccine ...
... Talk Origins. I wouldn't worry about anything from that discredited atheist web site.
"atheist"? Wherever do you get that idea from? I cannot recall ever seeing atheism being presented or promoted on it. What are you talking about?
And "discredited" by whom and how? Certainly many creationists have maligned it, since it would routinely examine and expose creationist claims by going back to the purported sources and showing what they actually said. Certainly, creationists should find it a valuable resource for learning which of their claims are sound and which ones are not and therefore should not be used. Except creationists are not about the truth, now are they?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by CRR, posted 06-13-2017 5:08 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 514 by Dredge, posted 06-17-2017 5:29 PM dwise1 has replied
 Message 556 by CRR, posted 06-21-2017 10:21 AM dwise1 has replied

  
aristotle
Junior Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 06-15-2017


Message 501 of 1311 (812409)
06-16-2017 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 496 by RAZD
06-16-2017 7:34 AM


Re: The Nested Hierarchy
The process of evolution is observed in every generation, the theory of evolution explains the fossil evidence and the genetic evidence.
Evolution has never been observed to happen anywhere, and cannot explain complex biological systems.
For someone who "studied evolution a long time, learned a lot about it" you should know that this statement is an incorrect portrayal of evolution. There is no "most evolved" organism -- all life on the planet has evolved the same amount.
Not the Nautilus. If evolution were true the Nautilus would have a lens for it's eye by now.
And by 'most evolved' I simply meant that they had the more desirable characteristics, compared to those individuals who did not survive.
Similarly your statements re "survival of the fittest" in your proposed topic are inaccurate at portraying how evolution works. Evolution occurs through those that survive and reproduce. They don't have to be the best at it, they just need to be good enough to get by.
So wouldn't it follow that the best at reproducing would reproduce?
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.
This process is observed to occur and thus it is
demonstrated documented fact.
That is not natural selection leading to the evolution of the organism. That is the inherent ability in the organism to adapt to it's surroundings. We now know that populations have their own equilibrium mechanisms, and are not just kept in check by the random stimuli of surroundings.
Speciation has been observed in the fossil record, in the genetic record and in the world today, it is a fact that speciation occurs. When you have speciation you have a clade, composed of the parent population and the two
daughter populations.
How can you say that speciation occurs, if you don't even know what the word 'species' means?
Evolution occurs whether "information" is added or not.
So you claim, but all that DNA is, is information. If there is an advancement in DNA there is an advancement of information, they're one and the same.
So you're going to ignore the evidence of transitions I posted -- will that make the evidence go away?
Again there was no information from your page about the plankton fossils that convinced me that there were different species, they all looked very similar.
Bully for you. You didn't answer my question ("Is a black mouse different enough from a tan mouse to make it a new species?")
Whether it is or not, you didn't answer the question of why there aren't the transitionals you'd expect to see.
Because we can observe generation by generation the changes in the frequency of traits in the breeding populations and we don't see the sudden change of saltation ... except in the cases of polyploidy.
Oh really? You can go back in time and observe each transitional generation?
Well that is really something.

"I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." - Daniel Dennet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by RAZD, posted 06-16-2017 7:34 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 503 by ringo, posted 06-16-2017 12:35 PM aristotle has not replied
 Message 505 by RAZD, posted 06-16-2017 1:45 PM aristotle has not replied
 Message 508 by Taq, posted 06-16-2017 4:11 PM aristotle has not replied
 Message 515 by Dredge, posted 06-17-2017 5:45 PM aristotle has not replied

  
aristotle
Junior Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 06-15-2017


Message 502 of 1311 (812411)
06-16-2017 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 499 by Coyote
06-16-2017 11:08 AM


Re: The Nested Hierarchy
The facts of evolution are proved.
Not at all
The theory of evolution is the single best explanation for that given set of facts.
Not at all
And theories are never proved, but rather supported or disproved.
Right, so you agree that the theory of evolution cannot be proved.
If you had read my definitions instead of looking for a cheap "gotcha" you might have learned something.
I did learn something: how dogmatically you lot cling to your theories

