Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Origin of Novelty
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3640 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(2)
Message 28 of 871 (689769)
02-04-2013 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Bolder-dash
02-04-2013 11:18 AM


Hmmm...
First you have a small eye, then a bigger eye, then a bigger eye-I mean come on, exactly how intellectually lazy is your side anyway?
Not as intellectually lazy as your side that hasn't even digested Darwin's original treatise of exactly this scenario from Origin of the Species. I mean - come on - you've had over 150 years to try and understand the implication of it all.
The problem with creationists is that they are flora and fauna ignorant as well as scientifically ignorant in general. You have no idea of the vast array of organisms displaying vast intermediates along 'Mount Improbable' to quote Richard Dawkins.
The eye: From flat-worms that can just discern light and direction, to a nautilus which can form a blurred pin-hole camera version - and then through the varying improvements in lens, retina formulation, chromatic pigmentation etc - there is a steady grading all the way from no sight at all to the ultimate (i.e. a bald eagle - or at night - an owl) for visual acuity.
There is a steady grading from the bottom to the top. Each species has the eyesight that provides it's 'fitness' within it's gene pool. A flatworm doesn't need the eye of a hawk for example in it's muddy domain. And there has NEVER been a demonstration of any item of irreducible complexity - care to submit your candidates?
Even your flagship creationist scientist (Behe) was crushed at the Dover trial - forced to admit that the field of immunology did indeed have numeruous volumes and papers detailing the evolution of the immune system which he said did not exist (creationists have had to resort to trying to use biochemical pathways as irreducible complexity examples as they have lost every case of physiological examples put forward by them).
Behe tried to use the flagellar motor as irreducible and was crushed - he was sloppy and didn't realise that this had been well researched and biochemical pathways worked out (the TTSS system - a molecular 'pump system' has very similar structural components to the flagellar motor - and Behe didn't 'see' the connection....sloppy!! And he's the best you've so far wheeled out from your camp!).
So, it is foolish to say that there is no gradation between no eyes and superlative eyes when the world is replete with just that. Eyes of every quality description etc you can imagine. Here's a challange - describe to me an eye that nature doesn't have. Bet you can't !!
Now here's a bigger challenge. Given that every possible type of eye in every possible type of setting and quality already exists in the current life on Earth, and given that there is NO credible irreducible complexity issue (right down to the biochemical level that we can see) - please provide a mechanism for how gradation of eyes (or any other adaptive feature for that matter) cannot happen.
Really! Darwin sorted the problem out for you 150 years ago - he took the trouble to learn botany and zoology, to study intensely and to report accurately - and then he gave you the info so that you too can understand the beautiful way in which it all works. It's so elegant....
Why do you still have a problem? Is it that you are still scientifically illiterate? You can do something about that you know.......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-04-2013 11:18 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3640 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(2)
Message 71 of 871 (690075)
02-08-2013 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Bolder-dash
02-08-2013 11:38 AM


The problem is the arrogance your side has, in declaring it a proven theory, when in fact you know next to nothing about how it happened, and what you try to guess happened is so illogical any little child should be able to see its ridiculous. Random corneas popping up out of no where-and you have the nerve to call my notions ******.
I see you totally ignored my previous message to you. So I repeat:
Given that the world is replete in organisms with every possible stage and level of detail of every adaptive feature that is out there, and given that there has NEVER been a case of irreducible complexity evidenced......please describe the mechanism for how adaptive features cannot evolve through the simple process of mutation + Natural Selection.
You do realise that since chemistry is a stochastic process and that genetics is organic chemistry - then it follows that evolution MUST take place - simply because chemistry is stochastic......to not be able to see this is so basic, I feel so sorry for you.
On the other hand, I can't for the life of me see why you adhere to a bronze age ignorant myth....now that does take some explaining!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-08-2013 11:38 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-08-2013 4:49 PM Drosophilla has replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3640 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(3)
Message 78 of 871 (690087)
02-08-2013 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Bolder-dash
02-08-2013 4:49 PM


