Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
23 online now:
Theodoric (1 member, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,822 Year: 16,858/19,786 Month: 983/2,598 Week: 229/251 Day: 58/59 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20115
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 9 of 752 (565788)
06-20-2010 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SwampDonkey
06-20-2010 2:51 AM


[creationist speak]

Why is this page false?

[/creationist speak]

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 1 by SwampDonkey, posted 06-20-2010 2:51 AM SwampDonkey has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20115
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 569 of 752 (606949)
03-01-2011 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 567 by havoc
03-01-2011 8:59 AM


Re: Cows
Hi havoc, and welcome to the fray.

"One mechanism" of evolution?

Actually there are several mechanisms, of which you list two: mutation and natural selection. Genetic drift is another, and for bacteria there is horizontal gene transfer.

How many generations does it take for a cow to change into something else?

What is "something else?" - what do you mean here,

Do you mean another variety (among the already evolved vast number of existing varieties) of cow, where one variety is visibly different from another?

Do you mean another species of bovine?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cow

quote:
Cattle were originally identified as three separate species. These were Bos taurus, the European or "taurine" cattle (including similar types from Africa and Asia); Bos indicus, the zebu; and the extinct Bos primigenius, the aurochs. The aurochs is ancestral to both zebu and taurine cattle. Recently these three have increasingly been grouped as one species, with Bos primigenius taurus, Bos primigenius indicus and Bos primigenius primigenius as the subspecies.[4]

Is that the kind of "something else" you are looking for?

Natural selection can only select for an existing trait, correct?

Actually natural selection acts on individuals that are a pastiche of existing traits within a breeding population, but yes the traits need to be present in the breeding population to be selected or to affect selection. This is observed in the labs and in the field, and thus it is a fact that natural selection occurs.

The new traits come through mutations. This too is observed in the labs and in the field, and thus it is a fact that mutations occur and provide new traits for selection.

How do you falsify the evo dogma?

By science, not by calling it dogma.

Evolution is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities.

The theory of evolution is that this process is sufficient to explain all the diversity of life as we know it from all lines of evidence, including existing life, fossils and genetic evidence.

So you need to show that it cannot explain a certain diversity of life. This does not mean showing gaps in knowledge, but evidence that life form {X} cannot have evolved. Good luck with that.

Enjoy.

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips

If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.


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 567 by havoc, posted 03-01-2011 8:59 AM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 571 by havoc, posted 03-01-2011 9:52 AM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20115
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 573 of 752 (606959)
03-01-2011 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 570 by havoc
03-01-2011 9:42 AM


Re: Cows
Hi again havoc,

But for creating "new" information mutation is the only choice, correct?

For creating different "information," and compared to what existed before it would be "new" ...

... of course this also depends on what is meant by "information" now.

I cant think of any conceivable evidence that ...

That would be due to the fact that evolution is massively tested and no contradictory evidence has been found.

... darwinists ...

We are not "darwinists" -- we are evolutionary biologists, amateur and professional, that understand that evolution has progressed a lot since Darwin and that his theory of common descent and natural selection is but the beginning of the science of evolution.

The field of evolutionary biology studies the application of all the processes and elements of evolution and how the theory of evolution applies.

... would not just simply say "well now we know that evolution can do this".

No, science does not just say things and expect you to believe them -- that would be dogma -- instead science relies on objective empirical evidence to show that it happens.

That is why you need evidence that {X} cannot be explained by evolutionary processes.

Note that science does not prove theories, rather it tests them to see if they can be falsified. People - including scientists - have tried to falsify evolution for over 150 years with no success yet.

In science theories are the best explanations for the known evidence, and every new test either adds to the evidence that is explained, or it invalidates the theory, which then needs to be revised to include the new evidence. This is how science works to increase knowledge of how things work.

How does this not fit with the popular darwinian evolution belief?

Because science is based first on evidence, then on the hypothesis proposed to explain the evidence, then on testing the hypothesis to see if it can be falsified, and finally the tested and unfalsified hypothesis emerges as a theory to explain all the known evidence.

That is not belief, it is an accumulation of facts and proposed explanations that are based on the scientific method.

Any theory can be falsified, and as long as it is not falsified it cannot be regarded as more than tentatively true. That is not dogma.

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 570 by havoc, posted 03-01-2011 9:42 AM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 578 by havoc, posted 03-01-2011 10:29 AM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20115
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 583 of 752 (606971)
03-01-2011 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 571 by havoc
03-01-2011 9:52 AM


birds are dinos. humans are apes.
Hi again havoc,

I mean something other than a cow. Like a dino then a bird. ... A cow will always produce a cow, a dion a dino a bird a bird an ape an ape and a human a human.

