Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
78 online now:
PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), vimesey (3 members, 75 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,209 Year: 22,245/19,786 Month: 808/1,834 Week: 308/500 Day: 7/64 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New name for evolution, "The Bacteria Diet"
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1972 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 61 of 77 (579491)
09-04-2010 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Admin
09-04-2010 12:32 PM


Re: It's a bad name
Excuse me? He remarked that there was evidence for RM/NS in humans, in the fossil record, in the "chain of development"(?) and I don't know where else, without providing evidence for nay of that. So I can only assume he was discussing his fantasy of the evidence and not actually evidence that he can show me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Admin, posted 09-04-2010 12:32 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1972 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 62 of 77 (579492)
09-04-2010 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by crashfrog
09-04-2010 12:04 PM


Re: It's a bad name
NON-responsive. Its not real because you dreamed it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 09-04-2010 12:04 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by crashfrog, posted 09-04-2010 11:34 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1972 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 63 of 77 (579494)
09-04-2010 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Straggler
09-02-2010 1:28 PM


Re: Predicting Transitionals
First off, what does the fossil evidence tell you about RM/NS being the mechanisms of change? Nothing is the answer.

And secondly, very very frequently they discover fossils that are exactly where the theory wouldn't predict them to be (you probably have heard of the Cambrian fossils), and whenever this happens, they are clever enough at making the theory so flexible that they can just call it a new name like punctuated equilibrium, and just sweep it under the rug.

The newest new name is evo-devo, where large scale changes do happen suddenly, and which will continue to throw problems into the ever increasing hodge podge of whatever the ToE is actually trying to say, but you get to oh so conveniently say-well, its another mechanism....lalala.

It completely contradicts the original mechanisms, but so what, the theory can have many mechanisms (please don't ask too many questions!)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Straggler, posted 09-02-2010 1:28 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 09-04-2010 11:36 PM Bolder-dash has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 77 (579527)
09-04-2010 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Bolder-dash
09-04-2010 10:15 PM


Re: It's a bad name
Its not real because you dreamed it.

Dreamed what? Be specific.

You've long stopped making any kind of sense, Dash.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-04-2010 10:15 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 77 (579528)
09-04-2010 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Bolder-dash
09-04-2010 10:26 PM


Re: Predicting Transitionals
First off, what does the fossil evidence tell you about RM/NS being the mechanisms of change? Nothing is the answer.

Are you claiming that organisms in the past did not undergo random mutation, or are you claiming that organisms in the past did not undergo natural selection? Or are you making both claims?

Since we observed organisms in the present undergo both of these processes, why should we believe that they didn't do so in the past as well? Please be specific.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-04-2010 10:26 PM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-05-2010 12:06 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1972 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 66 of 77 (579538)
09-05-2010 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by crashfrog
09-04-2010 11:36 PM


Re: Predicting Transitionals
Whether or not ANY organisms have ever had a random mutation, or whether or not ANY natural selection (which really is a pretty ambiguous and meaningless term) has ever occurred to any populations-I guess since some organisms die before others then its pretty self defining-it is not of very much significance. The point is demonstrating that these two things are sufficient to produce all the meaningful complex structures of life. Without any evidence other than your fairy tales, I am not willing to just swallow your theory on your faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 09-04-2010 11:36 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 09-05-2010 12:44 AM Bolder-dash has responded

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 3144 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 67 of 77 (579549)
09-05-2010 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Nij
09-03-2010 9:38 PM


Re: It's a bad name
Darwin's theory of evolution is supported if how it is defined evolves too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Nij, posted 09-03-2010 9:38 PM Nij has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 68 of 77 (579556)
09-05-2010 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Bolder-dash
09-05-2010 12:06 AM


Re: Predicting Transitionals
The point is demonstrating that these two things are sufficient to produce all the meaningful complex structures of life.

Finally, you're asking intelligible questions. If you wanted to know how we know that random mutation and natural selection can produce the varieties of life we see today, why didn't you say so before? Honestly.

1) Complex structures of life are determined in organisms by the content of their genetics - that is, by sequences of DNA.

2) Random mutation can produce any arbitrary DNA sequence. Mutations can add any base and subtract any base, duplicate or eliminate any gene, and make any sort of modification to DNA sequences.

3) Natural selection preserves random mutations that move an organism towards adaptation, and eliminates those that move an organism away from adaptation ("maladaptation.").

Logically, therefore, random mutation and natural selection in concert can produce theoretically any possible complex physical structure of life.

It is estimated that the total diversity of proteins among all known species inhabits a very small fraction of the probability space, that these proteins are clustered in the probability space, and that approximately 1% of all randomly-generated polypeptides exhibit kinase activity.

Mathematically that indicates that it's possible to "walk" from any one protein to any other by means of "steps" comprised of single amino acid substitutions, deletions, or additions (all of which are fairly common mutations.)