Oh dear - failed the basics (again)
Of course not, we have very clean fossils, fossils which as you noted showed every stage of development (and absolutely zero stages of failed developments). Maybe that should be telling you something, when you don't see all of these pieces of a mousetrap scattered all over the floor like a random process such as yours requires.
So you STILL can't describe a process that stops the progression of adaptive features by the process of mutation and Natural Selection. Why can't you man-up and just admit it.
Look it's incredibly simple really. One wonders why it took someone like Darwin so long to figure it (I suppose religion's grip had a lot to do with it).
1. Chemistry is stochastic. This means it doesn't perform chemical reactions exactly the same every time - that's just the nature of the beast as far as chemistry goes - it is not perfectly reproducible - even in laboratory conditions.
2. This means that any processes that rely of replication of chemical processes by necessity cannot be perfect (the phrase is "its fidelity is high but not perfect").
3. This means that mutations in genetic coding are utterly inevitable.
4. Mutations mean that individuals carry differences in phenotypic traits within a population.
5. Differences in phenotypic traits are acted upon by the environment (this is Natural Selection).
6. Those phenotypes that are best suited to that environment will survive and breed and pass on traits - those that aren't suited won't. This over time gives rise to change in populations and emergence of new species.
This 6 stage process is UTTERLY INEVITABLE as soon as you start with a replication process that is dependant upon stochastic chemistry. There is simply no way out of it. It's like a line of falling dominoes - once the first one goes the rest follow.
Please provide a mechanism to prevent the stages above happening - provide the lynch-pin that stops the dominoes falling. This is now the third time of asking.
Why do you suppose that the vast majority of the world’s cleverest scientists see the fundamental truths of evolution, whereas the scientifically illiterate make up the group that prefer to hang on to ancient tribal myths? Didn't you study at school?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-08-2013 4:49 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-08-2013 6:56 PM Drosophilla has replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3640 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(1)
Message 81 of 871 (690092)
02-08-2013 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Bolder-dash
02-08-2013 6:56 PM


Re: Oh dear - failed the basics (again)
First off, why don't you man up and go blow yourself.
Last resort of the intellectually challenged - insult your debater!
Secondly, I have to describe a process that stops the progression of adaptive features? You mean, you can just come up with any baloney you want, and now I have to show you why it can't happen? Is that the same as you explaining why little magic leprechauns couldn't come out at night and repaint the sky whenever your eyes are closed? Can you explain a process of why this can't happen? Maybe we just haven't figured out the small details yet.
But you haven't demonstrated that leprechauns exist so that's a non-starter before you begin. Whereas, adaptive features abound everywhere, mutations are trivially demonstrated, phylogenic comparisons exist across all phyla, classes, orders, families and genera. In other words - all the key elements of the evolution theory exist IN THE REAL WORLD not some fantasy shit you've thought up in your head (like religion for example....not a fucking tiny piece of real evidence for any of that shit).
Saying that chemistry is stochastic leads to the inevitability of sophisticated useful functions coming into being? The only obvious answer to that trash is, not it doesn't you *****
Of course if you had studied at college you would know it is not trash. You can actually do chemistry tests in a lab to demonstrate stochastic processes!
Can you describe a mechanism which stops the development of directed life? That makes as much sense as the crap you are saying.
Yes - how about the total absence of any evidence of directed life in the first place? Do you want to get started on the engineering stupidity evident in life on earth - it is clearly a suboptimal, at times dangerous (think choking option on a shared windpipe and oesophagus) jury-rigged bio-system that would be expected if evolution was at play (having to go with what has gone before and taking the best that mutations and NS add onto the mix). Whereas if God has designed life on earth he should have his engineering licence revoked for incompetence. That alone is evidence that 'directed life' hasn't happened (or else your God isn't up to human engineering standards).
Next!
Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-08-2013 6:56 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-08-2013 8:22 PM Drosophilla has replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3640 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(7)
Message 98 of 871 (690142)
02-09-2013 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Bolder-dash
02-08-2013 8:22 PM