But a bird is still just a dino, and a human is still an ape. A cow and an ape and a human are still mammals. You need to be more specific.

There are limits on selection.

Where? Whatever is available in a breeding population is subject to selection, and if it improves the survival and breeding ability of the individual/s with a specific trait, then that trait will increase in the population. Here's a picture for you to consider:

The Flying Squirrel is a placental mammal, living in N America, descendant from squirrels without the adaption for gliding. The Sugar Glider is a marsupial mammal, living in Australia, descendant from other marsupials that do not have the adaptation for gliding.

Likewise we can look at white sharks and killer whales that have similar external body patterns and make use of the same ecological opportunities, although one is classed as a cartilaginous fish and the other is classed as a mammal.

Obviously there is no restriction on convergent evolution to develop the same external body pattern from entirely different beginnings to fit similar ecological opportunities. The body pattern is what is selected, so we conclude there is no restriction on selection.

you can get tall ones short ones hary ones bald ones fast and slow ones but they will allways remain what they came from.

And you can get even more variation than that, however evolution tells you that they will always be descendants from parent populations. Here's another image for you to consider:

At the bottom you have the parent population and the variety in size among the breeding population. As you rise from the bottom you will see that the variation in size shifts towards larger averages but that there is still the same relative degree of variation within the populations. Each generation overlaps the one below, and you only see the trend over many generations.

Then there are several branching points where the population is divided into daughter populations, each with similar ranges of variation about their average size but different from the other daughter populations. These are speciation events where the populations have become so different one from the other that they do not interbreed.

Where we once had only one breeding population (at the bottom) we now have four different breeding populations, but they are all descendant from Pelycodus rasltoni.

Is that the kind of difference you want to see?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 571 by havoc, posted 03-01-2011 9:52 AM havoc has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20115
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 634 of 752 (607056)
03-01-2011 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 612 by havoc
03-01-2011 12:20 PM


birds from feathered dinosaurs
Hi havoc, a couple of points,

What limitations?

New functionality....
Mutations do not add new functional info.

Curiously, an unsupported statement is less than convincing.

Either mutations can and do add "new functional info" or your definition of what "new functional info" means is irrelevant to what can and what cannot be accomplished by evolution. See Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments, particularly part 2 of the first post.

There are many examples where organisms have developed the ability to use a food source that their ancestors could not use. That is "new functional info" as far as I can see, using normal definitions for the words.

You would have to have mutations that increased the information in the genome ...

Which has also been observed, unless what you mean by information is irrelevant to what mutations can and do provide during evolution.

... and tell the dino how to change from making scales to making feathers, body plan, bone structure, lung design.

They don't "tell" the dino anything. Birds are evolved from dinosaurs, and as a consequence they ARE dinosaurs and will always be dinosaurs.

Curiously, we can look at the bird traits and see traits homologous with older forms of dinosaurs, which includes feathers and body plan and bone structure and lung design -- these all existed within the dinosaur clade before the evolution of birds to use feathers for flight.

We can also see traits that are derived since they split from their non-flying dinosaur ancestors, such as the shape of flight feathers that has been adapted from non-specialized feathers.

There are also an increasing number of fossils showing intermediate development between non-flying dinosaurs and flying dinosaurs -- what is predicted by evolution, and not by sudden creation, nor by "intelligent" design (why design a dino without feathers?).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur

quote:
List of dinosaur genera preserved with evidence of feathers

A number of non-avian dinosaurs are now known to have been feathered. Direct evidence of feathers exists for the following genera, listed in the order currently accepted evidence was first published. In all examples, the evidence described consists of feather impressions, except those genera inferred to have had feathers based on skeletal or chemical evidence, such as the presence of quill knobs (the anchor points for wing feathers on the forelimb) or a pygostyle (the fused vertebrae at the tail tip which often supports large feathers).
(26 listed - each with a link to more information about the specific fossils)


Evidence of intermediate development, as predicted by evolution. In addition, as noted above, we see feathers that are intermediate between undifferentiated feathers and flight feathers (which have developed by adaptation from undifferentiated feathers):

quote:
Primitive feather types

It is not known with certainty at what point in archosaur phylogeny the earliest simple “protofeathers” arose, or if they arose once or, independently, multiple times. Filamentous structures are clearly present in pterosaurs, and long, hollow quills have been reported in specimens of the ornithischian dinosaurs Psittacosaurus and Tianyulong.[21][34] In 2009 Xu et al. noted that the hollow, unbranched, stiff integumentary structures found on a specimen of Beipiaosaurus were strikingly similar to the integumentary structures of psittacosaurus and pterosaurs. They suggested that all of these structures may have been inherited from a common ancestor much earlier in the evolution of archosaurs, possibly in an ornithodire from the Middle Triassic or earlier.[43]

Display feathers are also known from dinosaurs that are very primitive members of the bird lineage, or Avialae. The most primitive example is Epidexipteryx, which had a short tail with extremely long, ribbon - like, feathers. Oddly enough, the fossil does not preserve wing feathers, suggesting that Epidexipteryx was either secondarily flightless, or that display feathers evolved before flight feathers in the bird lineage.[44]


The amount of evidence increases every year, as would be expected from uncovering more fossils with time, and every one is a test of evolution, and every one so far has not invalidated evolution, but substantiated it.

