Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
31 online now:
Percy (Admin), ringo (2 members, 29 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,637 Year: 16,673/19,786 Month: 798/2,598 Week: 44/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can I disprove Macro-Evolution
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 2560 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 1 of 238 (589714)
11-03-2010 11:37 PM


I propose to dedicate a string to whether or not I can, using scientific methods, definitions, and evidences, disprove ‘Macro-Evolution’ {Also known as ‘Darwinian Evolution’ or ‘Natural selection’}.

This idea was prompted by a statement I made in another string: “Macro-Evolution has been disproved as a scientifically plausible explanation for the existence, and proliferation of life”

Someone respond and wanted my evidence for this statement. I wish to present it here.

I want to vary specific here, when I say “Macro-Evolution” I am speaking only of “a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.” {Quoted from Wikipedia.org}

In other words I am not disputing ‘variations in species’ {known as microevolution}, I am saying the evidence does not support microbes becoming multi-celled organisms; multi-celled organisms becoming fish; fish becoming amphibians; amphibians becoming mammals; etc.

Also, I believe, the evidence will show that ‘Life’ could not have come into existence without an intelligent agent involved.

In other words ‘Life’ could not have started on its own, by purely natural means.

The first peace of evidence I would like to bring to the table is DNA.

Techical Stuff:

(DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms with the exception of some viruses. The main role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage of information. DNA is often compared to a set of blueprints, like a recipe or a code, since it contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules. The DNA segments that carry this genetic information are called genes, but other DNA sequences have structural purposes, or are involved in regulating the use of this genetic information.{Quoted from Wikipedia.org}

If one walks by a piece of wood that has ‘Help’ written on it they come to the logical conclusion that someone wrote that message.

DNA is a ‘recipe’ for copying a cell from an original cell. It is a book of instructions; a blueprint.

Recipes, instruction manuals, and blueprints are the hallmark of Intelligent {I.E. someone wrote the DNA code} therefore Life did not arise unaided, on its own, by purely natural means.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Get rid of gawd-awful special font used in quote box and elsewhere.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-04-2010 2:43 AM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply
 Message 4 by Wounded King, posted 11-04-2010 3:45 AM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply
 Message 5 by frako, posted 11-04-2010 4:07 AM JRTjr has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Nij, posted 11-04-2010 5:43 AM JRTjr has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Dr Jack, posted 11-04-2010 5:46 AM JRTjr has not yet responded
 Message 9 by subbie, posted 11-04-2010 10:03 AM JRTjr has not yet responded
 Message 10 by NoNukes, posted 11-04-2010 10:12 AM JRTjr has not yet responded
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 11-04-2010 11:35 AM JRTjr has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Taq, posted 11-04-2010 12:18 PM JRTjr has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Coragyps, posted 11-04-2010 12:27 PM JRTjr has not yet responded
 Message 21 by ICANT, posted 11-04-2010 5:48 PM JRTjr has not yet responded
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2010 8:25 PM JRTjr has not yet responded
 Message 183 by Ken Fabos, posted 11-11-2010 10:51 PM JRTjr has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3893
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 238 (589723)
11-04-2010 1:58 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Can I disprove Macro-Evolution thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Promoted by popular albeit somewhat cranky demand.

Adminnemooseus

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add comment.


  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 3 of 238 (589725)
11-04-2010 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JRTjr
11-03-2010 11:37 PM


In other words I am not disputing ‘variations in species’ {known as microevolution}, I am saying the evidence does not support microbes becoming multi-celled organisms; multi-celled organisms becoming fish; fish becoming amphibians; amphibians becoming mammals; etc.

And if saying things had power to change reality, then the incantations of creationists would be much more effective.

Also, I believe, the evidence will show that ‘Life’ could not have come into existence without an intelligent agent involved.

In other words ‘Life’ could not have started on its own, by purely natural means.

And if believing things had the power to change reality ...

If one walks by a piece of wood that has ‘Help’ written on it they come to the logical conclusion that someone wrote that message.

And when one looks at the genome of (for example) a tiger, which one knows perfectly well was produced by reproduction, recombination, and mutation, one does not look for the invisible writer of the tiger genome with a magic genome pen unless one happens to be a darn fool.

Recipes, instruction manuals, and blueprints are the hallmark of Intelligent {I.E. someone wrote the DNA code}

Ah, the Great Big Creationist Petitio Principii.

I must have missed where you demonstrated that. Oh, wait, you didn't. You assumed that. Which requires you to assume that genomes did not evolve. Which is the very thing that you're meant to be proving. But you're just assuming it instead.

And if assuming things had the power to change reality ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JRTjr, posted 11-03-2010 11:37 PM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2349 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 4 of 238 (589726)
11-04-2010 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JRTjr
11-03-2010 11:37 PM


Recipes, instruction manuals, and blueprints are the hallmark of Intelligent {I.E. someone wrote the DNA code} therefore Life did not arise unaided, on its own, by purely natural means.

