Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 9:17 PM
29 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,171 Year: 9,207/19,786 Month: 1,629/2,119 Week: 389/576 Day: 64/128 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
19NextFF
Author Topic:   Adding information to the genome.
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 76 of 280 (532725)
10-26-2009 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Kaichos Man
10-25-2009 8:08 AM


Re: laugh first think second?
No, it's standard evolution style. It would be an embarrassment to any other field of science.

Could I once again point out that your habit of making up crazy lies in your head vitiates your arguments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-25-2009 8:08 AM Kaichos Man has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 77 of 280 (532740)
10-26-2009 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Blue Jay
10-25-2009 7:59 PM


Re: laugh first think second?
Bah! Results and discussion?

What ever next? Analysis and synthesis?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Blue Jay, posted 10-25-2009 7:59 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

    
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 2654 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 78 of 280 (532840)
10-26-2009 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by RAZD
10-25-2009 12:55 PM


Re: The last laugh is that evidence of lactation evolving shows added information
And amusingly, you keep eagerly demonstrating the truth that your opinion is worthless in discussing reality.

RADZ, let's discuss reality.

The reality is that some scientists examined some fossils purported to be 200 million years old. From their examination, they deduced the following:

1. The creatures were too young to feed themselves.

2. The bone and tooth structures suggested an abundance of calcium.

3. The abundance of calcium suggested the presence of caseins.

4. The presence of caseins suggested mammary secretion.

This is the reality. Now let's ask a few questions.

In deciding whether a creature is old enough to feed itself, size is not an issue. The smallest herbivor can graze, the smallest carnivore can hunt small prey. The main consideration (particularly in a fossil) must be the development of teeth and bones. Given that these creatures had well-developed teeth and bones, why did the scientists decide they were too young to feed themselves?

Well developed teeth and bones certainly suggest an abundant supply of calcium, but why does it need to be in the form of caseins? A lot of eggs are primarily composed of calcium, after all. If calcium can be used to build the egg, why not the teeth and bones of the creature inside? Baby crocodiles don't recieve caseins from mammary secretion. Do they exhibit underdeveloped teeth and bones?

Now you may ask why trained scientists would draw the far-fetched conclusion of "mammary secretion" based on such dubious evidence. But to do so is to fail to understand the evolutionary paradigm.

The theory must be supported and explained. Lactation exists, therefore it must have evolved. It is the duty of every scientist to explain how evolution took place.

That's why in evolution, unlike any other field of science, alternative hypotheses are discarded solely on the basis that they don't support the theory. The theory validates the facts, not vice versa. If the facts are at variance to the theory, then they can't be facts. There is no better example of this than the 110 years during which the ToE was soundly falsified by the fossil record, until Gould and Eldredge came up with the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium.

Whether you agree with punctuated equilibrium or not isn't the point. Why wasn't the theory dropped during those 110 years?

Because faith hangs on. And make no mistake about it, atheism is a faith.


"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2009 12:55 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Blue Jay, posted 10-26-2009 11:05 PM Kaichos Man has responded
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 10-26-2009 11:25 PM Kaichos Man has responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 864 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 79 of 280 (532855)
10-26-2009 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Kaichos Man
10-26-2009 9:00 PM


Re: The last laugh is that evidence of lactation evolving shows added information
Hi, Kaichos Man.

Kaichos Man writes:

In deciding whether a creature is old enough to feed itself, size is not an issue. The smallest herbivor can graze, the smallest carnivore can hunt small prey. The main consideration (particularly in a fossil) must be the development of teeth and bones.

Do you make it a point to assume that all of your opponents are complete idiots?

-----

Kaichos Man writes:

That's why in evolution, unlike any other field of science...

I'm getting really sick of hearing this crap from you. Have you ever heard of dark matter? It's rather theoretical at this point, wouldn't you agree?

However, it seems that physicists not only embrace dark matter, but they also theorize about its relationship with the basic forces of the universe and can evenestimate its abundance and density in different regions of the universe.

I'm sure Larni can give you similar examples from the psychological sciences, and any of the handful of rock people at EvC can give you similar examples from the geological sciences. I don't think we have any chemists here, but I'm sure there are similar examples from chemistry.