This doesnt occur ...

Sadly, for you, it does. Interestingly, your opinion is unable to alter reality in any way.

Similar fossil evidence exists for the "body plan, bone structure, lung design" and other traits that birds have derived from dinosaur ancestors.

... and without the preconcived notion that it must have occured there is no evidence for it. I mean the fossile evidence interpetation is more art than science.

Fascinating how different scientists reach the same conclusions then, over and over, isn't it?

Perhaps that is because scientists use evidence instead of preconceived notions ... evidence of homologies and derivation of evolved traits, evidence that can be measured and documented, and subjected to intense peer review.

If it were all art, then how do you explain the near 1-to-1 correlation of

  1. the nested trees of descent from common ancestors from fossil evidence, that were started before Darwin and continued up to the present day, with all the branches of life as we know it laid out with branches for common ancestors based on this evidence, with
  2. the nested trees of descent from common ancestors from genetic evidence, that was unknown in Darwin's time, and which has no reason except common ancestry for having the same pattern, again and again and again.

It would take millions of these fictional mutations to turn a "simple cell" into a human.

Actually it likely took a lot more, during the 3.5 billion year evolution of life on earth, with the first billion years taken to develop multicellular life.

However do not make the mistake of thinking that they all need to happen at once, or that any two need to occur together. What we have are a lot more mutations from which the ones that are passed on to future generations are selected, and rather than chance upon chance the selection process makes a critical difference. Think of throwing 1000 six-sided di and the expectation of all landing on 6's and then compare that to throwing all the di, selecting all the 6's and throwing the rest, selecting all the new 6's, etc. any idea how few throws it would take to arrive at 1000 6's?

Selection is powerful even when acting on small incremental changes generation by generation.

It would take millions of these fictional mutations to turn a "simple cell" into a human.

Curiously, every cell in the human body is similar to the "simple cell" of a eukaryotic bacteria, so putting them together into a multicellular body is not that difficult, and modifying that multicellular body into all the currently known living and dead multicellular organisms that exist or have existed is also not that difficult.

Amusingly, every human life originates as a "simple cell" that grows into a human being in ~9 months.

Incredulity is not evidence nor a logical argument.

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 612 by havoc, posted 03-01-2011 12:20 PM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 643 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 9:05 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20115
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 635 of 752 (607057)
03-01-2011 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 615 by havoc
03-01-2011 12:28 PM


DNA, mutation AND selection
Hi again havoc, struggling to put mutation together with selection?

Agreed mutations can and do occure. However you can shake up the scrabble board as often as you like and you will never get a Shakespeare.

It is a common mistake of creationists and people ignorant of how evolution works to miss the linkage between mutation and selection: both are necessary for evolution, and the process is incomplete without both parts.

Take any phrase you care from Shakespeare and then throw a pile of scrabble pieces, select the ones that fit the pattern you have chosen (selection for the ecological opportunities) then throw the remaining and repeat (generation after generation) and you can piece together any phrase you care.

And of course this is not truly analogous to DNA, which only has 4 letters ... any arrangement of 4 letters is repeated and repeated within any genome, many times over, and you could take the DNA from any organism and reassemble it into the genome of any organism you care to name.

There is nothing that is known to prevent one arrangement compared to another.

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 615 by havoc, posted 03-01-2011 12:28 PM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 645 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 9:25 AM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20115
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 636 of 752 (607061)
03-01-2011 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 628 by havoc
03-01-2011 1:12 PM


Re: Nice chat
Hi again havoc,

What, I thought this was an open site for debate. what makes me a troll.... I enjoy this type of debate that is why I am here. challenging myself to look up new information ...

If you truly enjoy challenging yourself, then why are you upset when people provide evidence that you are wrong?

... and see how it fits my beliefs.

Which curiously is NOT how science is done. In science belief and opinions are irrelevant to what we try to determine from the evidence.

Beliefs that are at odds with reality are false. How do you test for reality? How do you tell if your beliefs are reflections of reality or delusion (caused by ignorance, misinformation, etc)?

name calling shows your true collors my friend. Alot of scared people on this site. to bad have your debates amongst yourself.

