Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9028 total)
53 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Rahvin (5 members, 48 visitors)
Newest Member: Michael MD
Post Volume: Total: 884,200 Year: 1,846/14,102 Month: 214/624 Week: 98/95 Day: 27/15 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
aristotle
Junior Member (Idle past 1307 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 06-15-2017


Message 489 of 1311 (812331)
06-16-2017 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Taq
04-26-2017 10:52 AM


Re: Introns and Exons
The exon/intron divergence can be satisfactorily explained as the result of the relative overabundance of synonymous sites involved in CpG dinucleotides:

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/13/5/838.full


"I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." - Daniel Dennet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Taq, posted 04-26-2017 10:52 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 506 by Taq, posted 06-16-2017 3:58 PM aristotle has not yet responded

  
aristotle
Junior Member (Idle past 1307 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 06-15-2017


Message 490 of 1311 (812332)
06-16-2017 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Chiroptera
04-27-2017 11:15 AM


Re: The Nested Hierarchy
For discussion's sake, if there was a creator, why is it that you think life could not be created in this hierarchical phylogenetic structure?

Edited by aristotle, : No reason given.


"I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." - Daniel Dennet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 04-27-2017 11:15 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 492 by Tangle, posted 06-16-2017 5:40 AM aristotle has responded
 Message 507 by Taq, posted 06-16-2017 4:01 PM aristotle has not yet responded

  
aristotle
Junior Member (Idle past 1307 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 06-15-2017


Message 491 of 1311 (812333)
06-16-2017 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Taq
04-27-2017 10:54 AM


Re: The Nested Hierarchy
A common ancestry does not disprove creation, nor does it prove evolution.

If there were a transitional species for each and every genetic advancement, that would be proof of evolution.
That's not the case. The species don't progress little bit by little bit, but remain constant over long periods, and are abruptly replaced.

Here's a challenge, pick any modern species.

Now go and find at least one individual transitional organism for each beneficial mutation that changed said species into it's current form.

That would prove evolution beyond a doubt, over 100 years later, we're still waiting to be shown the missing links.

Edited by aristotle, : No reason given.

Edited by aristotle, : No reason given.


"I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." - Daniel Dennet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Taq, posted 04-27-2017 10:54 AM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 493 by RAZD, posted 06-16-2017 5:44 AM aristotle has responded

  
aristotle
Junior Member (Idle past 1307 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 06-15-2017


Message 494 of 1311 (812349)
06-16-2017 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 492 by Tangle
06-16-2017 5:40 AM


Re: The Nested Hierarchy
Wow you assume very much!

I do not know whether or not there was a creator, I was merely asking why, if one did exist, it could not create life forms in this hierarchical way.

And planting fossils? Seriously? Don't try pigeonhole me as some idiot bible basher, I'm not claiming god buried the fossils to trick us! The fossils could just be older creations.

And why must it be in one moment of creation?

Why wouldn't it create something, observe, modify, etc. Over long periods of time, why do you assume the creation must all be in 'one moment'.

Regards, aristotle


"I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." - Daniel Dennet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by Tangle, posted 06-16-2017 5:40 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 504 by Tangle, posted 06-16-2017 1:07 PM aristotle has not yet responded

  
aristotle
Junior Member (Idle past 1307 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 06-15-2017


Message 495 of 1311 (812351)
06-16-2017 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 493 by RAZD
06-16-2017 5:44 AM


Re: The Nested Hierarchy
Thanks for the reply RAZD

Nope. Curiously your choosing this icon
demonstrates ignorance of how science works.
You have a lot to learn, it appears, and this is a
good place to learn it ... if you are willing to
learn. The essential difference between
religion and science is a willingness to learn
and change beliefs through evidence.

I have studied evolution a long time, learned a lot about it, and it is very much like a religion in that it is unprovable by definition. We can only assume that the organisms who survived where the most evolved, we can never prove this.

Anyone who says different is immediately labeled 'ignorant' (see above), reminds me a lot of religion.

As I have said many times, the closest fit to "kinds" as the term is used by creationists is clades.

Yes you lot seem to have trouble with definitions, as I recall, Darwin could not even precisely define the word 'species'.

They form a nested structure where all descendants come from the parent clade population by breeding within their populations. Evolution occurs in those populations in response to ecological challenges leading to gradual changes in each population, isolation leads to different changes and thus to speciation.

Again, you can only retrospectively assume that to be the truth. This has never been known to happen, a mutation has never added information to the genome, it's not that easy.

Some do, some don't. You are talking about
punctuated equilibrium. Not all evolution
occurs through that mechanism.

'Punctuated Equilibrium' is a ludicrous theory invented by evolutionists to try explain away the trend of saltation in the fossil record. Don't try using it on me, won't work.

One of the predictions for the theory is that the evidence (transitional species) will not be found, so the evidence is that their is no evidence! It's truly ludicrous.