Even were we to accept this assumption it in no way contradicts macro-evolution. Many intelligent design advocates, most prominently Michael Behe, accept common ancestry.

And in terms of common ancestry DNA is about the worst evidence you could bring to the table since the pattern of genetic commonality we see among living things is the single strongest evidence for essentially universal common descent.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JRTjr, posted 11-03-2010 11:37 PM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-04-2010 5:06 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2814
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 5 of 238 (589727)
11-04-2010 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JRTjr
11-03-2010 11:37 PM


find some part that could not evolve, find a fossil of a bunny rabbit that dates back to the dinosaurs,....
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JRTjr, posted 11-03-2010 11:37 PM JRTjr has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 6 of 238 (589728)
11-04-2010 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Wounded King
11-04-2010 3:45 AM


And in terms of common ancestry DNA is about the worst evidence you could bring to the table ...

Now you're being unjust to the unique genius of Kirk Cameron.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Wounded King, posted 11-04-2010 3:45 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

Nij
Member (Idle past 3144 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 7 of 238 (589729)
11-04-2010 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JRTjr
11-03-2010 11:37 PM


This idea was prompted by a statement I made in another string: “Macro-Evolution has been disproved as a scientifically plausible explanation for the existence, and proliferation of life

1. Macroevolution has not ever been a "scientifically plausible explanation for the existence .. of life". Barely two paragraphs in, you're already demonstrating that you lack the knowledge of evolution to discuss it properly.

2. Science does not "disprove" things. It invalidates them. A minor point, but one that should be brought up if only to stop people using the wrong damn word in a formal sense.

I want to vary specific here, when I say “Macro-Evolution” I am speaking only of “a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population."

Microevolution deals with evolution in separated gene pools too. You contradict yourself; a species IS BY DEFINITION a separated gene pool. You would have been far better off just providing the Wikipedia definition. That way, your personal misunderstanding couldn't screw up the point you were trying to make.

In other words I am not disputing ‘variations in species’ {known as microevolution}, I am saying the evidence does not support microbes becoming multi-celled organisms; multi-celled organisms becoming fish; fish becoming amphibians; amphibians becoming mammals; etc.

Then you'd be wrong. It clearly does. Hence why the scientific consensus is that it does.

Also, I believe, the evidence will show that ‘Life’ could not have come into existence without an intelligent agent involved.

Ah, if only belief was enough to actually make a difference to reality, instead of like, not.

In other words ‘Life’ could not have started on its own, by purely natural means

This is entirely irrelevant.

If you are discussing evolution, then discuss evolution. If you are discussing abiogenesis, then discuss abiogenesis.
They are not the same thing. I really wish creotards would get this into their heads...

If one walks by a piece of wood that has ‘Help’ written on it they come to the logical conclusion that someone wrote that message.

Ah, so because we know one thing, we also know another thing? This is some sort of equivocation fallacy, I think. At least it would be, if you had used it to make a point.

DNA is a ‘recipe’ for copying a cell from an original cell. It is a book of instructions; a blueprint.

Only if you want to use a really bad analogy like that, it is.

Recipes, instruction manuals, and blueprints are the hallmark of Intelligent {I.E. someone wrote the DNA code} therefore Life did not arise unaided, on its own, by purely natural means.

Dr A did this already.
Petito principii. It means 'begging the question' in English, for anybody reading that doesn't get it. With the PP fallacy, you assume what you want to demonstrate (as opposed to circular logic, which is similar, wherein one uses argument one to prove argument two, and uses argument two to prove argument one. Similar, but different). Exactly as you did here.

Is it too much to ask that you come up with new arguments? Or at least research the history of the debate a little first? Please?

Edited by Nij, : Coding fix.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JRTjr, posted 11-03-2010 11:37 PM JRTjr has not yet responded

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 360 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 8 of 238 (589731)
11-04-2010 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JRTjr
11-03-2010 11:37 PM


Recipes, instruction manuals, and blueprints are the hallmark of Intelligent {I.E. someone wrote the DNA code} therefore Life did not arise unaided, on its own, by purely natural means.

On the face of it, this is mere assumption - no more meaningful than simply asserting life didn't evolve. Can you prove it?

Also DNA is not a recipe, an instruction manual or a blueprint; DNA, combined with many other components themselves described by the DNA, forms a system than shares certain properties with those human concepts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JRTjr, posted 11-03-2010 11:37 PM JRTjr has not yet responded

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


Message 9 of 238 (589752)
11-04-2010 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JRTjr
11-03-2010 11:37 PM


Recipes, instruction manuals, and blueprints are the hallmark of Intelligent

If you could find somewhere on a DNA molecule where it said "Made by YWHWEHWHWY" then you might have something. I'd actually be inclined to believe in intelligent design in that event. Of course, that still wouldn't disprove common descent.

Your screed is nothing but classic creationist non sequitors, a list of things you don't understand followed by your statement that all of it means no to evilution.