Re: Oh dear - failed the basics (again)
Yea but we know that small people exist. And we also know that paint exists, and that sometimes you close your eyes. So all of the key elements you need for leprechauns painting the sky exist in the real world. That is just as effective of an argument for saying that just because there are mutations we know of (it just so happens that so far the only ones we know of pretty much destroy life, but never mind that) that it is inevitable that they will create something good.
This is asinine! There is no mechanism that exists for leprechauns even existing, let alone them being able to 'paint the sky'. It's well known that the sky's blue colour comes from diffraction of light not paint daubed on a celestial dome!
On the other hand, the mechanism for mutation is well known and can be trivially demonstrated. You can perform E.Coli experiments in any school lab to demonstrate mutation fixation.
You can't see the difference between saying stochastic processes exist and saying that stochastic process would inevitably lead to a world of useful functions
Stochastic processes in chemistry means (by definition) that organic replicating processes are not perfect - which means (by definition) that replicating individuals MUST show variation within a population.
I sincerely believe that the modern Hollywood incarnations of films such as Pokmon and X-Men, mean that a significant number of individuals believe that 'mutants' mean some sort of way-out massively corrupted form of an individual such as being able to 'throw fire' or attract metal.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Most mutations are incredibly subtle - you have approx 100 mutations carried by neither your mother nor father - as a result of stochastic chemical activity.
These subtle mutations do count though - over time and over generations. Ultimately you haven't given any mechanism for how adaption through mutation and NS can't happen. And until you do then this has to be the preferred route for adaption of life on earth - mainly because it is the ONLY mechanism that has ever been proposed that (crucially) tally's with the evidence.
The really sad thing for me is that Darwin knew the truth of evolution after spending a lifetime in the field. His expertise in the natural sciences led him to know in his inner core he was right. His problem is that he didn’t know the mechanism - he didn't know about genetics and mutations. And that is sad - because while he was alive Mendel was doing work on genetics - Darwin just didn't know about it. So he had to defend his theory which he instinctively knew was correct without being able to provide the mechanism - never an easy proposition.
It is safe to say that the ToE is accepted by all serious scientists in the world today. To kick against it is to be compared to a flat-Earther. There is really no debate any more - and hasn't been for the past half century.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-08-2013 8:22 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3640 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(1)
Message 107 of 871 (690243)
02-11-2013 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Blue Jay
02-10-2013 6:40 PM


Superhumans....
Hi Blue Jay
I have to be honest, and say that Bolder-dash actually has a valid point. If we posit that novel structures, like eyes, legs, antennae, wings, tentacles, etc. evolved through mutation and natural selection, and that mutation and natural selection are still happening now... then we do need an explanation for why we don't see novel structures popping up now.
Well perhaps they do....
Have you seen the TV programme called "Stan Lee's Superhumans"? This is a show that goes in search of unique individuals with very unique abilities. Examples so far are:
A man that can take currents of several hundred volts though his body on an ongoing basis (i.e. he acts as a current carrier to the point where he can heat up a hotplate to boil water!) - Scientists have found his electrical insulative ability is utterly unique among humans.
A man with incredible explosive force in his muscles - he can bend wrenches into 'U' shapes and 'roll' frying pans and hold a 100 HP Harley from taking off for over 15 seconds. Scientists have found his muscle fibres are utterly unique in that they can all activate at once whereas ours can't get close to this.
A man, blind from birth has learnt to echo locate by clicking his tongue just like bats. He is so good he can actually ride a bike and identify objects such as trash cans, phone booths and bikes on route. He is literally a human bat.
It's a fascinating programme and shows that in our 6 billion strong species there are some very special talents out there - things you just don't think humans can do. I think some of these things demonstrate evolution in front of our eyes - unique individuals getting the next stages of ability not given to the vast majority of us by slight adaptation of our various senses and physiological hardware.
The thing is, it is ever so slight, and subtle and gradual. When Bolder Dash looks at the 4.5 billion year planet history and sees the accumulated variation and species development he wants a demo of something big happening now. He is utterly unrealistic about how evolution works. It's like looking at the Himalayas that have raised over 30,000 feet in millions of years and demanding to see a couple of hundred feet rise tomorrow. I bet scientists can measure the Himalayas still rising though - but on the scale at which fingernails grow!! (the same rate as plate tectonics for that matter).
Therein I believe, lays the creationists true problem. They only believe they have 6000 years for evolution to make its mark, If I too believed there was only 6000 years available, I’m sure I too would be a creationist (well maybe not!)!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Blue Jay, posted 02-10-2013 6:40 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3640 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(3)
Message 196 of 871 (691085)
02-20-2013 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Bolder-dash
02-20-2013 7:35 AM


