Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 3:41 AM
24 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,785 Year: 8,821/19,786 Month: 1,243/2,119 Week: 3/576 Day: 3/50 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   An accurate analogy of Evolution by Natural selection
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16095
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 31 of 49 (512031)
06-13-2009 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Taz
06-13-2009 1:32 PM


Guys, we don't have to look far for something familiar to be analogous to biological evolution. The evolution of language is the closest thing you will ever get to biological evolution. And the best part about the evolution of language is it's undeniable because it's an undeniable part of our history and it's still happening right in front of our eyes and ears.

Everything that we can observe happening is just microevolution of languages. Atheist linguists pretend that this proves macroevolution of languages, but we Bible-believers aren't fooled. No-one has ever seen a Latin-speaking community turn into a French-speaking community! Besides, wouldn't that be the very opposite of linguistic evolution, since French is less grammatically complex than Latin? Evolution means an increase of complexity!

Besides, the first French-speaker would find that no-one could understand him, since he'd be living among a community of Latin-speakers! Linguistic evolution is impossible!

No-one can show me a language that is half-French and half-Latin! Where are all the intermediate forms?

Atheists claim that "intermediate forms" can be found in the so-called "documentary record", but this is just their atheistic interpretation. None of these so-called "intermediate forms" consists of 50% modern French words and 50% Classical Latin words, and this is what "intermediate forms" really means.

Furthermore, the documentary record is incomplete! We do not have copies of every single document written between the classical period and the modern period. This means that I can ignore every single document that we do have.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics proves that linguistic evolution is impossible, although I'm not going to present the working showing this because there isn't any. More and more linguists are admitting that linguistic evolution is impossible, although I'm not going to name them. Linguistics is on its last legs, and will soon be recognized as a laughing-stock. Really, any day now.

Linguists don't agree on every tiny little detail of linguistic evolution, which proves that they're wrong about everything and God magicked all languages into existence at the tower of Babel. No-one can explain the origin of the word "okay", so God must have made it by magic!

Sir William Jones was a racist whose thinking inspired Hitler!

Your atheist philosophy leads you to deny God's truth as revealed in his Bible, which must be God's truth because it says it is.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Taz, posted 06-13-2009 1:32 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18470
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 32 of 49 (512032)
06-13-2009 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Dr Adequate
06-13-2009 1:27 PM


Re: Analogy -- not!
The theory of evolution, as it actually is, has to be repeatedly shoved in their faces for them to turn to their last resort and try to find something wrong with the actual theory. If you offer them any excuse not to confront it, they won't.

Yes, sir, Mr. Rumsfeld! :D

Anti-evolutionism remains strong in the US and is increasing its influence in countries like the UK, Turkey and Australia. I don't think we've found a workable strategy yet.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2009 1:27 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2009 4:20 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16095
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 33 of 49 (512034)
06-13-2009 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Percy
06-13-2009 3:53 PM


Re: Analogy -- not!
Anti-evolutionism remains strong in the US and is increasing its influence in countries like the UK, Turkey and Australia. I don't think we've found a workable strategy yet.

There isn't one, short of killing all the stupid people in the world and dancing on their graves. You can take a horse to water ...

The best we can do is make sure that the water is clear and not brackish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 06-13-2009 3:53 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2803 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 34 of 49 (512073)
06-14-2009 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Theodoric
06-13-2009 10:55 AM


Re: Analogy -- not!
This says nothing about not changing? Says largely unchanged but nothing about the ideal or no change. What about superficial changes?

Also, from same source

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some so-called fossil species have evolved significantly. Cockroaches, for example, include over 4,000 species of various shapes and sizes. Species may also evolve in ways that are not obvious. For example, the immune system of horseshoe crabs today is probably quite different from that of horseshoe crabs of millions of years ago.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So your point was???

Not exactly unchanging would you say?

Wow, this debate is not going to 'evolve' if I have to say everything twice. I never said no change, In fact I had accounted for superficial change in my previous post ...

I think I very CLEARLY said that my analogy represented a static environment. In a static environment, the species is already fine-tuned to that environment, and so if it doesn't change, then the next generations should be very similar to the original, since they are in the same environment

So I did in fact say very similar to the original, not EXACTLY similar ...

Then why make arguments that you don't even understand. You should have some idea of what you are talking about before you try to make a point.

The major point was living fossils, which I used coelacanth as simply an example. You called on my example saying that modern coelacanth was not the same as the fossil one. I responded that I had not enough knowledge of the coelacanth to make a case for it being a living fossil, so accepted your claim that it was a bad example of a living fossil.

It turns out that, according to Percy, I was not so wrong since it is still considered a living fossil, making it relevant as an example in my initial argument for static environments. and so although what you said was right (fossil and modern coelacanth are different) my argument was still valid since I stated it as simply an example of a living fossil.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Theodoric, posted 06-13-2009 10:55 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Nuggin, posted 06-14-2009 2:13 AM slevesque has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2803 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 35 of 49 (512074)
06-14-2009 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Dr Adequate
06-13-2009 10:05 AM


Re: Analogy -- not!
I'm going to do as Theodoric wished and 'get to the point'.