Living things are not discreet and essentially different; living things occupy a smooth continuum of change in form and capability. You've been presented with a portion of that continuum in the form of the smooth continuous pattern of hominid skulls leading from our oldest evolutionary ancestor to modern humans. But that pattern is universal among living things on Earth. The biological world has almost no true novelty; every living thing is just a modified other living thing. Humans are modified apes. Apes are modified mammals. Mammals are modified lizards. Lizards are modified fish. Fish are modified worms. Worms are modified polyps. Polyps are modified molds. Molds are modified bacteria. Bacteria are modified... whatever the first living thing was.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-05-2010 12:06 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-05-2010 12:59 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1972 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 69 of 77 (579561)
09-05-2010 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by crashfrog
09-05-2010 12:44 AM


Re: Predicting Transitionals
Man, you speeches are like broken records. How many times can you continue to say that RM and NS can do this and can that, and saying that this is possible and that is possible.? Ok, we have heard it. You believe this is possible. Maybe you can start a thread discussing the things you have faith in and believe are possible.

This about what we can prove. What we can demonstrate. What people don't need your awesome faith in, to see that its true. If you continue to make wild assertions about what YOU claim a process can do, I am going to have to ask the moderators to force you back on track to real things and real evidence.

I have already heard your long winded speeches about what you believe RM/NS can do a thousand times. The name of this thread is not 'what crashfrog believes is possible'. I can create all sorts of great stories about what I think is possible. its irrelevant to what can be proven to any degree of certainty.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 09-05-2010 12:44 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Nij, posted 09-05-2010 5:36 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 09-05-2010 2:38 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 3232 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


(1)
Message 70 of 77 (579593)
09-05-2010 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Bolder-dash
09-05-2010 12:59 AM


Re: Predicting Transitionals
Yes, as a matter of fact this thread is about you saying that our only evidence for evolution is the changing of bacterial metabolic abilities, and that the theory should be renamed to reflect that fact.

So, people presented evidence. Large amounts of it in fact, both here and in multiple other threads -- and then there's most scientific journals too -- to demonstrate that bacteria are not the only evidence used to support evolution.

Thus the onus is yours to demonstrate that all of that evidence is either fabricated, incorrect or otherwise invalid. And we're talking millions of data in thousands of papers here. Which you have not done.

Therefore, your proposed renaming of the theory of evolution should be considered rejected, as it is far less appropriate than the current. Unless you are in the middle of writing the post in which you conclusively demonstrate all that evidence to be wrong or bad or not applicable. We're waiting...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-05-2010 12:59 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12653
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 71 of 77 (579612)
09-05-2010 8:19 AM


Moderator Comment
Naturally I am not a participant in this discussion, but this thread is at a familiar impasse, so I thought it might help to briefly characterize the situation as I see it.

Evolutionists believe the processes of random mutation and natural selection that we observe at work in the world today are sufficient to produce the observed diversity of species found in the both today and in the fossil record, but they do not have the kind of direct evidence of what happened in the past that creationists might find convincing.

Creationists believe the processes of random mutation and natural selection, though real, are insufficient to produce the aforementioned diversity, but they cannot point to other observable processes or mechanisms that might have been responsible.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-05-2010 9:50 AM Admin has responded

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1972 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 72 of 77 (579635)
09-05-2010 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Admin
09-05-2010 8:19 AM


Re: Moderator Comment
Well, if I am going to state my position, I would do it slightly different than what you wrote for it.

I would say I believe that random mutations happen to some species maybe (in fact I have no way of knowing if any of them are truly random, but perhaps a few are).

And so as I said before, if one individual in a population is different from some others, at times this might save their life a little longer-for example a cripple who can't go outside to work in a field in Tanzania might be less likely to get eaten by a pack of wild heynas. does that mean that natural selection has selected for cripples in this case. I guess it does. I personally feel the term natural selection is so ambiguous that it means nothing much. Just that someone didn't die at one time when someone else did.

But the point of this thread is not just what evolutionists BELIEVE these mechanisms can do, the point is what they can actually show with evidence what these mechanisms can do. And so far, despite all of the repeated contentions that there is lots of evidence aside from the bacteria diet kind, there seems to only be talk of this evidence, not evidence of this evidence.

I believe if all of these people are allowed to SAY that they have presented evidence here, it is not asking to much for them to just number and list those evidences so we can be clear what evidence they are talking about. You can not say that the fossil record is evidence for the mechanisms of common ancestry. They are only evidence for the possibility of the common ancestry, not the mechanisms.