Re: Natural selection
Really? So what would the pattern look like if it wasn't random mutations and natural selection which caused the divergences of species?
Well the pattern wouldn't look like a hierarchal nested tree that's for sure (unless the 'creator' was a blithering idiot that limited his own inventions).
When steering locks were invented by Toyota, they didn't just stay on Toyota's. When antilock braking systems were invented in 1929 in the aircraft industry they didn't stay just on aircraft. A good 'intelligent designer' will apply inventions across an entire product range if it is good.
Contrast that with the cephalopods versus mammalian eye. The cephalopods have eyes with the optic nerve connections entering from the back of the eye (optimal configuration), whereas mammalian eyes carry a mutation(s) that forces the optic nerve fibres to penetrate the retina and attach to the photosensitive cells from the front - in the way of the light which the receptor cells are trying to gather. This significantly reduces the light available to a mammalian eye through a simple engineering 'fuck up' (alias mutation).
It is very difficult to see why an omniscient creator would engineer that sort of balls-up deliberately into his creations - to give them sub-optimal systems - If a human engineer did that he's lose his engineering licence - and rightly so.
So - to repeat - the pattern of species based on a hierarchal development system is EXACTLY as predicted by the ToE and utterly not what should be predicted by an intelligent creator.
Simples really!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-20-2013 7:35 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-20-2013 8:39 AM Drosophilla has replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3640 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(1)
Message 219 of 871 (691136)
02-20-2013 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Bolder-dash
02-20-2013 8:39 AM


Re: Natural selection
Nested hierarchies means random mutations and natural selection?
Let me just clarify this-no it doesn't. Simple really.
What animal alive today is most closely related to humans?
Chimpanzees - and bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees). The DNA of chimps is 99% the same as ours. The molecular genetic clock suggests the separation from our common ancestor was about 6 million years ago.
The shared primate features are obvious. From the opposable digits, to the facial/skull topography is obvious close relation. Then further away we have other mammals, with shared characteristics such as mammalian glands, possession of fur/hair. Then further back still fewer shared traits with our reptilian ancestors - but which still include things like pentadactyl limbs (shared by all tetrapods) as well as inherited horrors such as the recurrent laryngeal nerve.
Then further back with even fewer inherited characteristics from our fish ancestors - but still sharing the vertebrate, central nervous system (and not now the recurrent laryngeal nerve - which came about through development of gill arches).
THIS is what is meant by nested hierarchical characteristics. Each step from fish----->amphibian----->reptile------>mammal (then within the class mammalia to primates and the species human) carries the baggage from before with adaptions.
Our five fingers came from the bones in the fishes fin of the ancestor that gave rise to the amphibians, our eyes came from the suboptimal mutation that happened long long ago in the vertebrate branch (but not in the cephalopods - you still didn't answer that one from my previous post - any suggestions why an omnipotent God would fuck up a vast array of vertebrate designs like that? - In fact it gets worse - because cats hunt in the dark a lot and need light so they have evolved the tapetum - a reflecting layer at the back of the eye to reflect and concentrate light. So God fucked up the vertebrate eye and then had to hurriedly come up with some 'improvement' to sit along side the fucked-up cat eye with it's badly wired optic nerve - how the hell does that work? That's like saying we won't put airbags in all cars to protect life just some of them - the ones we decide not to put air bags into we'll sell a spongy vest for the driver to wear instead.....madness!! No human designer would last 5 minutes in the business with a dork attitude like that!).
Anyone with either engineering knowledge or good knowledge of the biological ecosystem knows immediately that the pattern of animals (past and present) on our planet is represented by a hierarchical system - in fact it was described by Linnaeus as such. Since his time people have strived to explain this (even before Darwin did).
The fact that this planet has a hierarchical nested development is indisputable - you'd have to be a halfwit to not see it. What is the bigger question is what leads to nested hierarchical systems? The ToE explains it perfectly - even making several falsifiable statements you can use to blow evolution away if you want to try:
1. No examples of late-developed organisms should ever be found in an earlier eon before their hierarchical development (to quote the great biologist J B S Haldane "No fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian"
2. No 'jumping' across lines of inherited features - such as mammals suddenly acquiring a 'correctly-wired' cephalopod eye. Evolution has no access to mechanisms to achieve this.
Evidence of either of the examples scenarios above would utterly and instantly destroy the ToE. Scientists as well as creationists have been looking for that silver bullet for 150 years - never been found - what does that tell you??
On the other hand there is NO reason for a powerful God to limit his work to 'hierarchal lines' - we don't do that as human engineers. Nor would he be limited to not being able to have all his creations up at once. Why did he not want trilobites to be here now, or why can't rabbits be in the pre-Cambrian? The ToE beautifully gives the answer....the God hypothesis is found utterly wanting.
Not only is there no actual evidence for God even existing, but the myriad of evidence we DO have on our planet leads totally to adaption and evolution by mutation and natural selection. It is the ONLY answer that has ever made sense when applied to the evidence.
When are you joining the flat-earth society by the way?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-20-2013 8:39 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-20-2013 9:49 PM Drosophilla has replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3640 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(1)
Message 231 of 871 (691186)
02-21-2013 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Bolder-dash
02-20-2013 9:49 PM