Oh, boo hoo.

Yet it's okay if you insult our intelligence? Quit whining and start dealing with the issues that have been raised, especially the ones that show how you are wrong, or at least involve some misconceptions.

I think the evidence points to design you do not.

If you want to discuss the evidence for design, I'll be happy to discuss this with you at Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy....

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 628 by havoc, posted 03-01-2011 1:12 PM havoc has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20115
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 637 of 752 (607063)
03-01-2011 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 588 by havoc
03-01-2011 10:51 AM


creationism and beliefs regarding origins, descent and design
Hi havoc.

Who said I was a creationists?

You have.

Anyone that puts belief about how life formed above scientific evidence is a creationist.

It doesn't matter whether you believe in creation by god/s or are trying to hide behind the so called "intelligent" design smoke-screen is a creationist by definition: you believe that organisms were made by non-natural processes.

Now, you may or may not be a Young Earth Creationist, but you certainly put your faith above evidence.

I have my faith you have yours.

Which means you are a creationist.

Message 628: I think the evidence points to design you do not.

Which means you are a creationist. Whether by god/s or aliens is irrelevant.

This is a condition that is curable.

Interestingly, believing in creation does not mean that you cannot accept evolution in all it's amazing versatility in explaining how life develops.

In that regard I am a creationist - I am a Deist, and I believe the universe was created in just the way it exists so that life could develop and evolve according the the laws of nature set out by the creation god/s.

If you want to discuss if ID is a logical approach, I will be happy to discuss this on the Is ID properly pursued? thread.

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 588 by havoc, posted 03-01-2011 10:51 AM havoc has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20115
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 638 of 752 (607092)
03-01-2011 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 578 by havoc
03-01-2011 10:29 AM


my karma ran over your dogma
Hi again havoc, I really wonder if you really are really trying to understand, or just blindly spouting off your own personal dogma.

It is unfalsifiable because it is "DOGMA"

You are confusing "has not been falsified" with "cannot be falsified" -- as pointed out in my post "you need evidence that {X} cannot be explained by evolutionary processes."

None of your examples do this.

Certainly Behe's IC doesn't - he even admits it.

... another founder of darwinian evo said anything like motors or magnets found to exist in living things would falsify the theory. We have numerious examples of each and evolutionists simply say "now we know that mutation and natural selection can create bio motors".

And yet you don't really have motors and magnets, you have biological systems that are (badly) analogous to motors and magnets. Because they are biological systems they are necessarily available for evolutionary processes to tinker with them and assemble them. Biological systems are explainable by biological processes.

How come there are no animals with entirely different DNA? That would falsify common descent. The reason you don't is because of the vast evidence for common descent, not because it can't be falsified.

I think that darwin and others tried to lay out ways in which the theory could be invalidated.

Indeed, and none of it has happened.

Not one bit of such evidence has turned up in over 150 years of looking. This is not because it is not possible, but because the evidence just does not exist to do it.

Do you understand the difference?

I notice that you have not responded to either Is ID properly pursued? or Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy... ... do you understand that ID does not need to invalidate evolution if it is properly pursued? do you understand that there are other design alternatives to "intelligent" design? do you understand that your diatribe against evolution is - purely - based on creationist arguments?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : spling


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 578 by havoc, posted 03-01-2011 10:29 AM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 640 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 8:53 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 644 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 9:12 AM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20115
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 668 of 752 (607176)
03-02-2011 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 640 by havoc
03-02-2011 8:53 AM


Re: my karma ran over your dogma
Hi again havoc,

I admit that certain evidence is consistant with common ancestor, such as DNA.

A good start, the question remains what evidence do you think is not consistent with common ancestry?

This however is also consistant with a common designer.

Actually it isn't. I'm a designer, and I don't limit my designs to nested hierarchies of development, rather I use a cross-fertilization of traits and features from a number of products, where I copy and paste from several previous designs and then modify, add and adapt as needed for the new design.

This would show up as cross-linking of the trees of descent, with several branches converging on new designs and the addition of brand new features not in previous designs.

It can only be consistent with a common designer if you torture the design process with vast restrictions on what you can work with.

For example, the human eye retina faces away from the lens, and light needs to travel through the nerves and supporting tissues to reach the rods and cones that sense the photons of light.

If this were done by common design, the retina would have been turned around at some stage in the development of mammals to face the light, correcting an early (in the eye development lineage that led to mammals) error in orientation, and improving the ability of mammals, in general (and humans in particular), to see.

This type of correction of substantial inherited ancient errors has not happened as features continue to be adapted by descendants: if it did then this would invalidate evolution.