How much change are you expecting to see? This is an important question because a lot of creationists seem to have false expectations. Is a black mouse different enough from a tan mouse to make it a new species?

According to evolution by natural selection, saltations are impossible, an organism must evolve one genetic variation at a time.

Therefore, I expect to see one organism for each genetic variation that lead to the organism's current form.

If there is not an organism linking each and every genetic advancement to it's predecessor, how can we be sure saltations did not take place?

Regards, aristotle


"I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." - Daniel Dennet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by RAZD, posted 06-16-2017 5:44 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 496 by RAZD, posted 06-16-2017 7:34 AM aristotle has responded
 Message 497 by Coyote, posted 06-16-2017 9:46 AM aristotle has responded
 Message 512 by Dredge, posted 06-17-2017 4:49 PM aristotle has not yet responded

  
aristotle
Junior Member (Idle past 1307 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 06-15-2017


Message 498 of 1311 (812399)
06-16-2017 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 497 by Coyote
06-16-2017 9:46 AM


Re: The Nested Hierarchy

Nothing in science is "proved"

So you agree that evolution cannot be proved to be true?

Edited by aristotle, : No reason given.


"I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." - Daniel Dennet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 497 by Coyote, posted 06-16-2017 9:46 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 499 by Coyote, posted 06-16-2017 11:08 AM aristotle has responded

  
aristotle
Junior Member (Idle past 1307 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 06-15-2017


Message 501 of 1311 (812409)
06-16-2017 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 496 by RAZD
06-16-2017 7:34 AM


Re: The Nested Hierarchy
The process of evolution is observed in every generation, the theory of evolution explains the fossil evidence and the genetic evidence.

Evolution has never been observed to happen anywhere, and cannot explain complex biological systems.

For someone who "studied evolution a long time, learned a lot about it" you should know that this statement is an incorrect portrayal of evolution. There is no "most evolved" organism -- all life on the planet has evolved the same amount.

Not the Nautilus. If evolution were true the Nautilus would have a lens for it's eye by now.

And by 'most evolved' I simply meant that they had the more desirable characteristics, compared to those individuals who did not survive.

Similarly your statements re "survival of the fittest" in your proposed topic are inaccurate at portraying how evolution works. Evolution occurs through those that survive and reproduce. They don't have to be the best at it, they just need to be good enough to get by.

So wouldn't it follow that the best at reproducing would reproduce?

(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.
This process is observed to occur and thus it is
demonstrated documented fact.

That is not natural selection leading to the evolution of the organism. That is the inherent ability in the organism to adapt to it's surroundings. We now know that populations have their own equilibrium mechanisms, and are not just kept in check by the random stimuli of surroundings.

Speciation has been observed in the fossil record, in the genetic record and in the world today, it is a fact that speciation occurs. When you have speciation you have a clade, composed of the parent population and the two
daughter populations.

How can you say that speciation occurs, if you don't even know what the word 'species' means?

Evolution occurs whether "information" is added or not.

So you claim, but all that DNA is, is information. If there is an advancement in DNA there is an advancement of information, they're one and the same.

So you're going to ignore the evidence of transitions I posted -- will that make the evidence go away?

Again there was no information from your page about the plankton fossils that convinced me that there were different species, they all looked very similar.

Bully for you. You didn't answer my question ("Is a black mouse different enough from a tan mouse to make it a new species?")

Whether it is or not, you didn't answer the question of why there aren't the transitionals you'd expect to see.

Because we can observe generation by generation the changes in the frequency of traits in the breeding populations and we don't see the sudden change of saltation ... except in the cases of polyploidy.

Oh really? You can go back in time and observe each transitional generation?

Well that is really something.


"I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." - Daniel Dennet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by RAZD, posted 06-16-2017 7:34 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 503 by ringo, posted 06-16-2017 12:35 PM aristotle has not yet responded
 Message 505 by RAZD, posted 06-16-2017 1:45 PM aristotle has not yet responded
 Message 508 by Taq, posted 06-16-2017 4:11 PM aristotle has not yet responded
 Message 515 by Dredge, posted 06-17-2017 5:45 PM aristotle has not yet responded

  
aristotle
Junior Member (Idle past 1307 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 06-15-2017


Message 502 of 1311 (812411)
06-16-2017 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 499 by Coyote
06-16-2017 11:08 AM


Re: The Nested Hierarchy
The facts of evolution are proved.

Not at all

The theory of evolution is the single best explanation for that given set of facts.

Not at all

And theories are never proved, but rather supported or disproved.

Right, so you agree that the theory of evolution cannot be proved.

If you had read my definitions instead of looking for a cheap "gotcha" you might have learned something.

I did learn something: how dogmatically you lot cling to your theories


"I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." - Daniel Dennet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 499 by Coyote, posted 06-16-2017 11:08 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 509 by Taq, posted 06-16-2017 5:28 PM aristotle has not yet responded
 Message 510 by RAZD, posted 06-16-2017 6:00 PM aristotle has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021