Re: Natural selection
Are you saying we are most related to chimps because of our dna or because of our shared features? Its not clear what you are getting at here?
Well, as actual physical features come from our DNA then at the most fundamental level we are most related to chimps because of our shared 99% DNA - it just so happens that that DNA will translate to actual physical features as well.
The issue that creationist have to answer (and never ever address) is that life on earth IS arranged in a nested hierarchal pattern. And the ToE explains this perfectly whereas an omnipotent God hypothesis doesn't. Worse, you have to explain why engineering balls-ups would be the work of an almighty God - the cat has defective optic nerve entry ports into the photoreceptors yet also have the tapetum - the equivalent of car manufactures giving some cars airbags but then only giving spongy vests to the drivers of others (since the cephalopods DO have ‘correctly’ wired eyes).
Face it - if God did engineer life on earth he is an utter engineering incompetent (why would you worship a being with less competence than that of a qualified human engineer?).
The evidence (nested hierarchal species, DNA, fossils, population demography etc ALL point to a progression of species whose adaptations are limited to whatever mutations come along, acted on by natural selection, and crucially, having to take what's come before - no wiping of slates - no fresh starts.
Presumably God only had one slate did he?
Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-20-2013 9:49 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-21-2013 8:46 AM Drosophilla has replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3640 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(4)
Message 232 of 871 (691188)
02-21-2013 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Faith
02-21-2013 5:18 AM


Re: Natural selection
It's amazing how you get away with this over and over and over. You never have to answer with any substance, just insinuate that your opponent is wrong or call us names. What magic do you possess Dr. A that you get a free pass on this?
I would hazard a guess that Dr. A is using a variation of Jefferson's statement of "Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions."
Since we have laid out the ToE in all it's theory, application, predications and ways to falsify - and because ALL of the above fits in with ALL the evidence of life on earth, then to still kick against it and postulate a God for which there is not the slightest evidence, using omnipotence - which is clearly not mandated for in the myriad of real evidence on earth (see my previous two posts to boulder-dash on God's engineering incompetence - like to answer that please as BD hasn't tried?) - Then I'm afraid you are using an 'unintelligible proposition'.
So unfortunately, Dr A is left with only ridicule - seen has he, along with others, have tried so very hard to help you see how evolution works and why it is supported by the vast, vast majority of the worlds scientists (for this read learned intelligent people).
The fact that Dr A is rather good at ridicule is by and by.....and makes me very envious for his economic and witty use of words.
Again, the ToE in actual fact has nothing but similarity, homology, the ability to classify living organisms according to structural similarities, which of course includes fossils, from which you ASSUME genetic relatedness but have never proved it and cannot prove it.
How long have you been on this site? Have you not yet learned that you cannot 'prove' anything? It's not about proof (which is impossible to obtain for anything) it is about 'best fit for the evidence'. The ToE is easily the best fit for the evidence that has ever been proposed. Unless and until some other theory comes along that BETTER fits the evidence then the ToE is the accepted theory for how life on earth has got to its current position.
The God theory is nonsense - again my posts to BD above MUST be addressed successfully to even try to compete with the ToE - why, Faith, does God appear to be an engineering incompetent? Why can't he have lines all over the place (fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian). Why can't he use good ideas at will to switch into different lines (cephalopods eyes being used in mammals). Why are there huge engineering fuck-ups (recurrent laryngeal nerve, appendix in man, shared food and wind-pipe allowing a choking option) - the ToE explains all of these whereas an omnipotent God theory merely makes your ‘master’ look a dork!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Faith, posted 02-21-2013 5:18 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Faith, posted 02-21-2013 8:17 AM Drosophilla has replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3640 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(1)
Message 288 of 871 (691270)
02-21-2013 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Faith
02-21-2013 8:17 AM