By comparison the octopus eye (separately evolved) does face the light, so it would be an easy matter for a common designer to copy and paste that feature to any mammal in question.

The wholesale copy and paste of highly developed features like an eye from one lineage to another has not happened: if it did then this would invalidate evolution.

In addition, the octopus eye focuses by changing the shape of the eye to move the retina towards and away from a fixed focal length lens, while the mammal eye focuses by changing the shape of the lens to focus to the fixed length to the retina. Human designers have combined these different methodologies in binoculars, telescopes and camera lenses to provide telescopic variations in image capture, and in humans that would additionally eliminate the need for glasses.

Combination of features from different lineages has not happened: if it did then this would invalidate evolution.

Once again it is not falsifiable because it is dogma not science.

Once again it is not dogma because falsification has not happened. Falsification has not happened (yet) because no evidence has been found that does invalidate it.

... your Darwinist ideas.

Only creationists call modern evolution darwinism. Genetics is not part of "darwinism" for the simple reason that Darwin did not know about genes and DNA. It IS a part of modern evolution, so the term "evolutionary" is more comprehensive, scientifically accurate, and descriptive of this field of science.

Curiously I think if we did find some organism that used a different system than dna I don’t think you all would abandon your Darwinist evolutionary ideas.

If it were an animal from earth then it would violate the common descent prediction of evolution. There would still be the question of whether that life form also went through evolutionary processes.

If it were an organism on another planet, then there would be intense investigation to see whether evolutionary science applied to that life as well as ours.

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 640 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 8:53 AM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 672 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 1:25 PM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20115
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 669 of 752 (607186)
03-02-2011 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 653 by havoc
03-02-2011 10:10 AM


Re: my karma ran over your dogma
Hi again Havoc.

I showed you an example of information gain in my Message 622.

No you did not. This study as it is laid out by you shows a previously winged insect losing that info and regaining it. This is possible and not evolution.

Denial does not make you right.

From Message 18 of the "Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy..." thread:

quote:

A Wing and A Walkingstick

Walkingstick Insects

See Figure 1 from Nature 421, 264 - 267 (16 January 2003); doi:10.1038/nature01313 (reproduced below)

Walkingstick insects originally started out as winged insects (blue at start and top row). That diversified.

And some lost wings (red). And diversified.

And some regained wings (blue again). And diversified.

And one lost wings again (Lapaphus parakensis, below, red again).

And this doesn't even address the ones where one sex (usually male) has wings and the other sex doesn't (the red includes these, so it is hard to determine from this graphic how many times the female sex gained and lost wings independent of the winged males).

From a Design standpoint, this is not intelligent design, it is either "Make up your #*! mind" design, or it is classic "Now you see it now you don't" silliness.


No you did not. This study as it is laid out by you shows a previously winged insect losing that info and regaining it. This is possible and not evolution.

Curiously, you just said that it gained information to have wings again. Amusingly, you previously said:

Message 620: mutations lead to loss of function. wingless beatles etc. they can be advantagious but are inverably in the opposite direction of your theory.

First off, there is no direction in evolution, per se, so it is impossible to be in the "opposite direction of your theory ... there is only fitness, and fitness may sometimes result in reversal of previous evolved traits, sometimes going back and forth several times. The fact that this happens shows that there is no direction to evolution: it is a response mechanism.

Second, here we have another family of insects ("beetle" is not a species) where whole species lose wings, lose function, but we also see whole species gain wings, gain function. This too is advantageous, or it would not have been selected for survival and reproduction.

Message 655: If a cell once had the ability to regulate say the production of a certain protein and now it doesn’t this is loss of information, ...

Therefore, if it gains the ability to regulate say the production of a certain protein that regulates the formation of wings in wingless insects, then this is gain of information, ... OR the concept of "information" used is irrelevant to what evolution can and cannot form.

You need to show novel info being created.

This is called moving the goal-posts when your previous point is totally refuted by the evidence that shows you, in fact, were WRONG. This is a dishonest creationist tactic.

The specific reason for using examples like this is to show that either mutations add and subtract "information" or that the concept of "information" used is not any challenge to what can and cannot evolve. If it is useless to control or stop evolution then it is irrelevant to the science of evolution.

Using examples like this removes other variables from the equation of whether or not new information is added, and this is how science is done to establish facts and increase knowledge.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : qs


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 653 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 10:10 AM havoc has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20115
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 680 of 752 (607219)
03-02-2011 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 670 by havoc
03-02-2011 1:06 PM


goalposts on the run.
Hi havoc,

That was my point Shannon theory is an inadequate way of measuring the information content of the genome. Specified complexity is how the code works not just random “bits” which is what Shannon measures.

And another goal post is moved.

