|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4808 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Bolder-dash's very own little thread | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Where are these random mutational changes that might make one particular sebaceous gland begin to secrete fluid onto your knee every time you get an itch there? They're in your DNA, where they've always been.
Or how about a genetic mutation to a sebaceous gland that will allow you to squirt a deadly poison anytime a robber points a gun at you, sort of like spiderman; or at least like a spitting cobra? Saltational change is evidence against evolution, not evidence in favor of it. Biological function emerges from small changes to body plan, not enormous changes all at once like the sudden emergence of poison glands in primates. Everybody who didn't get their biology education from "X-Men" knows this.
For a theory that relies ENTIRELY on these type of processes to create every system on earth, you sure are lacking in real examples. Not at all. In fact there are dozens of examples:
Are Mutations Harmful? Every biological trait in every organism in every species is the result of mutation. That's a countless number of examples of beneficial mutations. An effectively infinite amount.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Its ok with me if you also want to name a few examples of what you prefer to call a "neutral" mutation that you see in modern creatures that you feel is suitable as a building block for a completely new system. Gene duplication - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3629 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Here is my take on you crashfrog:
You are a young college student that already feels they know everything in life that there is to know, you have taken a couple of biology classes (congratulations) and you are now going to tell everyone who will listen all about your great life experience wisdom, with all of the confidence of Walter Middy. You are so sure that you already have every answer, like your naive claim that you know all about every psychic and near death study that has ever existed, and you have already declared them false, so you no longer need to think about anything. You don't need to spend time learning things, or contemplating things, or listening and trying to gather a deepening understanding-no you already have it all figured out at 20 years of age. I have very little interest in engaging such a person, other than to assure you that you don't have it all figured out just yet. The complexities of the world, the meaning of life, the meaning of intelligence, the origins of our being, the foundations of once's personal faith are complicated things that you are not equipped to make such final judgments on just yet. You are a product of your limited world experience, and your little understanding of the books you believe you have read and understood. Your understanding of science doesn't impress me at all. Maybe you can get back to me in 30 years when you know what the heck you are talking about- in the meantime you can remember that somebody once told you that you didn't have it all figured out yet-and spend some time actually thinking about it. You can start by taking a philosophy class while you think you are learning about science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You are a young college student that already feels they know everything in life that there is to know, you have taken a couple of biology classes (congratulations) and you are now going to tell everyone who will listen all about your great life experience wisdom, with all of the confidence of Walter Middy. That's a delightful work of fiction you've created, but why not just admit that you know nothing at all about me and address my points?
You are so sure that you already have every answer, like your naive claim that you know all about every psychic and near death study that has ever existed So show me the ones you think I don't know about. Like I said - there aren't that many so-called "psychic studies" in the first place. The "paranormal" has long since been relegated to cranks and hucksters since study after study fails to find any defensible example of paranormal powers. If there's all this evidence for "non-material" stuff then you shouldn't have any trouble providing some of it, and putting me in my place. But instead you're forced to write these insipid little biographies that violate the forum guidelines:
quote: You don't need to spend time learning things, or contemplating things, or listening and trying to gather a deepening understanding-no you already have it all figured out at 20 years of age. I'm actually a 30-year-old married man, and maybe the reason that I seem like a know-it-all to you is because you know so very little about the world and its function. Certainly the steady array of biological ignorance you've spat all over this forum testifies to that. And now we find out that your credulity truly knows no bounds, and you'll swallow any old hokum at all - psychic surgery, out-of-body experiences, remote viewing - that you think will let you "stick it" to us awful ol' materialists. That's fine. Prove to me that you're the one possessed of a mind open to all the evidence, and go out and find some for psychic powers. For out-of-body experiences. Prove to me you're not just running off with your tail between your legs when I showed up at your little battle of wits with a lot more armament than you were prepared to defend against.
Your understanding of science doesn't impress me at all. Of course not - because you're fundamentally someone who fears and hates knowledge. An intellectual coward.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Instead, if you wanted these drawing to match your theory, you would need to show a series of these animals with all kinds of imperfect jaw bones developing and dying, with some getting thicker in the parts where the opening should be, so it makes it harder to open it's mouth, and with some getting mutations that cause the jaw bones to come completely unhinged so that the jaws just flop around and make it harder to chew, and with some getting an eardrum on the top of its nose, and with some getting a cornea in the middle of the anvil. Now THAT would be random. What you are showing me looks completely guided and completely efficient-just like how we see life today. Where are the drawings of the ones who developed worse hearing? Where are all the dead end body parts within the same species? Of course it's difficult to show fossil of animals with damaging mutations that make it hard for them to survive. Consider the case of the animals whose jaws were well positioned to give them better chewing and/or better hearnig, compared with your hypothetical animal with a disarticulated jaw who can't chew. The one with the disarticulated jaw would probably die quite young, being unable to feed effectively, and never reproduce. Each time such a mutation arose, it would leave only one animal behind to show for it, as it would never get passed on. The animals with more efficient jaws and/or better hearing, though, are going to be the successful animals. These are going to leave many descendants, so they'll be much easier to find in the fossil record than those with damaing congenital abnormalities. That's natural selection right there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3629 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Well, I don't quite agree, because as others have pointed out, most mutations would be neutral. So there should be every kind of possible mutation viewable in the fossil record, and yet there just isn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So there should be every kind of possible mutation viewable in the fossil record, and yet there just isn't. Fossilization is a rare occurrence, and generally all that fossilizes is the skeleton, so just from that you're unlikely to see very many mutations in the fossil record, and none at all that occurred primarily in the soft body tissues that don't fossilize. The place to look for the record of mutations is in the DNA. And that's where they're found, by the millions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3629 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
How many psychic studies are there? You know how many there are? You have studied them all?