Re: Natural selection
And get off that sophomoric refrain about "proof," it's a stupid pedantic point and the word is good English that means what I intended it to mean.
Do you mean to tell me that you really don't know that 'not being able to prove something' is actually one of the tenets of the scientific method? It is accepted and understood that you simply cannot prove anything. The scientific method is built on the paradigm that you look for the 'best fit' hypothesis to the actual evidence. And this becomes the preferred answer unless and until some other theory comes along and tips it out. And this does happen - science is not like religion - fixed in dogma.
When Alvarez proposed catastrophic events like the dinosaur wipe-out could have been caused by asteroids hitting earth, the world’s scientists were initially luke-warm at best. It simply wasn't then thought to be a significant occurrence.
So what changed? The EVIDENCE supports asteroid impact. Asteroids are rich in the metal iridium, whereas it is rare in the earths crust. If the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 mil yrs ago the theory would say that the huge explosion of a 5-mile asteroid strike would inevitably leave a thin iridium layer all over earth at exactly the 65 mil yrs ago sediment layer - the so-called KT boundary - and that is EXACTLY what they found. Science accepts and amends theories in light of new evidence - and always has done.
It's not a matter of proof - no-one can go back to the time of the dinosaurs but the evidence leads to the conclusion. The same procedures happen in criminal and civil court actions. In most cases only a murderer and the victim knows the 'exact' details with only the murderer still alive. Yet just because we can't go back to the exact moment of the scene of the crime - it doesn't stop murderers being convicted.....because of good old evidence yet again. It isn't about proof it's about best fit of evidence......and as far as life on earth goes - the ToE is not only the best fit - it is the ONLY theory that describes the pattern of the evidence AT ALL.
I haven't mentioned God here so get off that too.
Ah - so if you get the ToE thrown out what do you replace it with? Hmmmm....an 'intelligent designer'?? Oh - I see - just a handy label for 'God'.
I was merely anticipating your next move Faith......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Faith, posted 02-21-2013 8:17 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by Faith, posted 02-22-2013 6:45 AM Drosophilla has replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3640 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(1)
Message 289 of 871 (691282)
02-21-2013 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Bolder-dash
02-21-2013 8:46 AM


Re: Monkey Brains
Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps
Orangutans, not chimpanzees, are the closest living relatives to humans, a controversial new study contends.
The authors base their conclusion on a close physical resemblance between orangutans and humans, which they say has been overshadowed by genetic evidence linking us to chimps. What's more, the study authors argue, the genetic evidence itself is flawed. (Get a genetics overview.)
John Grehan, of the Buffalo Museum of Science in New York State, and Jeffrey Schwartz, of the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, say that the DNA evidence cited by many scientists only looks at a small percentage of the human and chimp genomes.
What's more, the genetic similarities likely include many ancient DNA traits that are shared across a much broader group of animals.
By contrast, humans share at least 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans but only 2 with chimps and 7 with gorillas, the authors say.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ns-chimps-related.html
You are referencing a National Geographic magazine article and New Scientist against the wealth of peer-reviewed genetics papers? They may be nice coffee-table reading but they don’t come close to peer-reviewed literature.
But in any case this doesn't matter a dime. The ToE states that primates are more closely related to humans than ANY other species. If DNA sequencing in the future means that we revise Orang-utans to be closer than chimps will not harm the theory in the slightest. It would just be revised - in the same way Newton's Laws of Gravitation were revised when Einstein added in relativity.
That's what science does - constantly revises in the light of new evidence or advances in investigative procedures. Science is not dogmatic and has never pretended we have all the answers - we are back to the best fit for the evidence remember.
Contrast this with the dogma of religion that doesn't move one iota in millennia.
And where do you get your sources from....scientists working in the field of course. Put simply, only the men of science find out and improve the knowledge that have gone before - there are no other candidates to do it!
You still haven't answered my question about why God would have 'fucked up' the engineering of earths living organisms so badly. How come mere humans can out-engineer your God??
Ultimately — and this is what sticks you up every time — the ToE is the best candidate theory to fit in with the real world evidence. You have NO other viable theory whatsoever — if you had you’d have replaced the ToE and collected your Nobel Prize by now — as would anyone else from your camp who could have figured a better theory fit with the evidence.
Doesn’t some little rational part of you think The world’s smartest people who have toiled for decades are confident that we have the current best fit theory with the evidence? I guess it’s looking like they are on to something here."
Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-21-2013 8:46 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2013 9:37 PM Drosophilla has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3640 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(2)
Message 332 of 871 (691356)
02-22-2013 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Faith
02-22-2013 6:45 AM


