Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-16-2019 12:47 AM
28 online now:
DrJones*, edge, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (4 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: lopezeast0211
Happy Birthday: Theodoric
Post Volume:
Total: 856,807 Year: 11,843/19,786 Month: 1,624/2,641 Week: 133/708 Day: 0/67 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
2021
...
24Next
Author Topic:   Why is the Intelligent Designer so inept?
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 271 of 352 (507624)
05-06-2009 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by traderdrew
05-06-2009 7:47 PM


do it yourself
You are required to bring the argument here in your own words. Quote the relevant part of what you are referencing and give your reasons why you think it applies.

Thank you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by traderdrew, posted 05-06-2009 7:47 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18578
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 272 of 352 (507635)
05-06-2009 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by traderdrew
05-06-2009 7:47 PM


Re: The Cambrian
traderdrew writes:

If you go back to the post before these circles began, you will find a part on hox genes on that talkorigins page. Look at the 5th response.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

According to the rule 5 of the Forum Guidelines you should avoid bare links and "Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references."

Looking back through the thread I see that you've been reminded of rule 5 a number of times, specifically, Message 222, Message 229 and Message 245

So please explain how this link supports what you've been saying about hox genes and strength of diversity and phyla/species ratios and so forth. I don't see any connection, or that your claim even makes any sense.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Clarification.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by traderdrew, posted 05-06-2009 7:47 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 273 of 352 (507643)
05-06-2009 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by traderdrew
05-06-2009 8:03 PM


Re: The Cambrain and I.D.
It might be somewhat subjective but I think the lack of differences actually strengthens my arguement.

How so?

Cladistics are not the only way. I have read about another study called molecular comparisons. Here is part of some documented work of a molecular comparison from the Discovery Institute. As we see in the link below, cladistics may say one thing but when they are contrasted with molecular comparisons, it may place the theoretical evolutionary chain in question.

http://www.discovery.org/a/4529

"On morphological grounds, evolutionary biologist Leigh Van Valen proposed in the 1960s that modern whales are descended from an extinct group of hyena-like animals.13 In the 1990s, molecular comparisons suggested that whales are more closely related to hippopotamuses 14. In 2001, however, evolutionary biologist Kenneth D. Rose reported that “substantial discrepancies remain” between the morphological and molecular evidence.

Interesting stuff isn't it?

Three mistakes.

First, hyena-like does not mean hyena. It means something that somewhat resembles a modern hyena.

Secondly, what the genetic comparisons suggest is that the closest living relative to whales is the hippo.

Fixing your two first mistakes leads us to the real answer. Modern whales and modern hippos share a common ancestor that was hyena-like (but not a hyena). This common ancestor was an artiodactyl just as whales and hippos are to this day, but not hyenas.

Third mistake is in trusting the Discovery Institute to accurately portray a quote. Here is the entire Rose quote:

quote:
Despite this evidence that cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) evolved from artiodactyls, substantial discrepancies remain, Rose said. "If cetacaeans belong to artiodactyls," he said, "then similarities in the cranial and dental morphologies of mesonychians and cetaceans must be the result of convergent evolution or must have been lost in artiodactyls.

"Well-preserved ankles of the earliest ancient whales are now needed to confirm that the traits seen in the new skeletons are indeed inherited from early artiodactyls and not a result of convergent evolution," Rose said.

source


There are still puzzles to work out, but nothing impossible or contradictory.

You got me on that one but, even though they found Tiktaalik, there isn't enough evidence (that convinces me) that there was a smooth transition between tetapods and their precursors.

So you are moving from the "no transitionals" to the "not enough transitionals" camp. The moving goal posts are noted.

So how did you come to the conclusion that the transition is not smooth? Have we dug up every fossil of every species that has existed? If not, how can you come to this conclusion?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by traderdrew, posted 05-06-2009 8:03 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by traderdrew, posted 05-07-2009 12:29 PM Taq has responded

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3346 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 274 of 352 (507692)
05-07-2009 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Taq
05-06-2009 11:52 PM


Re: The Cambrain and I.D.
ng your two first mistakes leads us to the real answer. Modern whales and modern hippos share a common ancestor that was hyena-like (but not a hyena). This common ancestor was an artiodactyl just as whales and hippos are to this day, but not hyenas. Third mistake is in trusting the Discovery Institute to accurately portray a quote.

