Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,573 Year: 4,830/9,624 Month: 178/427 Week: 91/85 Day: 8/20 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New theory about evolution between creationism and evolution.
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3783 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 346 of 433 (645502)
12-27-2011 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by foreveryoung
12-27-2011 11:47 AM


Re: New here
Science is open to new ideas, in fact that is what science is all about. That doesn't mean that just because an idea is new it should be accepted. Additionally, I think you'll find that these are actually old ideas.
Science looks at the evidence in order to determine the validity of ideas, hypotheses. If you have a scenario which physical evidence contradicts, you have to ask yourself if your scenario is really valid.
I understand what you mean when you say
The plain word of God? I mean that most people understand what someone else says based on the plain meaning of the speaker. I read the bible as if what was written were being spoken to me by a person on the street. I read in the plainest way. If that way is not the one that is intended by the text, then the person who objects to that intepretation is under obligation to give his own interpretation and the reasoning behind it.
I think you've misunderstood my question. I'm asking how do you know it is the word of God. With all due respect, it doesn't matter that you read it as if it was being spoken to you by someone in the street, the fact is that it is not being spoken to you by someone in the street. You're being given a written record of an oral record, told over centuries that you have no way of knowing the accuracy of. Tales can change in the telling, embellishments can be added and you end up having no way to tell what parts areoriginal and accurate and what parts may have been added on for effect.
I'm not saying the bible is a fairy tale, all I'm saying is that if the physical evidence contradicts a part of the bible, then that particular part of the bible is questionable. Many, many people have no difficulty in seeing stories like creation and the flood as myths, guesses and exaggerations, yet they accept Christianity.
You don't know anything about what happened personally and neither do I.
Exactly! However we can look at the physical evidence to get information as to what happened. If all the evidence is favourable to position A and contradicts position B, then position A is more likely to be correct. However, nothing in science is written in stone and if new evidence comes along which doesn't fit position A then science re-evaluates it's conclusions. That's the strength of science - it's self-correcting.
You said, in reply to jar
Things that scare you, or things that disturb your mental state of well being, are easy to ridicule.
There's something else that's easy to ridicule and that's some of the proposed scenarios put forward by some YECs and it's easy to ridicule them because they are ridiculous. In their efforts to find scientific support for creation or the flood, they come up with ideas which go against stuff we can see with our own eyes! They try to weave science into these scenarios, but their ignorance of science leads them to build models which defy physics or biology or plate tectonics etc, for example somewhere on this site is a claim that hanging big rocks on ropes from the ark would increase it's buoyancy, IIRC, as would cutting a hole from the deck right through the keel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by foreveryoung, posted 12-27-2011 11:47 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34047
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 6.2


(1)
Message 347 of 433 (645503)
12-27-2011 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by New Cat's Eye
12-27-2011 12:36 PM


Re: There is life after YEC
Note on this.
If any of the Biblical Flood myths were true that Genetic Bottleneck would not just be in humans but in almost every living species excluding fish but including all plants as well.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-27-2011 12:36 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2183 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 348 of 433 (645521)
12-27-2011 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by foreveryoung
12-26-2011 7:01 PM


Re: Confused here
I have a wide range of possible ages for the earth but they are no older than a million years and no younger than 150,000 years.
That belief is contradicted by empirical evidence. Most YECs would not even agree with your belief.
I believe in a global "flood", but I do not restrict its activity to massive amounts of rainfall as we see the phenomena today. I believe the great "flood" coincided with the Late Heavy Bombardment, and that the great flood of noah coincides with that periods characteristic total coverage of water.
The Late Heavy Bombardment (commonly referred to as the lunar cataclysm, or LHB) is a period of time approximately 4.1 to 3.8 billion years ago (Ga)...
There is no evidence that people were cavorting around 4 billion years ago. We do have good evidence that the earliest true humans were around about 200,000 years ago. Your belief is off by a factor of several orders of magnitude.
I know that was 3.9 billion years ago measured radiometrically, but I believe it happened much later than that due to accelerated radioactive decay.
There is no empirical evidence that accelerated radioactive decay of the type you are relying on occurs. Rather the evidence is against you.
So, of your several statements you appear to be wrong in each case.
As far as college, I wish you well. But be careful, as "Belief gets in the way of learning."

