Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8929 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-25-2019 6:36 PM
28 online now:
AZPaul3, JonF, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (5 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,450 Year: 15,486/19,786 Month: 2,209/3,058 Week: 67/516 Day: 67/31 Hour: 1/11


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 752 (566163)
06-23-2010 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by ICANT
06-23-2010 9:45 AM


Re: Question
How can evolution be the producer of the information?

If the message is the genome, then evolution is the producer because random mutations modify and add information to the message.

But still, with you're view on information, there is no "receiver" of the message in DNA, so DNA cannot contain information.

If evolution is the result of the processing of the information that is sent to the receiver by the sender.

Who is the receiver?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by ICANT, posted 06-23-2010 9:45 AM ICANT has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 752 (566211)
06-23-2010 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by ICANT
06-23-2010 2:59 PM


Re: information origins.
Modulous writes:

The answer therefore is: From the laws of physics. How did it get into the genome? Work was done. Where did the information from the laws of physics come from? Not a question for evolution.

Satisfied?

No.

Because there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

The process explained by the Theory of Evolution does.

That is: Random Mutation + Natural Selection.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by ICANT, posted 06-23-2010 2:59 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by ICANT, posted 06-23-2010 3:36 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 752 (566223)
06-23-2010 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by ICANT
06-23-2010 3:36 PM


Re: information origins.
CS writes:

The process explained by the Theory of Evolution does.

That is: Random Mutation + Natural Selection.

No that tells you what happened.

It does not tell you were the new information came from.

The new information comes from the random mutations and the natural selection determines if it sticks around or not.

Evolution does require some starting info though...

Where that came from you can learn about by studying abiogenesis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by ICANT, posted 06-23-2010 3:36 PM ICANT has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 415 of 752 (598387)
12-30-2010 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 413 by shadow71
12-30-2010 3:08 PM


My question is: Does this mean the authors are saying that natural selection was not the cause of the evolution of the eukaryotic cell from the prokaryotic cell?

No, they're saying that the transition didn't arrise from the normal gradual accumulation of mutations but rather by the combination of organisms.

Take a look at:

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

And if true what effect does that have for The Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theory of gradual descent by random mutution and natural selection?

More details on how shit went down...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 413 by shadow71, posted 12-30-2010 3:08 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 416 by shadow71, posted 12-30-2010 4:07 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 417 of 752 (598395)
12-30-2010 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 416 by shadow71
12-30-2010 4:07 PM


"Basicially the problem is that a primitive bacteria cannot evolve mitochondria by 'jugglilng its genes'. It would require that one of these primitive bacteria absorb and adapt by swallowing or absorbing an entirely new cell. On earth this has never been observed happening with prokaryotic cells. However eukaryotic cells indeed have been observed to do this. For a prokaryotic cell to transform to a eukaryotic cell it would have to do things that seem to only happen in eukaroytic cells"

What does he mean by that statement?

They're trying to "poke holes" in evolution...

Did you read about the Endosymbiotic Theory that I linked to?

The idea is that some organelles were originally a seperate thing that then got absorbed into a prokaryote.

This guys is saying that it hasn't been observed yet, so therefore it can't happen, ergo there's a problem with evolution... or something like that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by shadow71, posted 12-30-2010 4:07 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 418 by shadow71, posted 12-30-2010 5:12 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 506 of 752 (598860)
01-03-2011 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 418 by shadow71
12-30-2010 5:12 PM


Lane and Martin state that a prokaryote has evolved once in four billion years into a eukaryote. So I am still quite confused.

From your later posts, its seems like you think that L&M are saying that the prokaryote evolved one time in one single organism. Yeah?

This is the source of your confusion, me thinks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 418 by shadow71, posted 12-30-2010 5:12 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 511 by shadow71, posted 01-03-2011 7:13 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 513 of 752 (598931)
01-04-2011 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 511 by shadow71
01-03-2011 7:13 PM


problems with evolution != design
I belive that is what they are saying. A unique event that happened only once in four billion years.

Well, I still don't think they're saying it was one organism, but whatever...

It appears there was a saltation, a unique jump, from simple life to complex life that the scientists cannot explain. A translation that is not accountable by Darwin's or neo-Darwinian theory.
I believe this supports my theory of planned transition from original life to evolution and gradual changes in life.

I see three problems here.

First:

It appears there was a saltation, a unique jump, from simple life to complex life that the scientists cannot explain.

The inability of science to explain something is not evidence for something else. You are making a God of the Gaps argument and those are not good ideas.

Science cannot explain what causes one particular atom to go through radioactive decay, so would you say that God is picking and choosing which ones will?

Second:

A translation that is not accountable by Darwin's or neo-Darwinian theory.

Not being accountable by neo-Darwinian theory is not positive evidence for design. We see the ID crowd making this same mistake over and over where instead of finding evidence to support their position, they try to discredit the opposing position as if theirs will be left by default. This is incorrect.

Assuming this "jump" cannot be explained by the current Theory of Evolution, when we do find out how this "jump" happened, the scientific explanation will still be that of naturalistic phenomenon and it might even be just an addition to the current theory.

Third:

I believe this supports my theory of planned transition from original life to evolution and gradual changes in life.

Positive evidence supports theories. Showing how another theory cannot explain something is not providing positive evidence for your theory.