Suddenly you are no longer using "information" but an even worsely defined "Specified complexity" because the real definition of information didn't work out -- it could increase in any genome.

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 670 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 1:06 PM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 682 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 3:43 PM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20115
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 687 of 752 (607233)
03-02-2011 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 672 by havoc
03-02-2011 1:25 PM


my karma catagorically ran over your dogma
Hi havoc, still struggling with denial I see.

First let me ask you to admit that you are making a theological statement here. That you know how a designer would design.

Not at all.

What I am arguing is that these are the kinds of things we would likely see from design that would differentiate it from evolution -- it is no good to say that you have a theory that explains exactly the same thing as existing theory and nothing new: all we need is the original theory then to explain the evidence. Once again this is how science works, by differentiating between explanations through tests and experiments, and then picking the best explanation for all the facts as tentative truth until the next theory does a better job of explaining ALL the evidence.

And THAT is why you need evidence that evolution cannot explain.

Second there are numerous reasons for the eye to orientated the way it is including prevention of blindness at bright lights.

Not really a problem, sorry. Again, this is solved in human design by the use of filters over binoculars, telescopes and cameras that enable them to, among other things, look directly at the sun without harm.

Many animals have nictitating membranes ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nictitating_membrane

quote:
The nictitating membrane (from Latin nictare, to blink) is a transparent or translucent third eyelid present in some animals that can be drawn across the eye for protection and to moisten the eye while also maintaining visibility. Various reptiles, birds, and sharks have a full nictitating membrane, ...

Nictitating membranes are found in birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish, but are less common in mammals, mainly being present in monotremes and marsupials.[1] ...


So now we can copy and paste the fully functional nictitating membrane from reptile\birds to the composite mammal\cephalopod eye. This is an even better design as it also provides some additional protection for the eye, and results in an eye fully functional over a larger range of light environments, with improved vision in all situations, from dim light to looking directly at the sun.

So instead of calling someone an eagle eye we should be calling them an octopus eye?

No, eagles have the same sort of eye that mammals have, with a backwards retina. They do have nictitating membranes though, which helps them stare at prey longer without blinking. They have trouble seeing in dusk and dark, which is why they hunt in daylight.

Is the Octopus eye not a violation of your Nested Hierarchy?

No, because the eye evolved in divergent lineages after the last common ancestor between cephalopods and tetrapods. Just as the eye evolve independently in insects.

Instead it is just more additional evidence for nested hierarchy due to common descent.

You call it convergent evolution which is a catch all for everything that doesn’t fit you neat little line charts.

Not really -- it is convergent evolution of the eye to take advantage of the opportunities provided by being able to see, which is why you see eyes evolving again and again: they have a definite survival benefit. It is called convergent because it starts with different parent organisms and evolves to similar traits to take advantage of similar ecological opportunities.

So again my point from earlier there is no way to disprove your theory because it is dogma.

And still you miss the point of how falsification works: evolution has not been falsified because it can't be, it has not been falsified because there is no existing evidence that shows it is falsified.

I've listed several ways that it could be falsified by a design process that voids the evolutionary path, but there is no evidence of such combinations or changes to improve traits inherited by common ancestry -- from traits that are readily available in other organisms to copy and paste, but which cannot be transmitted horizontally by any known evolutionary processes.

In addition, when a theory is falsified in science that does not mean that all the evidence explained by that theory disappears in smoke, as it needs to be included in the new theory that explains all the current evidence PLUS the evidence that the old theory cannot explain.

Einstein's theory of gravity works by explaining anomalies that Newton's theory did not AND by explaining all the evidence that Newton's theory explains: in fact it reduces to Newton's theory in local situations. This is why Newton can still be used in rocket science.

I’m still looking for the mermaid but something tells me this would not shake your unequivocal FAITH.

You are mistaken in two different ways. First, it would not shake my faith (see signature), and second it would only alter what we know about existing organisms: if there were objective empirical evidence that mermaids exist or had existed then they become part of the known diversity of life that would need to be explained. If that explanation needs to include horizontal composites of fish and mammal, then that would falsify common descent in the same way that horizontal composites of different eye designs would, and evolutionary science would adjust to that reality.

It would not falsify all the known existing objective empirical evidence for evolution, it would be included as an alternate path for new features to arise, and as such may cause some rethinking of the nested hierarchies of descent.

Unfortunately, for you anyway, it cannot change the factual objective empirical evidence of evolution that has occurred and that has been observed and that has been documented.

You can't falsify evidence, you can't falsify history and you can't falsify science. All you can falsify are theories that explain the evidence and the history and that are used in the various sciences and that are modified as needed to keep up to date with the evidence, history and all the other sciences that are known.

You can't go backwards.