Actually I was wrong since I misunderstood the information from the Discovery Institute. If you keep reading the page just after my cut and paste, they actually do docuement citing a raccoon-like creature which is an artiodactyl. It seems the Discovery Institute agrees with you on the whale's ancestor. Click #16 on their page and you will see.

J. G. M. Thewissen et al., “Whales originated from aquatic artiodactyls in the Eocene epoch of India,” Nature 450 (2007): 1190-1194.

So you are moving from the "no transitionals" to the "not enough transitionals" camp. The moving goal posts are noted.

So how did you come to the conclusion that the transition is not smooth? Have we dug up every fossil of every species that has existed? If not, how can you come to this conclusion?

I believe that there is a lack of transitional types before the Cambrian phylum. I did not move my goal posts on other creatures. Remember, I did state that I believe in some sort of evolution. Change over time seems obvious to me.

I do understand why I couldn't understand where you guys were coming from. It all depends on your paradigm. If I read Percy correctly, he believes their ancestors were soft bodied and had a much lower chance of fossilizing. However, it seems to me that it is unlikely that all of the phylum got together and had a party and decided to become hard bodied. When I state what the Cambrian phylum had no ancestors, this is heresy to evolutionists since those ancestors had to have been there according to the TOE even though we haven't found them. I do not wish to continue to incriminate myself as a heretic for now. Evolutionists had better pray in Darwin's name that they find those ancestors. Maybe someone can carve them out of stone. Otherwise, Darwin just might deliver you guys into our hands.

Adios. I will see you all around.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Taq, posted 05-06-2009 11:52 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by bluescat48, posted 05-07-2009 12:47 PM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 276 by Taq, posted 05-07-2009 1:01 PM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 277 by Coragyps, posted 05-07-2009 1:35 PM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 278 by Percy, posted 05-07-2009 2:34 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2382 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 275 of 352 (507697)
05-07-2009 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by traderdrew
05-07-2009 12:29 PM


Re: The Cambrain and I.D.
traderdrew writes:

I believe that there is a lack of transitional types before the Cambrian phylum

What, might I ask, is the Cambrian Phylum?


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by traderdrew, posted 05-07-2009 12:29 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 276 of 352 (507699)
05-07-2009 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by traderdrew
05-07-2009 12:29 PM


Re: The Cambrain and I.D.
I believe that there is a lack of transitional types before the Cambrian phylum.

Like the poster above, I have to ask what a "Cambrian Phylum" is. Modern species are in the same phyla as species found in the Cambrian.

Secondly, there may very well continue to be a lack of transitionals. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We do not have a minute by minute itinerary for George Washington, but I am pretty sure George Washington existed for those days that we have no recorded history for his existence. We have by no means searched every inch of Cambrian strata, nor has every bit of Cambrian strata made it into the modern age. On top of that, there is still no guarantee that every species that existed during the Cambrian era produced a fossil. Gaps in the fossil record are not a problem for the theory of evolution. Fossils with features which violate the predictions made by the theory of evolution are a problem, and those fossils have not been found.

If I read Percy correctly, he believes their ancestors were soft bodied and had a much lower chance of fossilizing. However, it seems to me that it is unlikely that all of the phylum got together and had a party and decided to become hard bodied.

The fossils that we do have prior to the Cambrian explosion are of soft bodied critters. During the Cambrian explosion we see the emergence of hard bodied animals and the number of specimens increases. It's not a stretch of the imagination that the increase in the number of specimens is due to the appearance of body types that are more easily preserved.

As for you incredulity, that is your problem. I can state that airplanes shouldn't be able to fly, but that doesn't cause them to fall out of the sky.

When I state what the Cambrian phylum had no ancestors, this is heresy to evolutionists since those ancestors had to have been there according to the TOE even though we haven't found them.

It's not heresy. It is an unfounded claim. You can not look at a fossil and determine that it did not have ancestors. There are no labels on fossils that says "do not have ancestors". If I dig in a cemetary and come across a human skeleton can I state that this skeleton suddenly appears with no ancestors? How can I do such a thing?

Evolutionists had better pray in Darwin's name that they find those ancestors. Maybe someone can carve them out of stone. Otherwise, Darwin just might deliver you guys into our hands.

I thought we were having an adult conversation.

I have no doubt that scientists are looking for these fossils as we speak. However, the theory of evolution does not hang in the balance on whether or not these fossils are found. The genetic evidence is as conclusive as it gets. Even if no fossils had ever been found the genetic evidence would be enough to show that the theory of evolution is very, very accurate. Fossils are the icing on the cake, so to speak.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by traderdrew, posted 05-07-2009 12:29 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5396
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 277 of 352 (507710)
05-07-2009 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by traderdrew
05-07-2009 12:29 PM


Re: The Cambrain and I.D.
However, it seems to me that it is unlikely that all of the phylum got together and had a party and decided to become hard bodied.