"I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." - Daniel Dennet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 499 by Coyote, posted 06-16-2017 11:08 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 509 by Taq, posted 06-16-2017 5:28 PM aristotle has not replied
 Message 510 by RAZD, posted 06-16-2017 6:00 PM aristotle has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 503 of 1311 (812432)
06-16-2017 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 501 by aristotle
06-16-2017 11:46 AM


Re: The Nested Hierarchy
aristotle writes:
If evolution were true the Nautilus would have a lens for it's eye by now.
You can't predict what evolution coulda/woulda/shoulda done.
Aristotle writes:
If there is an advancement in DNA there is an advancement of information, they're one and the same.
It isn't an "advancement". It's a change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 501 by aristotle, posted 06-16-2017 11:46 AM aristotle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 504 of 1311 (812437)
06-16-2017 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 494 by aristotle
06-16-2017 5:54 AM


Re: The Nested Hierarchy
Aristotle writes:
Wow you assume very much!
Wow you're sensitive!
I was merely asking why, if one did exist, it could not create life forms in this hierarchical way.
And I said that he could indeed and that was exctly what Catholics are told to believe.
And planting fossils? Seriously? Don't try pigeonhole me as some idiot bible basher,
Ok, just as soon as you show that you're not one.
I'm not claiming god buried the fossils to trick us! The fossils could just be older creations.
And if you notice it was just one option - one that is routinely brought up here. So we can dismiss that one, good.
And why must it be in one moment of creation?
Mostly because that too is one of the things that those who doubt evolution bring up regularly. Something about 6 days of creation or some such crap.
Why wouldn't it create something, observe, modify, etc. Over long periods of time
He sure could. You can do anything if you're a god. The tricky bit is working out the difference between a god fidding with evolution and a natural process fiddling with evolution. We've found a natural process, so no god necessary. But if he was fiddling with the natural process, it's game over for reason. Occam would turn in his grave.
why do you assume the creation must all be in 'one moment'.
Wow you assume very much!
I'm an atheist, I assume nothing of the kind, I just played back one of the dafter notions routinely put forward here.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by aristotle, posted 06-16-2017 5:54 AM aristotle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 516 by Dredge, posted 06-17-2017 5:59 PM Tangle has replied

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


(1)
Message 505 of 1311 (812447)
06-16-2017 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 501 by aristotle
06-16-2017 11:46 AM