It happens everytime a theory becomes well-established in any field of science: the theory becomes the basis from which we evaluate new information. That's the whole point of making theories.

It's normal.

It's science.

Get used to it.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-26-2009 9:00 PM Kaichos Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-28-2009 7:09 AM Blue Jay has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 80 of 280 (532857)
10-26-2009 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Kaichos Man
10-26-2009 9:00 PM


Re: The last laugh is that evidence of lactation evolving shows added information
Hi again Kaichos Man, finally an argument?

Because faith hangs on. And make no mistake about it, atheism is a faith.

I suggest you read both my signature and Pseudoskepticism and logic before you go making unfounded assumptions. The topic is closed now, so you won't have a chance to provide your input. If you are lazy you can read my summary of the topic Message 562. Let's not try to pretend that atheists are your only adversaries in this debate.

RADZ, let's discuss reality.

Indeed: reality as in the many types of faith that have no argument/s with evolution, and reality as in knowledge supported by the evidence.

1. The creatures were too young to feed themselves.

Which is NOT what the article said, so this argument is based on a misrepresentation, and is just a straw man, rather than reality.

In deciding whether a creature is old enough to feed itself, size is not an issue. The smallest herbivor can graze, the smallest carnivore can hunt small prey. The main consideration (particularly in a fossil) must be the development of teeth and bones.

The main consideration is the level of development of teeth and bones in comparison to earlier fossils and to fossils of other closely related (similar homologies) organisms living at the same time, it isn't just some arbitrary decision. The article points to one place in the fossil record:

The origin and evolution of lactation, Anthony V Capuco and R Michael Akers

quote:

This is evident from the article, as it points out that at this one point in time the development of teeth and bones in this group of organisms was faster the previous fossils or related fossils -- they apply to any organisms in the cynodontia clade and not to organisms outside the cynodontia clade. They point to one place in the fossil record in one lineage of fossils to identify where this happens.

... The smallest herbivor can graze, the smallest carnivore can hunt small prey. ...

But not enough to grow at the rate that these animals grew (bone size). In many mammals today, they are not able to support their own life by self feeding when they are deprived of their mother.

... Given that these creatures had well-developed teeth and bones, why did the scientists decide they were too young to feed themselves?

This question is based on your misreading of the article. Let's go back and read again what the article said:

quote:
The evolution of the casein family of milk proteins in particular would provide calcium, phosphate and protein to hatchlings. Fossil records suggest that caseins were present during the Triassic, because the extensive bone and tooth development evident in the relevant species at stages before independent feeding would have required delivery of ample calcium. Given this evolutionary scenario, the composition of mammary secretions during early lactation in monotremes and marsupials is likely to be similar to that of the primitive milk of mammalian predecessors
(bold for emphasis again).

It's not that they are "too young to feed themselves" but that the could not eat enough, feeding on their own, to grow at the rate of growth that is observed in the fossil record, in this lineage, at this point in time.

2. The bone and tooth structures suggested an abundance of calcium.

The bones and teeth in these fossils show the accumulation of calcium at an increased rate compared to other fossils which indicates a new source of calcium is used, one that is not used by organisms that are not in the cynodontia clade.

As a minor diversion involving the cynodontia clade, we'll review a previous (mistaken) comment of yours (Message 66):

"disaccharide lactose (galactose 􌦲 glucose) is contained in all milks, except for those of some marine mammals." This argues for common ancestry of all these organisms

And must therefore, logically, argue against common ancestry for those marine mammals.

This is poor logic at best, as this would only be true if this occurred at the same time as the evolution of lactation. The marine mammals are still within the cynodontia clade, and membership in the clade is based on common ancestry, which is based on having homologous traits, one of which is the production of certain proteins. Any one of these homologous traits can be lost or further modified by later evolution, and the cladistics of marine mammals show that they diverged from mammals much more recently than the beginning evidence of milk in the fossil record. These mammals are also still characterized by being milk producing and milk feeding organisms, just ones without this one protein.

Marine mammals are also still members of the therapsid clade, the mammalia clade and the eutheria clade/s. If you want to discuss/learn more about clades I suggest Clades and Kinds.