They didn't. Water chemistry changed, and more free oxygen showed up in the atmosphere, and metabolisms were able to evolve that included secreting shelly parts. I'll try to find some links tonight....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by traderdrew, posted 05-07-2009 12:29 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18578
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 278 of 352 (507719)
05-07-2009 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by traderdrew
05-07-2009 12:29 PM


Re: The Cambrain and I.D.
traderdrew writes:

Evolutionists had better pray in Darwin's name that they find those ancestors. Maybe someone can carve them out of stone. Otherwise, Darwin just might deliver you guys into our hands.

How can you say things like this and still think anyone will believe your objections aren't religious? If evolution is proven wrong it will be done through scientific investigation, not religious appeals.

Adios. I will see you all around.

Adios, TraderDrew. When next you try to tackle this subject you might consider gathering your information first and drawing your conclusions second. When you start with the conclusions then you'll just keep being wrong. Incredible as it apparently must seem to religious types like yourself, making accurate statements about the real world requires studying the real world. People who understand the real world best are those who study it the most. How likely do you really think it is that those whose research interests are inclined toward God and Bible have arrived at a correct understanding of evidence from the natural world that for the most part they don't even know exists? That's why you consistently have to post things like this:

Actually I was wrong since I misunderstood the information from the Discovery Institute.

You're to be lauded for your honesty, a more common reaction to being wrong is to just dig in one's heels, but what your errors hopefully tells you is that you're drawing conclusions too early in the learning process.

You're not going to find any real problems with evolution at ICR or DI because they're not doing scientific research. They're doing religious apologetics. If you want to know the problems with evolution, talk to scientists. These problems are much more exciting and profound than the ones creationists make up.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by traderdrew, posted 05-07-2009 12:29 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3346 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 279 of 352 (508253)
05-11-2009 8:26 PM


General Reply
I know I said adios but I couldn't resist thinking about these things.

What, might I ask, is the Cambrian Phylum?

Obviously I am an amateur at this. This is like a hobby on the side.

They didn't. Water chemistry changed, and more free oxygen showed up in the atmosphere, and metabolisms were able to evolve that included secreting shelly parts.

Do you realize that this might be getting away from neo-Darwinism? If environmental factors induced rapid evolution of Cambrian species, where are the random mutations? You would probably respond that this would allow them to evolve. I have another way of looking at this as usual. Why would a creator place more complex organisms in an ecosystem if environmental factors didn't allow them to flourish? When conditions became conducive to supporting these species, that would be the only time when they could flourish.

How can you say things like this and still think anyone will believe your objections aren't religious? If evolution is proven wrong it will be done through scientific investigation, not religious appeals.

I believe all of this has underlying religious implications and ramifications. You might argue that atheism is not a religion but no matter what you believe, all of us consult various frameworks of morality. Religion is partly based on abstract concepts of morality. However, I don't think I.D. can identify the creator. How could I prove that Budda or Yoda did or didn't do all of this?

When next you try to tackle this subject you might consider gathering your information first and drawing your conclusions second. When you start with the conclusions then you'll just keep being wrong.

If I did that then you wouldn't have as much fun in correcting my mistakes. I do have a sense of humor sometimes. Too bad my adversaries don't appreciate it.

I also have been thinking about some of the related topics in this thread.

Why is the Intelligent Designer so inept?

Inept is a point of view. I believe I have successfully refuted the idea of the necessity of making perfect biological structures by using my computer analogy. I also find this idea as out of place and maybe even ironic since there are phenomenon on the earth and in the universe that we don’t totally understand, let alone recreate. So who are we to say that the creator is inept if we don't understand certain things?

Theological Creationism and I.D.

Is I.D. just a form of creationism? I think creationism is I.D. but I.D. isn’t totally creationism. There are proponents of I.D. who believe in biological evolution. If this is so then, what is our beef? We don’t believe that evolution (particularly neo-Darwinism) explains how all organisms originated.

I think the term creationism is a misnomer. I think creationists should have studied the original Hebrew translation of the book of Genesis. If you look up the original Hebrew word that was used to describe how God made the animals and some other things, the word “vaya’as” was used and vaya’as means "make" but not "create". There are other Hebrew words that mean or are associated with "create". When you make something, you make it out of other parts you don't create them out of thin air. Proponents of I.D. should more appropriately be described as makeists and not creationists. Vaya’as just might explain punctuated equilibrium.