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by foreveryoung, posted 12-26-2011 7:01 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by foreveryoung, posted 01-08-2012 8:44 PM Coyote has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 361 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 349 of 433 (645529)
12-27-2011 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by foreveryoung
12-26-2011 7:54 PM


Re: New here
What you claim as ridiculous are the "sunday school" versions of creationism and the flood that some YEC propose. It is these cartoon versions of creationism that are so easy to ridicule, and it is for that reason that you claim them as the YEC position.
No, we claim them as YEC positions because YECs do in fact hold those positions.
And innumerable YECs have the same complaint as you do --- we shouldn't be arguing with all the other YECs, who are dolts, we should be arguing with the real creationism, as purveyed by them. How dishonest we are to be debunking Henry Morris when we should be debunking Duane Gish! And why are we going after soft targets like Duane Gish when we should be tackling the more substantive arguments of Walt Brown? And why are we wasting our time on small-time creationists like Walt Brown? --- are we too scared to face up to the cogent reasoning of Henry Morris?
I am sorry to say that 90 % of creationists do fit the picture or cartoon you guys portray.
Yes.
Your own picture of the Flood, as I understand it, is that the crust collapsed into a hydrosphere lying between the crust and the mantle. How was anyone meant to portray that as the true face of "flood geology"? You're the first and only person I've ever heard it from. And yet you chide us for instead focusing on the "silly, cartoonish" scenarios put forward by (apparently) everyone except you. How could we do otherwise? We'd never heard your version before, and we may never do so again from anyone else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by foreveryoung, posted 12-26-2011 7:54 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 361 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 350 of 433 (645535)
12-27-2011 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by foreveryoung
12-27-2011 11:47 AM


Re: New here
So, just what are the requirements for an idea to be a valid alternative?
Some sort of evidence for it, rather than "I believe it on faith".
What do I know personally? I wasn't there 200,000 years ago or 4.56 billion years ago either, neither were you. You don't know anything about what happened personally and neither do I.
That would be where the need for evidence comes in.
If one part of the bible is a fairy tale, then there is no reason to believe all of it isn't a fairy tale.
Also, one mistake in Newton's Principia would mean that you shouldn't believe in gravity.
But even if your reasoning was correct on that point, that wouldn't supply you with a reason to believe the whole Bible. It would supply you with a motive to do so, perhaps, but that's hardly the same thing.
Until someone can show me why any of the claims of the bible are impossible ...
Well of course they're impossible, that's the whole point of making the claims. Walking on water is impossible, raising the dead is impossible. Donkeys can't talk, you can't part the Red Sea by waving a stick at it, humans don't undergo parthenogenesis. You can't turn water into wine, no plague can single out the firstborn, sticks don't turn into snakes ...
If instead the Bible was a bunch of stories that went like this:
And lo, the prophet Jethriel did go forth to buy a hat, and behold, he put it on his head, that he might try it on, and verily it was too tight. And so it came to pass that he tried on a larger hat, and behold, it fitted him full well. And so paid he the shopkeeper, even he who sold the hats, yea, he paid him for the hat in the hatshop that is called Beth-Horeb, and lo, he received change therewith ...
... then it would not have become the basis of a major religion. Its whole appeal is that it contains stories about things that are completely impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by foreveryoung, posted 12-27-2011 11:47 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 659 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 351 of 433 (647249)
01-08-2012 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by Coyote
12-27-2011 3:42 PM