Well developed teeth and bones certainly suggest an abundant supply of calcium, but why does it need to be in the form of caseins? A lot of eggs are primarily composed of calcium, after all. If calcium can be used to build the egg, why not the teeth and bones of the creature inside? Baby crocodiles don't recieve caseins from mammary secretion. Do they exhibit underdeveloped teeth and bones?

They don't exhibit the rate of growth of mammals. Even if the egg shells are consumed rather than abandoned, there is only so much calcium in the egg shells, certainly no enough to support months of growth.

3. The abundance of calcium suggested the presence of caseins.

The increased rate of growth suggests a new source of calcium not present in previous ancestral organisms or in later organisms that are not members or descendants members of the cynodontia clade.

4. The presence of caseins suggested mammary secretion.

Which are casein rich secretions. All members of the cynodontia clade show patterns of increased rates of growth of young in excess of the rate of growth for non-cynodontia clade members, and all living mammals show that this is due to the presence of caseins in milk. Further, the rate of growth in modern mammals is similar to that of the early fossils.

Now you may ask why trained scientists would draw the far-fetched conclusion of "mammary secretion" based on such dubious evidence.

Oops. So much for argument not based on opinion. You have failed to demonstrate that the logical conclusions supported by the evidence are "far-fetched" in any way, and instead just asserted it as fact. This, of course is a well-known result of cognitive dissonance:

Cognitive dissonance (Wikipedia, 2009)

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, and also the awareness of one's behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.[1] Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

A powerful cause of dissonance is when an idea conflicts with a fundamental element of the self-concept, such as "I am a good person" or "I made the right decision." This can lead to rationalization when a person is presented with evidence of a bad choice. It can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of disconfirming evidence, and other ego defense mechanisms.


Some common first attempts to resolve this conflict involve denial of the evidence, ridiculing the concept, or claiming there is some vast conspiracy involved. People mock what they have trouble understanding, or make up fantasy scenarios to explain (to themselves) why other people could argue for the contradictory evidence, or even (shudder) find the contradictory evidence more compelling than your opinion.

But to do so is to fail to understand the evolutionary paradigm.

The theory must be supported and explained. Lactation exists, therefore it must have evolved. It is the duty of every scientist to explain how evolution took place.

That's why in evolution, unlike any other field of science, alternative hypotheses are discarded solely on the basis that they don't support the theory. The theory validates the facts, not vice versa. If the facts are at variance to the theory, then they can't be facts. There is no better example of this than the 110 years during which the ToE was soundly falsified by the fossil record, until Gould and Eldredge came up with the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium.

Sadly for you, once again we see that your opinion of how science works is amusingly at odds with the reality of how science works. All science looks for answers to how things work the way they do, and when something is not explained they acknowledge that it is unexplained. Because {X} is not explained does not mean that theory {Y} is false, it just implies that either (a) the evidence, (b) the application of the theory or (c) the explanation of the current theory is incomplete.

Fascinatingly, theories in science -- in all sciences - are only discarded when they are falsified, not when there is evidence that is not explained. This is especially so of theories that explain piles of known evidence.

The theory must be supported and explained. Lactation exists, therefore it must have evolved. It is the duty of every scientist to explain how evolution took place.

That's why in evolution, unlike any other field of science, alternative hypotheses are discarded solely on the basis that they don't support the theory. The theory validates the facts, not vice versa. If the facts are at variance to the theory, then they can't be facts. There is no better example of this than the 110 years during which the ToE was soundly falsified by the fossil record, until Gould and Eldredge came up with the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium.

Whether you agree with punctuated equilibrium or not isn't the point. Why wasn't the theory dropped during those 110 years?

Amusingly science does not work like creationism, starting from a premise and then searching for evidence to support it while discarding contradictory evidence along the way.

Curiously, punctuated equilibrium was also suggested by Darwin, as he talked about different rates of evolution. Fascinatingly there is bountiful evidence of gradualistic evolution as well as rapid evolution: the evidence is that the rates of evolution can change in different circumstances. If you want to discuss this topic it is better suited to the ongoing discussion on Stasis and Evolution.

Amusingly another one of the early ways to deal with cognitive dissonance is to try to change the subject away from the issue where dissonance is getting bothersome. The whole issue of punk eek has absolutely nothing to do with the evolution of lactation.