What you need to do, is come up with a mechanism for how the transition was planned and how it was employed and then find the evidence that supports that theory.

Saying "I believe it was planned" is not a theory and saying "look, evolution can't explain this" is not providing support for that non-theory.


The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false. - St. Thomas Aquinas
This message is a reply to:
 Message 511 by shadow71, posted 01-03-2011 7:13 PM shadow71 has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 618 of 752 (607013)
03-01-2011 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 615 by havoc
03-01-2011 12:28 PM


Re: Cows
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.

That's why you need a selective pressure. If you kept all the random mix of letters that did make words and re-shook all the ones that didn't, eventually you would have enough words to at least make some line from Shakespeare.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 615 by havoc, posted 03-01-2011 12:28 PM havoc has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 619 of 752 (607014)
03-01-2011 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 612 by havoc
03-01-2011 12:20 PM


Re: Cows
This doesnt occur

How do you know?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 612 by havoc, posted 03-01-2011 12:20 PM havoc has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 622 of 752 (607017)
03-01-2011 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 620 by havoc
03-01-2011 12:42 PM


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

Funny you should mention wings... we've seen that they've been lost and reemerged in one group of bugs.

I'm just going to take the rebuttle to this from one of RAZD's previous posts:

From Message 104

quote:
Fascinatingly, we have samples of this actually occurring:

http://news-info.wustl.edu/...science-tech/walkingstick.html

quote:
Walking sticks regained flight after 50 million years of winglessness
Maxwell and his collaborators at Brigham Young University discovered that some species lost the ability to fly at one point of their evolution and then re-evolved it 50 million years later.

And it is not just ONE such instance, but several. See Figure 1 from Nature 421, 264 - 267 (16 January 2003); doi:10.1038/nature01313 (reproduced below)

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

And some gained wings (red). And diversified.

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

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

So again, how does each of these mutations involve loss of information?



This message is a reply to:
 Message 620 by havoc, posted 03-01-2011 12:42 PM havoc has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 626 of 752 (607021)
03-01-2011 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 625 by havoc
03-01-2011 12:53 PM


Re: Nice chat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 625 by havoc, posted 03-01-2011 12:53 PM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 628 by havoc, posted 03-01-2011 1:12 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 632 of 752 (607039)
03-01-2011 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 628 by havoc
03-01-2011 1:12 PM


Re: Nice chat
What, I thought this was an open site for debate. what makes me a troll.

What makes you a troll is that you avoided the responses that promoted a healthy discussion of your questions and instead focused on the more flaming repsonses that you could impose your martyr conplex upon. You showed no intention of actually seeking any knowledge or information about the questions you asked but instead just wanted bitch about the evolutionists.

I think the evidence points to design you do not.

Then what's left to discuss? Since this site is still really active, it seems there's a little more to it than that.

I enjoy this type of debate that is why I am here. challenging myself to look up new information and see how it fits my beliefs.

Your behavior shows otherwise.

name calling shows your true collors my friend.

You're a big fat stinky doo-doo head.

Alot of scared people on this site.

You're the one who ran away...

to bad have your debates amongst yourself.

Good! We'll just continue learning without you. Too bad you're gonna be left in the dust.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 628 by havoc, posted 03-01-2011 1:12 PM havoc has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 650 of 752 (607142)
03-02-2011 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 646 by havoc
03-02-2011 9:35 AM


Re: my karma ran over your dogma
From my personal point of view design is self evident.

That's what most anti-evolutionists say, but if you don't have a method of disguishing the designed from the non-designed, then you have no way of investigating whether or not you are correct.

Going with your gut and being unable to test it does not lead to the advancement that a scientific approach does and you're doomed to fail if your riding on the whims of self evidency.

From Message 645:

Every famous mutation such as herbicide and antibiotic resistance once examined at the molecular level has been shown to involve information loss.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 646 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 9:35 AM havoc has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 653 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 10:10 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 660 of 752 (607159)
03-02-2011 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 653 by havoc
03-02-2011 10:10 AM


Re: my karma ran over your dogma
You just moved the goalpost...

You said that:

quote:
mutation leads to a loss of function

Gaining wings is certainly a gain of function.

You also said:

quote:
I enjoy this type of debate that is why I am here. challenging myself to look up new information and see how it fits my beliefs.

Why are not doing this then? Instead of trying to learn about how mutation can lead to a gain in fucntion, you just go:

quote:
"Nuh-uh!"

That's what makes you a troll.


ABE:

Blind cave fish can regain sight, I think there must still be the information in the genome that can sometimes be manifest. The information already exists.

Oh, I see

Its not that you could possibly just be wrong here, its that there must be some unknown thing that makes you right.

So much for challenging your beliefs

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 653 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 10:10 AM havoc has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 683 of 752 (607225)
03-02-2011 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 681 by havoc
03-02-2011 3:38 PM


One of the most commonly argued proofs of evolution is the pentadactyl limb pattern,

Wierd... I've been here for years and this is the first time I've seen it.

From my point of view, the most commonly argued proof of evolution is that its as blindingly fucking obvious as gravity and the only reason to deny it is because it conflicts with your theological views.

Well that, and the simple fact that not one single example of any animal has ever been shown to be unable to be produced by the process of evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 681 by havoc, posted 03-02-2011 3:38 PM havoc has not yet responded

1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019