Re: Confused here
That belief is contradicted by empirical evidence. Most YECs would not even agree with your belief.
Most YEC think the earth is older than 1 million years? That is news to me. Otherwise, what evidence contradicts my beliefs?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by Coyote, posted 12-27-2011 3:42 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2012 10:07 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 353 by Coyote, posted 01-09-2012 12:57 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 361 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 352 of 433 (647267)
01-08-2012 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by foreveryoung
01-08-2012 8:44 PM


Re: Confused here
Obviously, really really incredibly obviously, mind-numbingly, ball-shatteringly obviously, Coyote meant that most YECs wouldn't agree with you that the Earth was "no younger than 150,000 years". What is it with creationists and really really obvious things?
I should be interested, by the way, to know how you came up with that 150,000 year figure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by foreveryoung, posted 01-08-2012 8:44 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2183 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 353 of 433 (647287)
01-09-2012 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 351 by foreveryoung
01-08-2012 8:44 PM


Re: Confused here
That belief is contradicted by empirical evidence. Most YECs would not even agree with your belief.
Most YEC think the earth is older than 1 million years? That is news to me. Otherwise, what evidence contradicts my beliefs?
Most YECs believe in dates in the 6-10k range, with a few playing silly games with dating who prefer older dates.
Your dates are outside of the range preferred by most YECs.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by foreveryoung, posted 01-08-2012 8:44 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 354 of 433 (647290)
01-09-2012 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 342 by foreveryoung
12-27-2011 11:56 AM


Course work
I have attempted 14 credit hours and my GPA for those hours is 3.91. Nothing I have learned so far in geology and biology and the philosophy of science has shown me that either YEC or the biblical flood is a myth.
I'll go out on a limb here. Saw away if you can.
You've attempted 14 credit hours (less than one semester's worth, or about 5 courses) towards a curriculum that includes philosophy of science. There is simply no way that you have completed any technically rigorous science/engineering college coursework. "Science for Poets" certainly doesn't meet that description.
Your seemingly hubris laden statement is likely to be completely accurate, but only because you have learned doodly-squat so far.
Even a high school physical science course includes geological information which contradicts the idea that the earth is < 10,000 years old. You are of course free to disbelieve such information or to refuse to learn it, but that doesn't mean that the evidence was not presented.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by foreveryoung, posted 12-27-2011 11:56 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3696 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 355 of 433 (655154)
03-07-2012 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Taq
01-26-2011 11:29 AM


Re: Are there RANDOM MUTATIONS?
Hi Taq,
after long time looking back at 34 post i would like to make some notes:
Your theory should at least be able to explain the facts we do have and be able to make different predictions than that made by the current theory of evolution. For example, your theory should be able to explain why chimps and humans differ in some genes more than others, and be able to do so better than the current theory. So what should we see when comparing the human and chimps genomes, and what predictions does your theory make that the current theory does not?
Current theory as regards mutation CAN'T make any prediction at all.My theory at least can make the general prediction that LIFE WILL BE PRESERVED AT THE END, as far as earth, as we know it, will continue to exist. Guided mutations coexist with random ones and guided mutations do not preclute deleterious or neutral mutations; they only reduce the amount of the inconceivable amount of random mutations needed to lead to viable and effective organisms, specially in metazoa.
I am very much interested if you could explain for me why chimps and humans differ in some genes more than others on the basis of random mutations, as this is the point where Current theory and my theory really and mainly differ. All the predictions made by evolution theory on the basis of natural selection are equally made by my theory with the same sucess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Taq, posted 01-26-2011 11:29 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Trixie, posted 03-08-2012 3:52 AM zi ko has replied
 Message 357 by Wounded King, posted 03-08-2012 4:49 AM zi ko has replied
 Message 359 by Taq, posted 03-08-2012 11:49 AM zi ko has replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3783 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 356 of 433 (655161)
03-08-2012 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by zi ko
03-07-2012 11:26 PM