Let me have a discussion with you about every psychic study you know about, and everyone that exists on the planet, and let me have you analyze in detail your little take on the flaws of each one (including all the ones you know nothing about), and how you know much more about the phenomenon than the people who have spent their lives actually doing the studies, like Dr. Sam Parnia, or Rupert Sheldrake, or Michael Marsh,or ... because you already KNOW everyone is wrong, so if I am just willing to wait for you to decide where each is wrong, that would be fine and dandy. ...or ...or..let me NOT have that discussion with you. Because making a decision about things requires first having an open and clear enough mind to actually contemplate what it is your are deciding on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
How many psychic studies are there? Hardly any, for the reasons I've already described.
Let me have a discussion with you about every psychic study you know about No, let's start with the ones you know about. What was the last scientific study you read? Be specific. What is the evidence of non-materialism to which you keep referring? Be specific.
.let me NOT have that discussion with you. You don't seem prepared to have any discussion at all. The only thing you seem prepared to do is trash scientists you don't understand and call people names.
how you know much more about the phenomenon than the people who have spent their lives actually doing the studies, like Dr. Sam Parnia, or Rupert Sheldrake, or Michael Marsh,or . What evidence did those people produce? Parnia's study on OBE's has released no data at all. Sheldrakes "morphic resonance" was disproved by his own experiments. If even these guys who "devote their lives" to these subjects can't find the evidence, why should I believe there is any?
Because making a decision about things requires first having an open and clear enough mind to actually contemplate what it is your are deciding on.
Assume my mind is open. Show me the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
But you weren’t asking for neutral mutations. You were asking for examples of debilitating mutations like ones that reshape the skull to obstruct breathing, or disarticulate the jaw so the animal can’t bite. I’m not sure how you expect people to point to a fossil and say, ‘that was a neutral mutation’. Most mutations wouldn’t result in any significant morphological change at all, so there wouldn’t be any sign of them in fossils.
Even those that do result in changes usually won’t leave a fossil record — how could we see a change of colour of an alteration in the shape of soft tissue (except in very rare cases)? The only thing we’re likely to spot in most cases are changes to the structure of bones or shells, and significant changes in this department are unlikely to be neutral. And how can we identify what features of any particular fossil are the result of mutations. We can find a Cretaceous theropod, and note all the differences in structure from early theropods — these are the records of mutations that had accumulated over the previous 150 million years. What else would you expect to see that’s not there?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
We can't even begin a discussion until you provide a citation to just one of these multiple studies that you keep alluding to. I've asked you twice for a citation and so far the response has been a deafening silence.
Third time's the charm? I doubt it. 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 It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Is so!
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 It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3629 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Please keep in mind, I will only give a lengthy response to someone who I feel will understand it. This is not an acknowledgment of defeat. Thus I am giving up giving crashfrog lengthy answers until he demonstrates a deeper level of insight.
I am reserving judgment for you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3629 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Actually what I am asking for are examples of a continuation of the same processes today that are claimed to have caused the diversity in history that we see today.
I have not seen anyone provide those yet. For example, Melindoor discussed the Italian Wall lizards. How can anyone claim this was a result of random mutations, that take years and years of trial and error to occur. Even some tried to claim that evolution can happen very rapidly even in complex organisms, and that this is also in keeping with your theory. Clearly they don't understand their own theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
What you seem to be asking for is something in modern animals that is the ancestor of a new structure in its descendants. But this is asking us to know the future. I could point to the Papillio butterfly, which has light-sensitive patches on its genitalia, and declare that these are the precursors of a second set of eyes in the Neopapillian buttermonsters the will one day occupy the southern coasts of Neopangaea. They will use these eyes to scan the holes in which they lay eggs for predators, whilst still being able to keep an eye out for any predators outside.
Of course, I'd be making it all up. None of us can see the future, so none of us know which features are going to be adapted and in which ways. We can just speculate wildly. It almost seems like what you're asking is 'where is the variation in modern organisms for natural selection to act upon?' and if this is what you're getting at then all I can say is 'open your eyes!' Lots of species are highly variable - just look at humans! We range in adult height from less than 5' to well over 6'. We have skin colours varying from a deep brown that's almost black to all white - and everything in between. We have different blood groups, and different digestive enzymes (I retain the ability to digest lactose into adulthood - most people don't). We have different proportions, different shaped faces and different patterns of vellus hair. Human populations have all sorts of traits that differ from the norm - such as the enlarged labia minor in Khoisan women,
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024