And thus, at the end of the day, we still have (1) evidence that lactation began ~200 million years ago in the basal group for the cynodontia clade, (2) evidence that lactation exists in all descendents within the cynodontia clade, albeit in later modified form in marine mammals, (3) lactation does not exist outside the cynodontia clade, either before cynodontia or in other clades, and (4) this process results in rapid growth of the young, a selectable evolutionary benefit, and finally (5) the information for this process is not evident outside the cynodontia clade. Again, if you want to discuss/learn more about clades I suggest Clades and Kinds.

Lactation demonstrates a new feature in members of the Cynodontia Clade that evolved through the adaptation of an existing feature to a new use. Either this adds "information" to the genome, or the concept of "information" is useless for discussing the relative possibility of new features evolving.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : link added

Edited by RAZD, : finished sentence.


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 78 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-26-2009 9:00 PM Kaichos Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-28-2009 10:17 PM RAZD has responded

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 2654 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 81 of 280 (533018)
10-28-2009 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Blue Jay
10-26-2009 11:05 PM


Re: The last laugh is that evidence of lactation evolving shows added information
I'm getting really sick of hearing this crap from you.

Dear me. Perhaps you should hear it from someone else:

"The concept of organic evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the reason why severe methodological criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to bear on evolutionary speculation."

Conklin, Edwin G. (Professor of Biology , Princeton University)


"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin
This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Blue Jay, posted 10-26-2009 11:05 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Theodoric, posted 10-28-2009 10:13 AM Kaichos Man has not yet responded
 Message 84 by Blue Jay, posted 10-28-2009 9:07 PM Kaichos Man has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6274
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 82 of 280 (533036)
10-28-2009 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Kaichos Man
10-28-2009 7:09 AM


You should really confirm what your sources tell you
Your sources suck.

This is from
Science and common sense: an Aristotelian excursion
By William Robin Thompson
Published 1937

Source

Amazing that things may have changed a little in 72 years. I can find nothing on this guy so I do not know if he was speaking with any authority or knowledge. Also, I cannot find the book online so I cannot see the context of the quote.

If you used this as your source. They are wrong. If you look for the Conklin book they claim it comes from you will find the quote does not exist in that book. It is sad to see someone with the scientific credentials of Emerson Thomas McMullen, distorting science to fit his own radical religious agenda. I find it curious that he has a long list of peer reviewed articles but this posting is not peer reviewed as is no other creationist writings he has made..

Remember what we have told you many times. Creationists lie and present fiction as fact.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-28-2009 7:09 AM Kaichos Man has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by subbie, posted 10-28-2009 2:08 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(2)
Message 83 of 280 (533072)
10-28-2009 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Theodoric
10-28-2009 10:13 AM


Re: You should really confirm what your sources tell you
Theodoric writes:

Remember what we have told you many times. Creationists lie and present fiction as fact.

If we're going to suggest Kaichos check his sources, let's include his signature, another creotard lie.

Here's the entire paragraph, from which the cold shudder line is lifted, from a letter Darwin wrote to Charles Lyell:

quote:
You seemed to have worked admirably on the species question; there could not have been a better plan than reading up on the opposite side. I rejoice profoundly that you intend admitting the doctrine of modification in your new edition;* nothing, I am convinced, could be more important for its success. I honour you most sincerely. To have maintained in the position of a master, one [Page 25] side of a question for thirty years, and then deliberately give it up, is a fact to which I much doubt whether the records of science offer a parallel. For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for, thinking of so many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it as morally impossible that investigators of truth, like you and Hooker, can be wholly wrong, and therefore I rest in peace. Thank you for criticisms, which, if there be a second edition, I will attend to. I have been thinking that if I am much execrated as an atheist, etc., whether the admission of the doctrine of natural selection could injure your works; but I hope and think not, for as far as I can remember, the virulence of bigotry is expended on the first offender, and those who adopt his views are only pitied as deluded, by the wise and cheerful bigots.

Source.

Anyone wanna lay odds that Kaichos will continue this fraud, just as he ignores all other facts presented to him?


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Theodoric, posted 10-28-2009 10:13 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-02-2009 2:25 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 864 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 84 of 280 (533112)
10-28-2009 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Kaichos Man
10-28-2009 7:09 AM


Lesson learned: do not put extraneous content in posts to Kaichos Man
Hi, Kaichos Man.