Re: Are there RANDOM MUTATIONS?
I think you've misunderstood what science means by predictions. It doesn't mean making predictions of the future, it means making a prediction of the outcome of an investigation based on what current theory states, then going off, doing the experiments, collecting the data and seeing if the prediction was correct - in other words it makes testable predictions.
Your prediction isn't testable, you can't collect evidence to see if it's correct. It's as much use as crystal ball gazing since the hypothesis which you've used to make the prediction has no supporting evidence either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by zi ko, posted 03-07-2012 11:26 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by zi ko, posted 03-08-2012 10:49 AM Trixie has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 109 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


(1)
Message 357 of 433 (655163)
03-08-2012 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by zi ko
03-07-2012 11:26 PM


Re: Are there RANDOM MUTATIONS?
they only reduce the amount of the inconceivable amount of random mutations needed to lead to viable and effective organisms, specially in metazoa.
It seems strange then that absolutely none of the evidence presented in favour of an actual mechanism for guided mutations seems to have been in the metazoa. The only putative mechanisms that been put forward, i.e. Wright's de-repression based system, only seem to work in the context of unicellular organisms and have no readily apparent way to apply to multicellular organisms where there is a separation of the germ line from the somatic cells.
I am very much interested if you could explain for me why chimps and humans differ in some genes more than others on the basis of random mutations, as this is the point where Current theory and my theory really and mainly differ.
And welcome back to evolutionary genetics 101! This is absolutely basic stuff Zi Ko, and if you aren't familiar with it then you just don't understand evolutionary theory at all.
The simple answer is that the disparities are principally the result of natural selection. There are other factors, such as mutational hotspots and previously discussed sequence and higher chromosomal organisational effects on mutation rates which can affect the disparities, but in the main when we are discussing interspecies genetic diversity we are talking about distinguishing between nonselective diversity, which is the product of random mutation and maintained in the population through genetic drift, and selective differences which show evidence of having tended to increase or maintain their presence in the population as the result of selection in the case of positive selection or to have been reduced beyond what would be expected in the case of negative selection.
Positive selection on a particularly beneficial functional trait will drive fixation far quicker than genetic drift would and will counteract the tendency of drift to eliminate the trait if it is at a low frequency in the population.
Some genes are more important to an organisms viability and reproductive success and therefor allow less variability in their sequence while remaining functional and are therefore more prone to stringent selection, these will tend to show less diversity.
Other genes have less stringent structural.sequence requirements or are not as vital to the organisms survival and reproductive success, these will support a higher degree of genetic diversity.
Once again you seem to have decided to ignore the fact that evolutionary theory is not a theory of random mutation alone but of the patterns of genetic diversity, or morphological diversity, we see as the result of the interplay between random mutation and natural selection operating on populations over many generations.
I find it hard to believe you can make these sweeping statements about the predictions of evolutionary theory when you so clearly have little or no understanding of evolutionary theory.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by zi ko, posted 03-07-2012 11:26 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by zi ko, posted 03-08-2012 10:41 PM Wounded King has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3696 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 358 of 433 (655178)
03-08-2012 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by Trixie
03-08-2012 3:52 AM


Re: Are there ONLY RANDOM MUTATIONS?
I think you've misunderstood what science means by predictions.
I am sorry, no this isn't the case. I was trying to reply to Taq's assertion about Current Theory predictive abilities on the BASIS OF MUTATION, which i very much doupt. In any case i don't claim my theory has more prediction ability than Current theory, but not less either.This it what i want to discuss about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Trixie, posted 03-08-2012 3:52 AM Trixie has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(2)
Message 359 of 433 (655180)
03-08-2012 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by zi ko
03-07-2012 11:26 PM