Re: Natural selection
It is only in the evolution/old earth stuff that you can't PROVE things, but that is NOT true for the hard sciences
Don't talk rubbish! You CANNOT prove anything outside of your own thoughts. It really is a paradigm of the scientific method that you NEVER talk about proof in ANY field.
Satellites orbit the earth because we have applied engineering know-how to the best-fit science theories of how celestial mechanics work. But these theories are not 'proven' and are up for modification in the light of later evidence.
When Newton described his 'laws' of planetary motion, people (but not necessarily smart-thinking scientists) thought they had orbital mechanics licked. Then Einstein came along with relativity and the whole game was revised. Newton mechanics are good - good enough to put rockets into orbit, but Einstein refines it further. Even now celestial mechanics are not 'proved'. In time Einstein equations will be further improved. And so it goes on.
Please note that this very very rarely involves a complete trashing of a theory (because if the theory had been trash it would have been contradicted by the evidence that gave rise to it and evidence tends to remain), rather it involves tweaks and subtle adjustments, all the time refining and improving - but NEVER 'proving' as that condition is simply not obtainable outside of a pure 'thought experiment'.
Really Faith - this is BASIC school science stuff. Almost the first thing I was taught in 3rd year (age 14) chemistry at my school is "Forget 'proof' in science - there is no such ideal in reality."
It is NOT pedantic or prissy. The whole foundation of science investigative work hangs on that paradigm. To not see this is to not understand how science works.
So you've got asteroid impact producing the iridium layer, where have I denied that?
The reason I mentioned this example was that it was just that - an example of how science will adapt and incorporate new hypotheses in light of new evidence. Science is not dogmatic.
In the case of criminal forensics what you guys always ignore in your zeal to connect it with old earth stuff is that you have multiple lines of actual observable evidence in the PRESENT to lead you to your hypotheses, which is NOT the case with the prehistoric past where all you have is hypotheses stacked on hypotheses. The criminal investigator has actually SEEN with his own two eyes many many instances of this or that kind of evidence that he can put together in new ways to solve a new case. THIS IS NOT TRUE WITH OLD EARTH "SCIENCE."
What nonsense! By definition a forensic investigation deals with the past! It doesn't matter whether the evidence is one hour old or 100 million years old. Evidence is evidence.
The important principle here is that the event under discussion cannot ever be witnessed by the investigators. Therefore only the evidence left behind (whether one hour old or 100 million years old) can tell the story. The skill is in being able to 'read' that evidence and understand the story....the skill which scientists do every day.
You do realise that events in the far past have left many footprints of evidence in the present don't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Faith, posted 02-22-2013 6:45 AM Faith has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3640 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(3)
Message 434 of 871 (691510)
02-22-2013 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by Bolder-dash
02-22-2013 10:24 AM