Yawn.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

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

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JRTjr, posted 11-03-2010 11:37 PM JRTjr has not yet responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 238 (589753)
11-04-2010 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JRTjr
11-03-2010 11:37 PM


JRTjr writes:

Recipes, instruction manuals, and blueprints are the hallmark of Intelligent {I.E. someone wrote the DNA code} therefore Life did not arise unaided, on its own, by purely natural means.

We've heard this stuff before, perhaps stated with more... sophistication. I sure hope you've got a new take on it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JRTjr, posted 11-03-2010 11:37 PM JRTjr has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17281
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 11 of 238 (589765)
11-04-2010 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JRTjr
11-03-2010 11:37 PM


JRTjr writes:

DNA is a ‘recipe’ for copying a cell from an original cell. It is a book of instructions; a blueprint.


You'd be better off thinking of DNA as a template, like a hole in the ground is a template for a puddle. That way, you're less likely to assume intelligence instead of concluding intelligence.


"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JRTjr, posted 11-03-2010 11:37 PM JRTjr has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 12 of 238 (589773)
11-04-2010 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by JRTjr
11-03-2010 11:37 PM


DNA is a ‘recipe’ for copying a cell from an original cell. It is a book of instructions; a blueprint.

This is a poor analogy for DNA. If you tossed a blueprint on to a pile of building materials does a house start to form? No. However, if you toss DNA into a cell stuff does happen, things are built.

A recipe or blueprint is an abstraction, a symbolic vision of what is to be built. DNA is not an abstraction. It is not symbolic. It is a physical and integral part of the building process itself.

DNA is much more like the gears in a clock. There is no single gear that codes for 2 o'clock, much like there is no single gene for building an eye. It is the interaction of all the gears in a temporal sequence that results in 2 o'clock in much the same way that it is the physical interaction of many genes that results in an eye or a foot.

Recipes, instruction manuals, and blueprints are the hallmark of Intelligent

Argument from analogy is a logical fallacy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JRTjr, posted 11-03-2010 11:37 PM JRTjr has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by ICANT, posted 11-04-2010 3:08 PM Taq has responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5398
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 13 of 238 (589777)
11-04-2010 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by JRTjr
11-03-2010 11:37 PM


Can you disprove Macro-Evolution?

I don't know. Try disproving a roughly spherical Earth first - it may be easier to do.


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JRTjr, posted 11-03-2010 11:37 PM JRTjr has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 14 of 238 (589796)
11-04-2010 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Taq
11-04-2010 12:18 PM


Re: Eye
Hi Taq,

Taq writes:

there is no single gene for building an eye.

Do you think you could convince Walter Gehring and his group at the University of Basel in Switzerland of that assertion?

Especially since the eyless gene has been used to cause eyes to form in the wings of fruit flies as well as the antenna and legs.

The Small eye gene has been taken from a mouse and used to cause an eye to develop in a fruitfly.

So yes there is information in the DNA that can cause an eye to develop.

The question is where did that information come from?

The gene can be mutated and cause no eye to appear or be deformed.

The human counterpart is called Aniridia.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Taq, posted 11-04-2010 12:18 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Taq, posted 11-04-2010 3:24 PM ICANT has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 15 of 238 (589803)
11-04-2010 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by ICANT
11-04-2010 3:08 PM


Re: Eye
Do you think you could convince Walter Gehring and his group at the University of Basel in Switzerland of that assertion?

Yes.

Especially since the eyless gene has been used to cause eyes to form in the wings of fruit flies as well as the antenna and legs.

You are confusing the switch with the circuit. Hox genes are the master switches that start the multi-gene cascade that result in the formation of an eye. You might as well argue that the gas pedal in a car is the only part in the car that makes it move since stepping on it makes the car go.

So yes there is information in the DNA that can cause an eye to develop.

The development of the eye involves many, many genes. That is my point.

The question is where did that information come from?

From mutation and selection, as demonstrated by TD Schneider:

quote:
Nucleic Acids Res. 2000 July 15; 28(14): 2794–2799.

Evolution of biological information

Thomas D. Schneider

How do genetic systems gain information by evolutionary processes? Answering this question precisely requires a robust, quantitative measure of information. Fortunately, 50 years ago Claude Shannon defined information as a decrease in the uncertainty of a receiver. For molecular systems, uncertainty is closely related to entropy and hence has clear connections to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. These aspects of information theory have allowed the development of a straightforward and practical method of measuring information in genetic control systems. Here this method is used to observe information gain in the binding sites for an artificial ‘protein’ in a computer simulation of evolution. The simulation begins with zero information and, as in naturally occurring genetic systems, the information measured in the fully evolved binding sites is close to that needed to locate the sites in the genome. The transition is rapid, demonstrating that information gain can occur by punctuated equilibrium.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC102656/



This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ICANT, posted 11-04-2010 3:08 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by ICANT, posted 11-04-2010 3:42 PM Taq has 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