Doing this post, I hoped someone would have realized what my analogy was really representing. I said it was evolution, and of course everyone was thinking I was trying to represent an analogy of how, for example, dinosaurs could become birds with time, mutations and natural selection. As you all correctly pointed out, my analogy fails to validly represent a mechanism that could accomplished such feat.

So did I lie when I said my analogy represented evolution ? No I didn't, because it DID describe a situation of 'descent with modification'. This was the first objective of this post: show the communication problem of using an example of simple descent with modification and applying it as an argument for Evolution (with a big E).

But does my analogy represent accurately a situation that could happen in nature ? Yes. In fact, I was hoping someone would have figured what situation I was referring to. It represents an asexual population of bacteria. The 'fitness' characteristic of the population is represented by the image quality, and so the eventual decrease of the image quality as generations of copies go on actually represents something well known and that we have discussed: Muller's ratchet. As mutations accumulate in an asexual population, so do the copying errors accumulate in my analogy, causing an overall diminution of 'image quality' and 'fitness'.

But can I use this example of 'descent with modification' in which the actual fitness declines with generations to invalidate Evolution, where the trend should be upward ? Of course I can't, because even thow we popularly use the same word for both, we need to realize that there is a gap between the two.

So in fact, my post had a double objective: first, show that saying that dinosaur-to-bird is evolution, and saying that evolution is simply 'descend with modification' will lead to communication problems when someone will show an example of descent with modification to prove that it is theoretically possible that dinosaurs eventually can become birds.

Second, It helps identify who on here think before they write, because, even though some may think that my 'analogy sucks', it was in fact a great example of descent with modification and Muller's ratchet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2009 10:05 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2009 6:37 AM slevesque has responded
 Message 45 by Huntard, posted 06-15-2009 10:25 AM slevesque has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 655 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 36 of 49 (512076)
06-14-2009 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by slevesque
06-14-2009 1:24 AM


Re: Analogy -- not!
my argument was still valid since I stated it as simply an example of a living fossil.

The problem is that there are certain key phrases that show up from time to time on the tips of the tongues of Creationists.

Here are a few:
"If people came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"
"If the Earth is so old, why aren't we completely buried in fossils?"
"It's just a theory"

Here's one that's a little less common:
"If things evolve, then how come there ceolocanth hasn't evolved"

When you refer to it as a "living fossil", you need to understand that that is not a scientific term but rather a magazine title term.

The coelocanth is obviously not a "living fossil" in the sense that it is a living fish, not a mineralized impression of a fish which is somehow magically alive.

It's likewise not a "living fossil" in the sense that it is not the same species, or frankly family, as the fish found in fossils. It's a descendant just like many other fishes. It's just that this descendant has a number of physical characteristics which were more common in the past and have generally disappeared in modern day.

However, if you meant "living fossil" in the sense that "Hey, here's something which is alive which still looks kinda like this thing in the fossil record" (unlike say T-Rex or triceratops, etc) then sure. It's a "living fossil" in that narrow sense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by slevesque, posted 06-14-2009 1:24 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by slevesque, posted 06-14-2009 2:50 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2803 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 37 of 49 (512078)
06-14-2009 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Nuggin
06-14-2009 2:13 AM


Re: Analogy -- not!
I am aware that there are some questions that come up so often from creationists and who are very easy to answer for evolutionary theory that they strike an immediate automatic response.

The one you mentioned; ''If things evolve, then how come there ceolocanth hasn't evolved?'', is obviously one of them. As all the others, the answer from evolutionist is easy: in a static environment, evolution could keep species largely unchanged. Not only did I support this answer as being 100% valid, but it was the point I was trying to make, since someone objected that static environments don't exist in nature!

from theodoric, message no17:

So your analogy isn't really an analogy, because there is a caveat that it is nothing like the reality of evolution. Tell me where a static environment exists

Anyhow, note that some living fossils are almost (if not totally) identical to the fossil record, such as Wollemia Nobilis. Of course, I'm not claiming they all do since even from a creationist point of view you would not expect them to.

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Nuggin, posted 06-14-2009 2:13 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2009 6:47 AM slevesque has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16095
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 38 of 49 (512098)
06-14-2009 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by slevesque
06-14-2009 1:49 AM


Re: Analogy -- not!
But does my analogy represent accurately a situation that could happen in nature ? Yes.

No.

In fact, I was hoping someone would have figured what situation I was referring to. It represents an asexual population of bacteria.

No.

The 'fitness' characteristic of the population is represented by the image quality, and so the eventual decrease of the image quality as generations of copies go on actually represents something well known and that we have discussed: Muller's ratchet.

No.