Re: A calls out Taq for being wrong.
I am actually pleased with this development, and I think it does help to explain how many evolutionists believe novel features arise. Nothing is deleterious so to speak, it just needs the right environment to cause it to become a useful feature.
Oh...WOW! A tiny glimmer after all this time! Yes what you say above IS essentially correct. That is how Natural Selection works on mutations.
You, yourself raised albinism in Africans as a deleterious mutation and scoffed how it could be a novel function. Well here is the answer:
It is known that albino individuals can arise today in two dark-skinned African parents (and the past would have been no different). In Africa under that blistering sun you are quite correct that this 'deleterious' mutation is devastating to albino skin. With modern healthcare in some of the better-off African countries the poor individual just might survive - but certainly in our distant past, such a 'novel' features would indeed be deadly. The individual would perish (ruthlessly culled by natural selection which in this case is the power of the sun) and fail to pass on his 'novel' gene pool. That's why Africans are still dark-skinned to this day.
And for you with your lack of much of the basic sciences, this is the end of the story. It's not though - it's the beginning. Our ancestors didn't stay in Africa, - they moved out and colonised huge areas - including places like Europe. Now Europe was (and still is) much cooler with a weaker sun in the northern latitude. Now Natural Selection turns savage on the black skin, Why? Because black skin is fitted to prevent deep UV penetration from an African sun. This means that much less UV rays get into black skin from northern climates.
The connection? Well UV light is needed to manufacture vitamin D in our skin for use in the body. Deficiency of vitamin D causes a range of severe illnesses from Rickets, to a range of cancers and muscle wasting illnesses, possibly diabetes and even schizophrenia.
All of a sudden the dark skin is disadvantaged by the fact the sun in northern climes could no longer provide enough UV light to penetrate the dark skin which after all has the function to eliminate most UV light in the African environment.
Now the rare albino mutations can massively profit. Their blond skin CAN take the weak UV light and they prosper at the expense of the majority dark skin. Their genes survive and pass on and become 'fixed' in the gene pool - an expression meaning that (in this case) the white skinned individuals in Europe would become the norm. Black people in northern climes today benefit by modern medicine/diet/healthcare. Vitamins supplements are readily available as is remedial medical treatment for illnesses — but none of that was around for our ancestors in the last Ice Age and before!
THIS is exactly how natural selection works. There are certainly fatal mutations that would NEVER be beneficial - serious congenital abnormalities in a foetus as a result of mutations to a major embryonic developing system for example. But those cases are irrelevant - because they die early and contribute nothing to evolution's hand of change.
For those that do survive initially and show 'novel' features/variation - the question then becomes "Is this novel feature a detriment or an advantage in the ecosystem WHERE THIS INDIVIDUAL IS MAKING ITS LIVING? Because that is what counts — ultimately — ‘will the environmental factors at play in this habitat allow this individual to survive to breed and pass on its genes’? And the short phrase for that last sentence is 'Natural Selection'.
There are (for those individuals that survive been born) environments that are positive for almost any affliction.
Dwarfism does convey advantages in the right environment. Dwarfism in humans means less heat loss as the body is compact - an advantage in extreme cold climates - Neanderthaals were stocky and compact, and lived in Ice Age Europe! Dwarfs also have a greater muscle to body length size (torque) which means they can be significantly stronger than non-dwarfs — I’m sure how you can figure out that that can be an advantage!
Sickle cell anaemia which lowers oxygen-carrying in red blood cells and robbing the sufferer of oxygen carrying capacity (and which on the face of it would seem utterly deleterious) has the benefit of making its suffers more resistant to malaria (still the world's biggest microbial killer). And, surprise, surprise - sickle cell anaemia is far more common in tropical or sub-tropical environments (where Natural Selection favours the 'survival' of the sickle cell allele).
This isn't rocket science boulder dash - it really is quite simple and beautifully elegant. That it took someone like Darwin to figure it out as late as the 1850's shows what paralysing grip religion had on men’s minds (including the scientists of the day).
Who knows how much further we could now be ahead if we'd cast off that mythical Bronze Age savagery much sooner!
P.S: Hang on to the glimmer from the top of this post - I think you may actually be beginning to see how it may come together....you may not like it ...but you might be beginning the journey....take a dip - the water may be cold - but oh so refreshing!
Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.
Edited by Drosophilla, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-22-2013 10:24 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3640 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(2)
Message 440 of 871 (691517)
02-22-2013 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by Faith
02-22-2013 5:46 PM


He's deduced that -- correctly -- from what YOU all were saying about how evolution works. Drosophilla above seems to have recognized that point finally, though he takes it to some kind of absurd extreme.
Nope...the 'absurd extreme' is how it really does work - if by 'absurd extreme' you are dismissing my examples in my previous post to BD.
I'm afraid you don't even have 'a glimmer'. Maybe BD doesn't either and his sentence that 'looked like a glimmer' might have been strung together words. However I'm prepared to be magnanimous - for now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by Faith, posted 02-22-2013 5:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024