Re: The Nested Hierarchy
Evolution has never been observed to happen anywhere, and cannot explain complex biological systems.
This is simply not true. The problem may be more in the definition of the process than the observation of it. What is your definition of the process of evolution? Mine is
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.
This is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level.
Mutations to existing hereditary traits (ie for eyes and ears) can cause changes in the composition of hereditary traits for individuals in a breeding population, but not all mutations are expressed (and many are in non-hereditary areas). In addition there are many different kinds of mutations and they have different effects (from small to large), especially if they affect the developmental process of an organism.
Natural Selection and Neutral Drift can cause changes in the frequency distribution of hereditary traits within a breeding population, but they are not the only mechanisms known that does so. Selection processes act on the expressed genes of individual organisms, so bundles of genetic mutations are selected rather than individual genes, and this means that non-lethal mutations can be preserved. The more an individual organism reproduces the more it is likely to pass on bundles of genes and mutations to the next generation, increasing the selection of those genes.
The ecological challenges and opportunities change when the environment changes, when the breeding population evolves, when other organisms within the ecology evolve, when migrations change the mixture of organisms within the ecology, and when a breeding population immigrates into a new ecology. These changes can result in different survival and reproductive challenges and opportunities, affecting selection pressure, perhaps causing speciation, perhaps causing extinction.
Mutations of hereditary traits have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.
Different mixing of existing hereditary traits (ie Mendelian inheritance patterns) have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.
Natural selection has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis
Neutral drift has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.
Thus many processes of evolution are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypothesies.
Evolution as defined and described here has occurred.
Not the Nautilus. If evolution were true the Nautilus would have a lens for it's eye by now.
Why? It can see perfectly well for it's needs.
And by 'most evolved' I simply meant that they had the more desirable characteristics, compared to those individuals who did not survive.
Desirable to whom? To you?
So the tan mice don't survive well in the lava beds, and the black mice don't survive well outside the lava beds ... which variety is more desirable?
So wouldn't it follow that the best at reproducing would reproduce?
Just as it follows that those able to reproduce would reproduce.
That is not natural selection leading to the evolution of the organism. That is the inherent ability in the organism to adapt to it's surroundings. ...
Natural selection is not all there is to evolution, if it were we wouldn't need to call it evolution, just natural selection.
Likewise organisms don't have an "ability to adapt" -- adaptation occurs through mutation providing variations and selection favoring the ones better suited to the current ecology.
... We now know that populations have their own equilibrium mechanisms, and are not just kept in check by the random stimuli of surroundings.
Actually we know the opposite, that it is the ecology that controls the survival of all the breeding populations within the ecology, the interaction of the organisms with each other and with the (changing or unchanging) environment. That is why some species go extinct.
How can you say that speciation occurs, if you don't even know what the word 'species' means?
When two daughter populations stop interbreeding you have a speciation event, but more important you have increased diversity and the opportunity for each population to further diverge. Whether we call them species is irrelevant to what is happening. Species names are just tags we use for clarity of discussions.
So you claim, but all that DNA is, is information. ...
Even non-coding repeats? If a mutation removes a segment of DNA and that a loss, then if a mutation inserts a segment of DNA isn't it a gain? If a mutation changes an "A" to a "T" is that a gain or a loss? All such mutations have been observed.
... If there is an advancement in DNA there is an advancement of information, they're one and the same.
What's an "advancement?"
Again there was no information from your page about the plankton fossils that convinced me that there were different species, they all looked very similar.
As similar as the hominids? Just curious.
Are these all one species too?
Whether it is or not, you didn't answer the question of why there aren't the transitionals you'd expect to see.
You mean that you expect to see, possibly because you have false expectations? Curiously I have no problem with the observed evidence thoroughly supporting evolutionary processes.
Oh really? You can go back in time and observe each transitional generation?
No, we observe them in the living world today all around us, in every species. That demonstrates the processes involved, and the theory of evolution says that these observed processes are sufficient to explain the fossil record and the genetic record and the historic record.
Nothing else is needed.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : image link

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 501 by aristotle, posted 06-16-2017 11:46 AM aristotle has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 506 of 1311 (812457)
06-16-2017 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 489 by aristotle
06-16-2017 3:05 AM


Re: Introns and Exons
Aristotle writes:
The exon/intron divergence can be satisfactorily explained as the result of the relative overabundance of synonymous sites involved in CpG dinucleotides:
Neutral Substitutions Occur at a Faster Rate in Exons Than in Noncoding DNA in Primate Genomes
The paper you linked to shows just the opposite:
"Point mutation rates in exons (synonymous sites) and noncoding (introns and intergenic) regions are generally assumed to be the same. However, comparative sequence analyses of synonymous substitutions in exons (81 genes) and that of long intergenic fragments (141.3 kbp) of human and chimpanzee genomes reveal a 30%—60% higher mutation rate in exons than in noncoding DNA."
That paper is saying that the mutation rate in exons is higher than in introns. However, when we compare genomes between species we see more conservation of sequence in exons than in introns, the exact opposite of the observed mutation rate. The only explanation for this is natural selection against deleterious mutations in exons through evolution from a common ancestor.
With ID/Creationism we always hear that a designer would simply copy sequence from one species to the next, so why not copy the introns straight over? Introns are clipped out of the initial RNA molecule to form mature mRNA that is then made into protein. In a few instances there are things like microRNAs within the introns, but for the most part they show no evidence of function. Their sequence makes no impact one way or another.
So why not have nearly the same introns in the human and mouse genomes while changing exons to produce the observed difference in phenotype? Why would a designer spend the time to create more divergence in the introns than in the exons, and do it in a way that produces a nested hierarchy? It makes no sense. This pattern only makes sense if evolution is true.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 489 by aristotle, posted 06-16-2017 3:05 AM aristotle has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 507 of 1311 (812459)
06-16-2017 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 490 by aristotle
06-16-2017 3:44 AM