Any chance you'll comment on my argument that all sciences treat their well-established theories as the baseline from which they create new theories?

Or, any chance you'll comment on why additions of information to the genome that don't result in a net increase of information can be treated differently from additions that do not not result in a net increase?

Or, do you just what to pick out another of my random statements to comment on and ignore the important and on-topic portions of my messages?

Edited by Bluejay, : Altered subtitle slightly


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-28-2009 7:09 AM Kaichos Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-28-2009 10:57 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 2654 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 85 of 280 (533118)
10-28-2009 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by RAZD
10-26-2009 11:25 PM


Re: The last laugh is that evidence of lactation evolving shows added information
Let's not try to pretend that atheists are your only adversaries in this debate.

Agreed, and I apologise. Suffice it to say that while not all evolutionists are atheists, it's a safe bet that all atheists are evolutionists.

The main consideration is the level of development of teeth and bones in comparison to earlier fossils and to fossils of other closely related (similar homologies) organisms living at the same time, it isn't just some arbitrary decision.

We know little about cynodontia's diet (that isn't conjecture, no matter how reasonable) and even less about their eating capacity and metabolism. All we know is that the juveniles were well supplied with calcium. Comparison with earlier "relatives" or contemporary homologs is not valid, as we see wide variety in diets/eating capacities/metabolisms in closely related species today.

This is poor logic at best

Why? It's very simple logic. If the presence of disaccharide lactose argues for common ancestory, then its absence must, ipso facto, argue against it. Therefore if the author wanted to argue for common ancestory, he chose a pretty weak premise on which to do so.

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously.

The 110 years during which evolutionists retained the ToE while knowing that the fossil record comprehensively contradicted the theory is probably history's best example of cognitive dissonance.

Amusingly another one of the early ways to deal with cognitive dissonance is to try to change the subject away from the issue where dissonance is getting bothersome.

If you are trying to change the subject, you don't write:

Whether you agree with punctuated equilibrium or not isn't the point.

What is this sentence if not an attempt to keep the discussion on topic?

Look, I obviously haven't made my point clear. I understand that evolution is dealing with events that happened a long time ago, and for which scant physical evidence now exists. I understand that because of these limitations, in most instances inference is the best scientists can hope for, and for that reason they must phrase their hypotheses in appropriatly careful language.

What I object to is the fact that many scientists are treating the difficulties incumbent in studying the deep past as a license to make any claim they like, and present it as "evidence".

For example, your authors use phrases like: "records suggest that...", and "is likely to be similar to..."

and yet you are perfectly comfortable in asserting:

Lactation demonstrates a new feature in members of the Cynodontia Clade that evolved through the adaptation of an existing feature to a new use.

Not a suggestion. Not a likelihood. A fact.


"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin
This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 10-26-2009 11:25 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2009 11:16 PM Kaichos Man has responded

    
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 2654 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 86 of 280 (533119)
10-28-2009 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Blue Jay
10-28-2009 9:07 PM


Re: Lesson learned: do not put extraneous content in posts to Kaichos Man
Any chance you'll comment on my argument that all sciences treat their well-established theories as the baseline from which they create new theories?

No other field of science is based on a fundamental theory that is unrepeatable, unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.

Or, any chance you'll comment on why additions of information to the genome that don't result in a net increase of information

An addition of information is an increase in information. A change in information isn't. That isn't to say it (a change)can't result in an adaptive advantage, but this thread is specifically about the increase in the size of the functional, non-redundant genome over billions of years.


"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin
This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Blue Jay, posted 10-28-2009 9:07 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Coyote, posted 10-29-2009 12:12 AM Kaichos Man has responded
 Message 97 by Larni, posted 10-29-2009 11:12 AM Kaichos Man has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 87 of 280 (533122)
10-28-2009 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Kaichos Man
10-28-2009 10:17 PM


Lactose added to genome is added information
Hi Kaichos Man

Agreed, and I apologise.

Fair enough.

Suffice it to say that while not all evolutionists are atheists, it's a safe bet that all atheists are evolutionists.

Nope. False logic again. Rather atheism and sciences are not necessarily related.