That evolution happens is a fact, not a theory. Any new theory would need to explain something that evolution does not AND explain all the known evidence that evolution does explain.

And THAT is why you need evidence that evolution cannot explain.

But it won't make evolution go away, rather it will incorporate it into a new theory that explains ALL the evidence. That is the way science works.

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 672 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 1:25 PM havoc has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20115
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 695 of 752 (607241)
03-02-2011 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 682 by havoc
03-02-2011 3:43 PM


Re: goalposts on the run.
Hi havoc,

I never said Shannon was the propper way to measure information ...
Read "In the begining was information" ...

Perhaps you could supply the definition of "information that Gitt uses in that book, and cut through to the pertinent point?

http://www.amazon.com/...formation-Werner-Gitt/dp/3893972552

quote:
In his fascinating new book, In the Beginning Was Information, Dr. Werner Gitt helps the reader see how the very presence of information reveals a Designer ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Gitt

quote:
Werner Gitt (born 22 February 1937) is a German engineer and young earth creationist.

Gitt was an engineer professor at the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology). By the 1990s he was assuming a leadership role in the German creationist movement, through the publication of several influential creationist books. He was one of the leaders of the nondenominational Wort und Wissen (Word and Knowledge) society, the largest creationist society in Germany, with a membership of 230 and a mailing list of 7,000. The society was headed by theologian Richard Junker.[1]


Sounds like another YEC\ID creationist hack pretending to do math to me.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/gitt.html

quote:
... Gitt defines the following empirical principles:

1. No information can exist without a code.

2. No code can exist without a free and deliberate convention.

3. No information can exist without the five hierarchical levels: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.

4. No information can exist in purely statistical processes.

5. No information can exist without a transmitter.

6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin.

7. No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity.

8. No information can exist without a will.


Sounds like he is assuming the conclusion in the premises to me ... more:

quote:
Where Gitt Goes Wrong

A striking contradiction is readily apparent in Gitt's thinking- he holds that his view of information is an extension of Shannon, even while he rejects the underpinnings of Shannon's work. Contrast Gitt's words ...

In SC2 Gitt notes that Chaitin showed randomness cannot be proven (see Chaitin's article "Randomness and Mathematical Proof"), and that the cause of a string of symbols must be therefore be known to determine information is present; yet in SC1 he relies on discerning the "ulterior intention at the semantic, pragmatic and apobetic levels." In other words, Gitt allows himself to make guesses about the intelligence and purpose behind a source of a series of symbols, even though he doesn't know whether the source of the symbols is random. Gitt is trying to have it both ways here. He wants to assert that the genome fits his strictly non-random definition of information, even after acknowledging that randomness cannot be proven.

(There is a deeper problem here, in that Chaitin is discussing algorithmic randomness and not statistical randomness. Algorithmic randomness for a given string depends on the selection of reference computer – see Algorithmic Information Theory. Chaitin shows that you can’t prove a string is uncompressible or algorithmically random on a given reference computer. Now a string may be laden with meaning yet algorithmically random on a given computer. It may also be meaningless yet highly compressible. Statistical randomness is a different concept, as long as we stick with finite-length strings. While it is possible to compare use statistical tests on long strings, there are classes of deterministic programs called Pseudo-Random Number Generators or PRNGs, of great importance to cryptography, that meet statistical tests for randomness. In other words, neither type of randomness can be proven, but Gitt appears to be confusing the two types of randomness.)

Gitt describes his principles as "empirical", yet the data is not provided to back this up. Similarly, he proposes fourteen "theorems", yet fails to demonstrate them. Shannon, in contrast, offers the math to back up his theorems. It is difficult to see how Gitt's "empirical principles" and "theorems" are anything but arbitrary assertions.

Neither do we see a working measure for meaning (a yet-unsolved problem Shannon wisely avoided). Since Gitt can't define what meaning is sufficiently to measure it, his ideas don't amount to much more than arm-waving.

By asserting that data must have an intelligent source to be considered information, and by assuming genomic sequences are information fitting that definition, Gitt defines into existence an intelligent source for the genome without going to the trouble of checking whether one was actually there. This is circular reasoning.

If we use a semantic definition for information, we cannot assume that data found in nature is information. We cannot know a priori that it had an intelligent source. We cannot make the data have semantic meaning or intelligent purpose by simply defining it so.


Perhaps you can provide "information" that shows that there is some useful "information" from his book?