As mutations accumulate in an asexual population, so do the copying errors accumulate in my analogy, causing an overall diminution of 'image quality' and 'fitness'.

Which makes it a lousy analogy, because this is not what we observe when we observe the evolution of bacteria.

Since reasoning from your analogy leads to a conclusion which is the exact opposite of what we observe when we observe the actual behavior of the supposed analog, your analogy is rubbish.

This perfectly illustrates my point --- talking about some inaccurate analogy that you've made up is not the same as talking about reality. In your case, reasoning about the analogy that you've invented leads to the exact opposite conclusion to what we observe when we observe reality.

The moral of this is that you should think in metaphors less and observe reality more often.

Second, It helps identify who on here think before they write, because, even though some may think that my 'analogy sucks', it was in fact a great example of descent with modification and Muller's ratchet.

No.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by slevesque, posted 06-14-2009 1:49 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by slevesque, posted 06-14-2009 6:47 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16095
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 39 of 49 (512100)
06-14-2009 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by slevesque
06-14-2009 2:50 AM


Re: Analogy -- not!
The one you mentioned; ''If things evolve, then how come there ceolocanth hasn't evolved?'', is obviously one of them. As all the others, the answer from evolutionist is easy: in a static environment, evolution could keep species largely unchanged.

Except that this is not the answer that you will hear from biologists, who will instead point out that the coelacanths that we see today are not the species that we find in the fossil record. Nor are they found in the same environment as those coelacanths that we find in the fossil record.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by slevesque, posted 06-14-2009 2:50 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by slevesque, posted 06-14-2009 6:53 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2803 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 40 of 49 (512101)
06-14-2009 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dr Adequate
06-14-2009 6:37 AM


Re: Analogy -- not!
I have to say, I'm stunned lol
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2009 6:37 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2009 6:48 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16095
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 41 of 49 (512102)
06-14-2009 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by slevesque
06-14-2009 6:47 AM


Re: Analogy -- not!
I have to say, I'm stunned lol

That would explain a lot ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by slevesque, posted 06-14-2009 6:47 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2803 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 42 of 49 (512104)
06-14-2009 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Adequate
06-14-2009 6:47 AM


Re: Analogy -- not!
OMG, just take the Wollemi Pine as an example of a living fossil which didn't change. The point is simply that static environments can exist in nature ...

In any case, as someone said earlier, Coelacanth refers to the order ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2009 6:47 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2009 7:05 AM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 44 by Dr Jack, posted 06-15-2009 8:45 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16095
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 43 of 49 (512105)
06-14-2009 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by slevesque
06-14-2009 6:53 AM


Re: Analogy -- not!
OMG, just take the Wollemi Pine as an example of a living fossil which didn't change. The point is simply that static environments can exist in nature ...

Sure, but this just doesn't apply to comparisons between modern coelacanths and fossil coelacanths.

You might as well be accurate. What do you have to lose by being right about this issue?

In any case, as someone said earlier, Coelacanth refers to the order ...

YES.

Coelacanths aren't one species, they're a collection of species. The species we know today are not the same as the ones we find in the fossil record.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by slevesque, posted 06-14-2009 6:53 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 44 of 49 (512204)
06-15-2009 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by slevesque
06-14-2009 6:53 AM


What does it mean to be unchanged?
Unchanged in what sense?

Consider the extant species of King Crab; morphologically they're very similar but genetically they're wildly different - as different as any other two species that diverged as far back. Morphological stasis does not mean that species have remained unchanged only that whatever change has occurred cannot be deduced from the fossil record.

This should not be surprising for two reasons. Firstly, studies on microbes have found that where a gene's function is inhibited by a mutation it is most often not restored by reversing that change but by a new mutation - at a different location - that suppresses the first change. Secondly, much of what goes on in an organism is simply not fossilisable: your immune system, the connections in your brain, the details of your metabolism, the tuning of your digestive system, the list goes on and on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by slevesque, posted 06-14-2009 6:53 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 457 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 45 of 49 (512229)
06-15-2009 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by slevesque
06-14-2009 1:49 AM


Re: Analogy -- not!
slevesque writes:

But does my analogy represent accurately a situation that could happen in nature ? Yes. In fact, I was hoping someone would have figured what situation I was referring to. It represents an asexual population of bacteria. The 'fitness' characteristic of the population is represented by the image quality, and so the eventual decrease of the image quality as generations of copies go on actually represents something well known and that we have discussed: Muller's ratchet. As mutations accumulate in an asexual population, so do the copying errors accumulate in my analogy, causing an overall diminution of 'image quality' and 'fitness'.


Did you forget my post about the nylon eating bacteria? That shows that what you are saying here isn't the case. I know you read it, because you commented on it in a later message of that thread.

Here's a link to my post


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by slevesque, posted 06-14-2009 1:49 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by slevesque, posted 06-20-2009 1:23 AM Huntard has responded

    
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019