So, as moderator, and in accordance with the forum guidelines, please ask them to spell out their evidence clearly, by number, or stop just saying they have given evidence without saying what evidence. If they can only give bacterial evidence then my opening premise still stands. The name for the Theory of Evolution should be changed to the bacteria diet theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Admin, posted 09-05-2010 8:19 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by bluegenes, posted 09-05-2010 12:55 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 74 by Admin, posted 09-05-2010 2:05 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 76 by crashfrog, posted 09-05-2010 3:00 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 77 by Taq, posted 09-07-2010 12:06 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 819 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 73 of 77 (579662)
09-05-2010 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Bolder-dash
09-05-2010 9:50 AM


The bacteria theory gets bigger and broader.
Bolder-dash writes:

I would say I believe that random mutations happen to some species maybe (in fact I have no way of knowing if any of them are truly random, but perhaps a few are).

You could try thinking along the lines that, if only a small percentage are advantageous, then that would be a clear indication of general randomness. And you could certainly consider the detrimental ones as being random. Also, most are fairly close to neutral, and in their immediate effects, have no apparent point to them.

Bolder-dash writes:

And so as I said before, if one individual in a population is different from some others, at times this might save their life a little longer-for example a cripple who can't go outside to work in a field in Tanzania might be less likely to get eaten by a pack of wild heynas. does that mean that natural selection has selected for cripples in this case. I guess it does. I personally feel the term natural selection is so ambiguous that it means nothing much. Just that someone didn't die at one time when someone else did.

Which would inevitably lead to differential reproduction, wouldn't it?

Bolder-dash writes:

But the point of this thread is not just what evolutionists BELIEVE these mechanisms can do, the point is what they can actually show with evidence what these mechanisms can do. And so far, despite all of the repeated contentions that there is lots of evidence aside from the bacteria diet kind, there seems to only be talk of this evidence, not evidence of this evidence.

You shouldn't project your own inability to read evidence onto others. Biologists can look at the genomes of individuals in the same species, and see that the differences are the results of types of mutations they know from the lab.

When they've established common ancestry between two species, they can do the same thing. The quantity of mutations that make up the differences is just larger.

Even things that rarely go to fixation in a population group, like our fused chromosome 2, occur quite frequently. There are lots of perfectly healthy humans walking around today with a different number of chromosomes than the rest of us.

Bolder-dash writes:

The name for the Theory of Evolution should be changed to the bacteria diet theory.

I've already shown you in a post above how you can easily extend that to plants.

I'll help you to extend it to another Kingdom, as well, because there's plenty of research on fungi like this example.

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/168/4/1817

So now you've got the theory of evolution of bacteria, fungi and plants + evidence of common descent + transitional fossils + plus evidence of mutation and selection in animal genomes etc.

Soon, you'll end up with the modern theory of evolution, and realise that the rest of us are just quicker than you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-05-2010 9:50 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12653
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 74 of 77 (579666)
09-05-2010 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Bolder-dash
09-05-2010 9:50 AM


Re: Moderator Comment
Bolder-dash writes:

So, as moderator, and in accordance with the forum guidelines, please ask them to spell out their evidence clearly, by number, or stop just saying they have given evidence without saying what evidence. If they can only give bacterial evidence then my opening premise still stands. The name for the Theory of Evolution should be changed to the bacteria diet theory.

It takes two to tango. Here's a collection of some of your responses to attempts to describe evidence for you:

assortment of responses from Bolder-dash writes:


...or in an even more ideal world it would be exactly the same thing as having sex with Paris Hilton on a cocaine fueled all night binge, while finding out that you just won two power-ball lotteries while Nicole Richie is filming it all from on top of the headboard-but alas we live in a compromised world-where we have to just stick with boring reality shows.

...

Chimps rarely, if ever, tip the cart girl after buying beers during a round of golf.

...

Ok, I admit that is not a very good criticism of chimps, because in fairness, their pants usually don't have pockets to carry extra change around. Plus they would probably get the percentages wrong anyway.

...

Yes! We can finally agree. The Bacteria Diet it is!! The bacteria proves it, that's why chimps and crashfrog don't have pockets!! Who needs more proof.

...

Which fairy tale world are you discussing?

I was talking about the real evidence, not the ones in your mind.

...

NON-responsive. Its not real because you dreamed it.

I think if you respond to the evidence presented, even if it's just to explain why you don't consider it evidence, that it would help move the discussion constructively forward. This is your thread, try to make the most of it.

Please, no responses to this message in this thread. Problems with discussion should be taken to the Report discussion problems here: No.2.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-05-2010 9:50 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 77 (579669)
09-05-2010 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Bolder-dash
09-05-2010 12:59 AM


Re: Predicting Transitionals
This about what we can prove. What we can demonstrate.

That random mutation and natural selection can produce any arbitrary DNA sequence, that morphology of organisms is determined by DNA, and therefore that random mutation and natural selection can account for any morphological feature of any organism, living or dead.

That's what I can, and have, demonstrated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-05-2010 12:59 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019