Start with a definition of what he means by information and then show how it is calculated as a measurable quantity in any specific organism.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : splng


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 682 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 3:43 PM havoc has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20115
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 698 of 752 (607254)
03-02-2011 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 644 by havoc
03-02-2011 9:12 AM


motors and biology and silliness
Hi havoc

ATP Synthase and the Bacterial flagellum are indeed motors. Unless your definition requires a man to make it in order for it to be a motor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_motor

quote:
Molecular motors are biological molecular machines that are the essential agents of movement in living organisms. Generally speaking, a motor may be defined as a device that consumes energy in one form and converts it into motion or mechanical work; for example, many protein-based molecular motors harness the chemical free energy released by the hydrolysis of ATP in order to perform mechanical work [1]. In terms of energetic efficiency, these types of motors can be superior to currently available man-made motors. One important difference between molecular motors and macroscopic motors is that molecular motors operate in the thermal bath, an environment where the fluctuations due to thermal noise are significant.

This only works by definition, from adapting what motors accomplish to describe organic molecular chemical functions. By this definition any organic molecular structure that results in movement from the use of energy is a motor, which means virtually every part of every cell. Curiously, I don't see that as either remarkable or useful. Sounds more like an argument from incredulity: wow look its a motor, therefore it must be designed?

The only reason they are badly analogous is because they are far superior to anything modern science and engineering could create.

Really? or is this just another argument from incredulity?

Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy... Message 33:

quote:
One of the "icons" of the Neo-Paleyist "intelligent" design concepts is the bacterial flagellum. Whether or not this concept has been debunked as an "irreducibly complex" mechanism is open to some discussion, but here we look at whether this "icon" of many an ID essay has the markings of "intelligent" design or those of "silly" design.

Flagellum Fun Facts

First lets look at a diagram of this mechanism, drawn to make it look as mechanical as possible:

What happens is that ions cause the base to rotate, the "hook" is fixed (to aim the whip-like end of the flagellum) and the end whips about while it spins, at speeds that can reach many 100 Hertz (revolutions per second), and driving the bacterial cell at several body lengths a second (1).

{abe}An nice animation of this mechanism can be seen at the Access Research Network Molecular Machines Museum website on The Bacterial Flagellum. {/abe}

Obviously a highly efficient motor design, making maximum usage of the energy expended ... or is it?

Here we have a similar arrangement, the spinning drive mechanism extends down a tube, is turned and then exits the "hook" to turn the drive part of the motor, a small propeller.

We know one of these mechanisms was intentionally designed as a method of locomotion and for maximum efficiency in it's use of energy. Furthermore we know that the elements of this design have been developed over the course of many years of experimentation to select the best gear ratios, material strengths, power ratings and propeller design. Propellers in particular have undergone extreme design for improved efficiency, borrowing from the more prolific design of airplane wings and propellers in the process (such borrowing being an element frequently seen in good design when some other design element already is known to work and work well).

So the question is whether the flagellum design measures up to the known reference intelligent design, or is it just flailing about?

Any Bubba Can Do This Experiment

There is a simple experiment that anyone with ready access to a couple of similar boats with similar engines can do evaluate the question:


  • Use one boat as-is: this is the control, the known intelligent design

  • On the other remove the propeller and replace it with a 50 foot length of 1" diameter hose, hose clamped tightly to the driveshaft\spindle of the outboard

  • Load up the boats with kids (so they can ask "are we there yet?")

  • Race. See who gets "out of the hole" first, who tops out first and what their tops speeds are.

  • Put in reverse and repeat.

  • Match speed and compare engine RPM (revolutions per minute) and fuel consumption.

  • If you feel that you need more evidence, try different size hoses and different lengths.

  • See if the kids are laughing at the hose or the propeller.

Oh, and if the flagellum design wins? Publish, become a national hero to endangered manatees, broken propellers sufferers, etcetera and put many propeller design companies out of work.

Note: a 25 foot boat traveling at 50 mph is traveling ~3 times its length in a second.

Silliness

Now consider that it would be extremely easy to make the flagellum become a propeller by the intelligent input of design information from other available systems. The flagellum could be easily split into two (or more) filaments that are then flattened and angled apart in a "Y" type pattern, and with one leg bent up and one down and both shortened (less material overall = more efficient design) you have a rudimentary propeller. Add some twist and some shape (such as you find on a penguin wing - used to "fly" underwater) and you have a more efficient design.

We can get an idea of what this simple modification would look like by again referring to known intelligent design, this time to an early propeller design before scientific methods were applied (2):


Except of course that a central spindle is not necessary and could be eliminated. But even these early propellers are silly by today's standards of design (3).

The hose on the other hand can be nothing but a silly way to waste gas.

This mechanism displays an excessively high Silliness Index (SI).


btw -- you might want a steel cage over the hose boat, just in case the end of the hose whips around.

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 644 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 9:12 AM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 700 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-02-2011 11:51 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 702 by havoc, posted 03-03-2011 8:17 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019