Re: The Nested Hierarchy
Aristotle writes:
For discussion's sake, if there was a creator, why is it that you think life could not be created in this hierarchical phylogenetic structure?
Wrong question.
If creationism is true, why would we expect to see a nested hierarchy? Out of all the trillions of possible combinations of features and DNA, why pick the one pattern that evolution would produce?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 490 by aristotle, posted 06-16-2017 3:44 AM aristotle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 517 by Dredge, posted 06-17-2017 6:11 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 508 of 1311 (812462)
06-16-2017 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 501 by aristotle
06-16-2017 11:46 AM


Re: The Nested Hierarchy
Aristotle writes:
Evolution has never been observed to happen anywhere, and cannot explain complex biological systems.
It has been observed many times, such as in the evolution of melanism in pocket mice:
Just a moment...
In this example, scientists were able to find the mutations that led to the new phenotype, and show how it was selected for in specific environments. This isn't a case of mice turning black because they sensed they were in an area with black rocks. This adaptation required a mutation.
How can you say that speciation occurs, if you don't even know what the word 'species' means?
Do you know what the words "young" and "old" mean?
If so, can you tell me the microsecond in a person's lifetime when they go from being objectively young to objectively old? No? Species are the same thing. Species are a spectrum.
But more importantly, we look at the effect that reproductively isolation has on the genetics of a population. That is the true measure of ongoing speciation events, where different mutations or different alleles come to dominate each separate population due to the lack of free interbreeding. Even in cases with limited interbreeding you can still get population specific genetic changes to occur.
So you claim, but all that DNA is, is information. If there is an advancement in DNA there is an advancement of information, they're one and the same.
These are yet more undefined terms. How do you determine if there is an "advancement in DNA"? If we were to compare the chimp and human genome, would you be able to point to the advancements?
Again there was no information from your page about the plankton fossils that convinced me that there were different species, they all looked very similar.
A chimp and a human look similar:
Whether it is or not, you didn't answer the question of why there aren't the transitionals you'd expect to see.
Every single transitional is the transitional we would expect to see. All of them fit into the nested hierarchy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 501 by aristotle, posted 06-16-2017 11:46 AM aristotle has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 509 of 1311 (812471)
06-16-2017 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 502 by aristotle
06-16-2017 11:54 AM


Re: The Nested Hierarchy
Aristotle writes:
Not at all
The nested hierarchy is a fact. Evolution is the best explanation for that fact.
If you think we are wrong, then show us how ID/creationism predicts a nested hierarchy, and only a nested hierarchy for complex eukaryotes. If you can't do that, then you have to admit that evolution is the best explanation because evolution does predict a nested hierarchy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 502 by aristotle, posted 06-16-2017 11:54 AM aristotle has not replied

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


(1)
Message 510 of 1311 (812475)
06-16-2017 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 502 by aristotle
06-16-2017 11:54 AM


Re: The Nested Hierarchy
And theories are never proved, but rather supported or disproved.
Right, so you agree that the theory of evolution cannot be proved.
In 150 years of desperate creationist trying the ToE has not been invalidated.
Meanwhile Newton's theory of gravity had to be superseded by Einsteins theory of relativity, because relativity explained the orbit of Mercury and Newton's theory did not accurately model that orbit.
But the theory of gravity cannot be proven ... so if you think this aspect of theories is a serious evisceration of the ToE, jump off the Empire Stated building and see what happens. As an unabashed open-minded skeptic, I did (it was the first step, but still I fell to the pavement).
If you had read my definitions instead of looking for a cheap "gotcha" you might have learned something.
I did learn something: how dogmatically you lot cling to your theories
Another cheap "gotcha" attempt ... sad.
If you have a better testable evidence based scientific theory that explains all the evidence, then trot it out and we'll look at it. I'm not holding my breath (like I did at the Empire State Building).
The Theory of Evolution is the predominantly accepted scientific theory that explains the diversity of (all) life on earth, past and present. Accepting the best available explanation is not dogmatic (lack of) thinking, it is the practical use of available information for understanding "life, the universe, and everything" (Douglas Adams).
Not at all
Curiously, denial is not a substantiated argument.
Not at all
Curiously, opinion has been demonstrated to be quite ineffective at altering reality.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 502 by aristotle, posted 06-16-2017 11:54 AM aristotle 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