Re: Are there RANDOM MUTATIONS?
Current theory as regards mutation CAN'T make any prediction at all.
Sure it can. For example, we could look at the LTR's of orthologous endogeneous retroviruses (ERV's).
quote:
Third, sequence divergence between the LTRs at the ends of a given provirus provides an important and unique source of phylogenetic information. The LTRs are created during reverse transcription to regenerate cis-acting elements required for integration and transcription. Because of the mechanism of reverse transcription, the two LTRs must be identical at the time of integration, even if they differed in the precursor provirus (Fig. 1A). Over time, they will diverge in sequence because of substitutions, insertions, and deletions acquired during cellular DNA replication.
Just a moment...
So we can predict that an orthologous ERV that inserted into the common ancestor of humans and african green monkeys will have more divergent LTR's than an ERV that is only shared by humans and chimps. This is exactly what we see, and what is evidenced in the paper cited above.
My theory at least can make the general prediction that LIFE WILL BE PRESERVED AT THE END, as far as earth, as we know it, will continue to exist.
That has nothing to do with mutations. What you are talking about is Earth avoiding a cataclysmic event that makes life impossible on Earth, such as hitting a massive planetoid.
Guided mutations coexist with random ones . . .
What guided mutations? Evidence please.
I am very much interested if you could explain for me why chimps and humans differ in some genes more than others on the basis of random mutations,
Actually, it has to do with selection. The background random mutation rate continues to operate, and those mutations pass through the filter of natural selection.
All the predictions made by evolution theory on the basis of natural selection are equally made by my theory with the same sucess.
Your theory is unfalsifiable. If a mutation is detrimental or neutral you claim it is a product of random mutations. If it is beneficial then you claim it is due to guided mutations even if it occurs through the same mechanisms as detrimental and neutral mutations. It is no different than watching John Smith win the lottery and then declaring the lottery was guided so that John Smith could win, and counting this as a prediction. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by zi ko, posted 03-07-2012 11:26 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by zi ko, posted 03-08-2012 10:18 PM Taq has replied
 Message 380 by zi ko, posted 03-23-2012 12:54 AM Taq has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3696 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 360 of 433 (655255)
03-08-2012 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by Taq
03-08-2012 11:49 AM


Re: Are there ONLY RANDOM MUTATIONS?
Sure it can. For example, we could look at the LTR's of orthologous endogeneous retroviruses (ERV's).
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, sequence divergence between the LTRs at the ends of a given provirus provides an important and unique source of phylogenetic information. The LTRs are created during reverse transcription to regenerate cis-acting elements required for integration and transcription. Because of the mechanism of reverse transcription, the two LTRs must be identical at the time of integration, even if they differed in the precursor provirus (Fig. 1A). Over time, they will diverge in sequence because of substitutions, insertions, and deletions acquired during cellular DNA replication.
Just a moment...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So we can predict that an orthologous ERV that inserted into the common ancestor of humans and african green monkeys will have more divergent LTR's than an ERV that is only shared by humans and chimps. This is exactly what we see, and what is evidenced in the paper cited above.
I can't pretend i fully understand this ERV stuff and its predictive value as regards randomness in mutations.In any case this complex example show the difficulty of the theory to give other more easily understandable examples. but what is the evidence that these supposed random mutageneses are not in fact guided from environment,external or internal? So we are back to the same basic issue:choosing between random or not random mutations is a matter of belief.
What guided mutations? Evidence please.
Again, what is the evidence for random mutations vs guided mutations?
Your theory is unfalsifiable. If a mutation is detrimental or neutral you claim it is a product of random mutations. If it is beneficial then you claim it is due to guided mutations even if it occurs through the same mechanisms as detrimental and neutral mutations. It is no different than watching John Smith win the lottery and then declaring the lottery was guided so that John Smith could win, and counting this as a prediction. Sorry, doesn't work that way.
I am afraid also current theory has the same problem at least up to now and it had a lot of time to prove itself.My teory hadn't had yet this time.
Maybe i have to stress again "guidance" in my hypothesis is "collecting" information from environment. Life matter is not dice. Your analogy is not right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by Taq, posted 03-08-2012 11:49 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by Taq, posted 03-09-2012 12:06 PM zi ko has replied
 Message 366 by subbie, posted 03-10-2012 12:14 AM zi ko has not replied
 Message 379 by Larni, posted 03-15-2012 9:59 AM zi ko has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024