Punctuated equilibrium and neo-Darwinism seems to be a marriage of two conceptual explanations of evolution. Neo-Darwinism may explain microevolution but when you start leaving a step by step gradual process of change, you start entering the realm of miracles. The mechanisms that explain punctuated equilibrium have escaped my research.

I have attempted to research the idea that phyla are contrivances of a hierarchical identification system both on the internet and in various books on evolution at the bookstores. Yes, I read parts of those books but sometimes there is only so much I can take before I want to debate the authors. There were some researchers who proposed this but it doesn’t seem to be held by mainstream scientists. There was also someone who proposed that classification should be categorized as a web instead of a tree. I don’t know how this theory will play out but it will be interesting to watch. I’m still for a fractal hierarchy of some of the various phyla. I even found someone who seems to agree with my realization referring to the cladogram as fractal.

Edited by traderdrew, : Minor edit


Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Coragyps, posted 05-11-2009 9:44 PM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 281 by Coyote, posted 05-11-2009 10:29 PM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 282 by Taq, posted 05-12-2009 12:11 PM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 283 by lyx2no, posted 05-12-2009 2:26 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5396
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 280 of 352 (508255)
05-11-2009 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by traderdrew
05-11-2009 8:26 PM


Re: General Reply
Do you realize that this might be getting away from neo-Darwinism? If environmental factors induced rapid evolution of Cambrian species, where are the random mutations?

The mutations go on all the time, with every generation. The environment does some of the selection. That's why neodarwinism is sometimes summarized as Random Mutation and Natural Selection.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by traderdrew, posted 05-11-2009 8:26 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 298 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 281 of 352 (508266)
05-11-2009 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by traderdrew
05-11-2009 8:26 PM


Re: General Reply
Punctuated equilibrium and neo-Darwinism seems to be a marriage of two conceptual explanations of evolution. Neo-Darwinism may explain microevolution but when you start leaving a step by step gradual process of change, you start entering the realm of miracles. The mechanisms that explain punctuated equilibrium have escaped my research.

I disagree.

Punctuated equilibrium is just a period of more rapid change. If you have more rapidly changing environmental conditions, those species which survive will be those changing quickly enough to get by.

On the other hand, with stable environmental conditions, little change is required. Most everyone is adequate enough when times are easy.

And that's the crux of PE! Nothing miraculous about that!

The mechanisms are exactly the same for PE as for anything else. Changes are just driven faster by more extreme selection pressures.

What would take a miracle is if there were some magical barrier which let evolution progress just so far and then said, "Stop! Just that far and no farther!"

Otherwise, sans miracles, those little micros just keep adding up and pretty soon, either through time or geography, you have two separate species.

So, specify that miraculous "Stop sign" you see that suddenly halts genomic change when it has gone far enough.

Make it good--your Nobel Prize awaits.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by traderdrew, posted 05-11-2009 8:26 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by IchiBan, posted 05-15-2009 2:58 AM Coyote has responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 7971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 282 of 352 (508308)
05-12-2009 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by traderdrew
05-11-2009 8:26 PM


Re: General Reply
Do you realize that this might be getting away from neo-Darwinism?

Both phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilbria fit nicely into neo-Darwinism. They work by the same mechanisms, the mechanisms of mutation, selection, and speciation. The difference is that punctuated equilibria puts more stress on the mechanism of speciation.

If environmental factors induced rapid evolution of Cambrian species, where are the random mutations?

They are still there producing more variation which is then selected by the environment. Selection and mutation work in opposite directions. Mutations produce variation. Selection pares down variation. In environments that are changing, new variation that is better adapated to the changing environment so what we see is a replacement of the old with the new. In static environments, new variations are much less likely to be better adapted than the old variation.

Why would a creator place more complex organisms in an ecosystem if environmental factors didn't allow them to flourish?

If mutations lead to complex organisms that are better suited to the environment these mutations would become more and more common in the population, would they not?

Inept is a point of view. I believe I have successfully refuted the idea of the necessity of making perfect biological structures by using my computer analogy.

If that were true we would all be using 8086 computers right now (no offense to Mac users). We aren't. Your refutation failed.

If I may, I will speak just a little bit more on the Cambrian explosion and evolution.