Further, if we look at the religious people that find evolution objectionable we see that they are subsets of some religions, particularly fundamentalist sects, while other sects of the same basic religion have no argument with evolution. Logically this says that the disagreement lies in the fundamentalist camp/s, and not in the rest of the population.

We know little about cynodontia's diet (that isn't conjecture, no matter how reasonable) and even less about their eating capacity and metabolism. All we know is that the juveniles were well supplied with calcium. Comparison with earlier "relatives" or contemporary homologs is not valid, as we see wide variety in diets/eating capacities/metabolisms in closely related species today.

What we see is a more rapid rate of growth in the cynodontia clade consistently from that point to the present. Outside that clade we do not see this rate of growth.

Why? It's very simple logic. If the presence of disaccharide lactose argues for common ancestory, then its absence must, ipso facto, argue against it. Therefore if the author wanted to argue for common ancestory, he chose a pretty weak premise on which to do so.

I understand that it is simple logic, I'm just pointing out that it is false to assume that the trait was not lost long after the original gain, especially when there are (a) numerous other homologies that unite marine mammals with terrestrial ones, (b) other homologies with terrestrial mammals that marine mammals have lost, (c) losing traits is not uncommon in evolution, and (d) they still posses mammary glands and feed their young milk, just milk without this one protein -- the other milk products are homologous with other mammals.

Are you really trying to argue that marine mammals are not related to other mammals based on one milk protein? I have a nephew who was not able to digest mother's milk - does that make him not-mammal?

The 110 years during which evolutionists retained the ToE while knowing that the fossil record comprehensively contradicted the theory is probably history's best example of cognitive dissonance.

Again, this is a falsehood: Darwin talked about punk-eek. You must have missed it on the Stasis and Evolution thread where Modulus posted chapter and verse (Message 36):

Chapter 10, On the Origin of Species (first ed):

quote:
Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree. In the oldest tertiary beds a few living shells may still be found in the midst of a multitude of extinct forms. Falconer has given a striking instance of a similar fact, in an existing crocodile associated with many strange and lost mammals and reptiles in the sub-Himalayan deposits. The Silurian Lingula differs but little from the living species of this genus; whereas most of the other Silurian Molluscs and all the Crustaceans have changed greatly. The productions of the land seem to change at a quicker rate than those of the sea, of which a striking instance has lately been observed in Switzerland.

and

Chapter 15, same (though I think this particular quote was added in a later edition):

quote:
Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Many species when once formed never undergo any further change but become extinct without leaving modified descendants; and the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retained the same form. It is the dominant and widely ranging species which vary most frequently and vary most, and varieties are often at first local--both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links in any one formation less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they have spread, and are discovered in a geological formation, they appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species

Punk-eek is more a fabrication of media hoopla than a new concept, Dawkins and many others dismissed it as nothing new when it first came out.

Look, I obviously haven't made my point clear. I understand that evolution is dealing with events that happened a long time ago, and for which scant physical evidence now exists. I understand that because of these limitations, in most instances inference is the best scientists can hope for, and for that reason they must phrase their hypotheses in appropriatly careful language.

This is typical of all science. Nothing is taken as truth, empirical evidence is assumed to be due to reality, and all theories are tentative explanations of the evidence.

What I object to is the fact that many scientists are treating the difficulties incumbent in studying the deep past as a license to make any claim they like, and present it as "evidence".

For example, your authors use phrases like: "records suggest that...", and "is likely to be similar to..."

and yet you are perfectly comfortable in asserting:

Lactation demonstrates a new feature in members of the Cynodontia Clade that evolved through the adaptation of an existing feature to a new use.

Not a suggestion. Not a likelihood. A fact.

Fair enough: the evidence shows a clear point at which a new source of calcium was used, because there is an increase in the rate of growth of young organisms within the clade. The increased rate of growth is completely consistent with the rates of growth in mammals today, which is due to the calcium content of milk/s. It is also completely consistent with the rates of growth in marsupials and in monotremes, which is also due to the calcium content of milk/s. This consistency extends into the fossil record back to the time of Cynodontia, a fossil clade known to be a population that these lineages descended from due to the homologies in their fossil structures. In addition, the milk products in all three lineages contain homologous proteins, one in particular. Thus the evidence of increased growth in all three lineages is best explained by the emergence of lactation in general, and that one protein in particular, at one time - in Cynodontia.

It is a fact that Cynodontia exhibit this increased growth rate.

It is a fact that milk products in mammals, marsupials and monotremes share basic proteins that are homologous, one in particular.

If you disagree with this argument then you need to supply a different explanation for the facts.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-28-2009 10:17 PM Kaichos Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-29-2009 12:57 AM RAZD has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 272 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 88 of 280 (533126)
10-29-2009 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Kaichos Man
10-28-2009 10:57 PM


Creationist propaganda about science vs. evolutionary sciences
No other field of science is based on a fundamental theory that is unrepeatable, unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.

Sorry, that is creationist propaganda designed to drive a wedge, in the minds of those who don't know any better, between evolutionary sciences and "other" sciences.

Not surprisingly, it is also false. The new field of genetics could have caused a major revision, or even a falsification, of portions of the theory of evolution but instead it supported the theory to a great degree. Of course there were some changes--that's to be expected in science--but everything turned out to be pointed in the same general direction.

Scientists for some reason don't see evolutionary sciences as "unrepeatable, unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific." Ever wonder why?

Perhaps creationists should not try to dabble in science, eh? Being against science and the scientific method because of their religious beliefs, they tend not to learn enough about it to make meaningful comments.

(I still remember the creationist who, on another website, lectured us on "the second law of thermal documents.")


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-28-2009 10:57 PM Kaichos Man has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-29-2009 1:08 AM Coyote has responded

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 2654 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 89 of 280 (533134)
10-29-2009 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by RAZD
10-28-2009 11:16 PM


Re: Lactose added to genome is added information
Suffice it to say that while not all evolutionists are atheists, it's a safe bet that all atheists are evolutionists.

Nope. False logic again.

And you can prove it by naming an atheist who doesn't believe in evolution?

Are you really trying to argue that marine mammals are not related to other mammals based on one milk protein?

Absolutely not. That would be just as absurd as arguing that marine mammals are related to other mammals based on one milk protein. Which is what the author was attempting.

If you disagree with this argument then you need to supply a different explanation for the facts.

Okay, let's try a completely different tack. Let's say that Cynodonts did lactate and supply their young with caseins.

What's to say Cynodonts weren't mammals? As far as I can tell from the research (correct me if I'm wrong) we can't even prove they laid eggs. They had a couple of extra bones in their jaw. Does that mean they weren't mammals? Are there rules a mammal has to abide by in order to be a mammal?

For example, can a mammal be egg-laying? Can a mammal be poisonous?

The Platypus is both.

If Cynodontia were mammals, all arguments about their evolution of lactation become moot.

Edited by Kaichos Man, : typo


"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin
This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2009 11:16 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Blue Jay, posted 10-29-2009 11:42 AM Kaichos Man has not yet responded
 Message 99 by Huntard, posted 10-29-2009 1:34 PM Kaichos Man has not yet responded
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 10-29-2009 7:47 PM Kaichos Man has responded

    
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 2654 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 90 of 280 (533137)
10-29-2009 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Coyote
10-29-2009 12:12 AM


Re: Creationist propaganda about science vs. evolutionary sciences
The new field of genetics could have caused a major revision

Motoo Kimura stated that his Neutral Theory showed the "great majority" of evolution at the molecular level was caused by genetic drift and not natural selection. You don't regard this as a major revision?

Perhaps creationists should not try to dabble in science, eh? Being against science and the scientific method because of their religious beliefs, they tend not to learn enough about it to make meaningful comments.

Which ones in particular? Isaac Newton? John Sanford? Simon Conway Morris?

(I still remember the creationist who, on another website, lectured us on "the second law of thermal documents.")

And so he should! I bet you've never even heard of it...

Edited by Kaichos Man, : No reason given.


"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin
This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Coyote, posted 10-29-2009 12:12 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Coyote, posted 10-29-2009 1:33 AM Kaichos Man has responded
 Message 92 by cavediver, posted 10-29-2009 4:48 AM Kaichos Man has responded
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 10-29-2009 8:31 AM Kaichos Man has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
19NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019