When we look at embryonic development we see embryos go through stages that resemble simpler forms of life. It is not a straight recapitulation like Haeckel proposed, but the evolution of development is reflected in the stages of development. Each stage of development is based on the stage before it. In the Cambrian we see species that set the foundation for this process. These species evolved the first steps in embryonic development. Over time, embryonic development has continued to evolve. Stages that were once at the end of development are now at the beginning. As these early stages are built upon it gets much harder to change those early stages.

As an analogy, which is easier? To change the foundation of a building or to change the faucets? Obviously, it is much easier to change the faucets. That is how it is with embryonic development. The end stages are much easier to change than the early, foundational steps. It is easier to change the number of phalanges than it is to change the number of tissues (endoderm, mesoderm, ectoderm) in a triploblastic organism. Once you start building on top of these early developmental stages you can no longer change them.

This is what we see in the Cambrian. The establishment of the earliest stages of embryonic development due to the emergence of hox genes. Evolution of complex animals since then has added to this foundation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by traderdrew, posted 05-11-2009 8:26 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2908 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 283 of 352 (508321)
05-12-2009 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by traderdrew
05-11-2009 8:26 PM


An Inept God
Inept is a point of view.
And you seem to understand God has achieved it.

Why would a creator place more complex organisms in an ecosystem if environmental factors didn't allow them to flourish?
Because the Creator is inept or nonexistent could both serve to answer that question. Extinctions show one or the other to be the case. Yet you choose neither and go for some wheels within wheels rational.

So who are we to say that the creator is inept if we don't understand certain things?
"We" are not. A fair number go for the "nonexistent" option.

Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.


Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by traderdrew, posted 05-11-2009 8:26 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3346 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 284 of 352 (508508)
05-14-2009 12:30 PM


General Reply
Punctuated equilibrium is just a period of more rapid change. If you have more rapidly changing environmental conditions, those species which survive will be those changing quickly enough to get by.So, specify that miraculous "Stop sign" you see that suddenly halts genomic change when it has gone far enough.

I think there are some biochemists who are far more qualified than me to answer that. It is just a matter if people want to consider another paradigm. I don't think many want to give it up. As Max Plank stated, "Science progesses funeral by funeral." It has been said that he was referring to people who didn't want to accept new ways of looking at things. Neo-Darwinism is the most naturalistic way to express evolution. I really think it is at an extreme of possibilities.


If that were true we would all be using 8086 computers right now (no offense to Mac users). We aren't. Your refutation failed.

In other words we are still evolving better eyes. I don't know of any scientific evidence that is saying that we are. You haven't convinced me. Tag clearly has knowledge on neo-Darwinsism but this isn't the first time that I have got the impression that Tag is reaching.

The end stages are much easier to change than the early, foundational steps. It is easier to change the number of phalanges than it is to change the number of tissues (endoderm, mesoderm, ectoderm) in a triploblastic organism. Once you start building on top of these early developmental stages you can no longer change them.

I actually read something on embryonic mutations. Mutations at this stage typically kill or serverely cripple unborn fetuses. I would have thought that evolution would have evolved better mechanisms in order to prevent mutations at these stages. I would have thought that they would already have them in order to better ensure the survival of various species of the time.

To end this post. I would be more inclined to believe in some sort of guided evolution. I don't think many scientists like this idea simply because any theory that incorporates it gets closer to the idea of the existence of an intelligent creator. Once again, neo-Darwinism is at an extreme of theories pertaining to evolution.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by traderdrew, posted 05-14-2009 12:39 PM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 286 by Coyote, posted 05-14-2009 12:45 PM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 288 by Blue Jay, posted 05-14-2009 1:18 PM traderdrew has not yet responded
 Message 294 by Taq, posted 05-15-2009 12:26 PM traderdrew has responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3346 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 285 of 352 (508509)
05-14-2009 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by traderdrew
05-14-2009 12:30 PM


Re: General Reply
The genome has error correction mechanisms that prevent random mutations. I believe enzymes play a role in these sophisticated biochemical protection pathways.

I previously posted a link about how bacteria were able to somehow evolve in order to disgest lactose in which they couldn't do it before. This suggests that organisms can rearrange their own DNA with some sort of biochemical (maybe more) engineering process. This would explain punctuated equilibrium as as partly a guided process and would almost disqualify random mutations as playing a major role in it.

Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by traderdrew, posted 05-14-2009 12:30 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Blue Jay, posted 05-14-2009 12:45 PM traderdrew has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
2021
...
24Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019