|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution Simplified | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: True.
quote: This conflicts with your first premise, which I agree with.
quote: I would be inclined to agree with you in most lower lifeforms, such as amoeba, plankton, fish, amphibian, and possibly reptiles. However, its a fact that humans populate more quickly than they are dying. Hence, there are more people on earth now than ever before. Aside from that, I'm not sure how that promotes evidence of macroevolution.
quote: True. Virtually all of our traits were inherited. And of those that aren't directly inherited, it was the product of gene deletion or small insertions.
quote: True. I agree that Natural Selection exists, and that it may or may not be a product of random chance or design.
quote: I agree with that to a degree, but not holistically. Yes, Natural selection weeds out the weaker vessels. But on average, everything is dwindling down and winding down in nature. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine. Any process that begins will tend toward degradation. With as much copying of genes that goes on, I believe that all organisms from prokaryotes and eukaryotes, to the most complex ecosystems, are generally deteriorating and not increasing. So while Natural Selection helps stave off complete annihilation, there is an underlying factor of overall degradation within any given population.
quote: Looking at in some Utopian outlook, that would be great, however, it is irreconcilable with the facts. The world will never be without disease, mutation, famine, or natural disasters unless there is some Divine intervention that would preclude it. As far as anyone can tell, there is equal amounts of suffering in the current animal kingdom as there was in the former kingdom. In other words, its incredibly hopeful that we should assume that life is sort of 'working out its kinks' as we go along. As well, this is not in keeping with Darwins model or any neo-Darwinian model. You are suggesting an advancement -that life is continually getting better and stronger. But lets look at what some evolutionists have noted: The rule that things never organize themselves is also upheld in our everyday experience. Without someone to fix it, a broken glass never mends. Without maintenance, a house deteriorates. Without management, a business fails. Without new software, a computer never acquires new capabilities. Never. Charles Darwin understood this universal principle. It's common sense. That's why he once made a note to himself pertaining to evolution, "Never use the words higher or lower". (However, the word "higher" in this forbidden sense appears half a dozen times in the first edition of Darwin's Origin of Species. Even today, if you assert that a human is more highly evolved than a flatworm or an amoeba, there are darwinists who'll want to fight about it. They take the position, apparently, that evolution has not necessarily shown a trend toward more highly organized forms of life, just different forms: All extant species are equally evolved. ” Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, 1995 (11)There is no progress in evolution. ” Stephen Jay Gould, 1995 (12) We all agree that there's no progress. ” Richard Dawkins, 1995 (13) The fallacy of progress ” John Maynard Smith and Ers Szathmáry, 1995 (14) But this ignores the plain facts about life and evolution. Life is Organization Seen in retrospect, evolution as a whole doubtless had a general direction, from simple to complex, from dependence on to relative independence of the environment, to greater and greater autonomy of individuals, greater and greater development of sense organs and nervous systems conveying and processing information about the state of the organism's surroundings, and finally greater and greater consciousness. You can call this direction progress or by some other name. ” Theodosius Dobzhansky quote: I don't know how usual it is. I assume you are reffering to mutations. But the plain fact about mutations is that 93% are neutral, 6.5% of them irrepairably harmful, and .5% actually manage to benefit any said organism. In the end, life is deteriorating, just like our sun.
quote: I agree with the body of your premise, however, evolutionists tell me that they make predictions all the time. So which is it? Is evolution predictable based on odds or is it a misunderstood, guideless, purposeless display of capricious disorder?
quote: I agree that many populations will improve, but that it crecendos back and forth, but that the overall trend is deterioration. So, in a holistic view, I don't entirely agree with that.
quote: Again, this ignores the plain fact that is losing information in the genome and not ever-increasing.
quote: This also ignores the fact that even the 'simplest' organism is more radically advanced than the computer you're using to type that very message. Furthermore, it says nothing about the fact that we are so perfectly situated to sustain life. Terrestrial life teeters on the edge of a knife. The balance found in nature is so miniscule, yet is still present everywhere. I think more can be said about how miraculous it is that 'chaos' has never seemed to live up to its name and lend itself towards a catastrophe.
quote: Agreed.
quote: Different species is nature's assurance that we aren't mindless automoton, carbon copies of one another. I have no problem with that.
quote: Yes, I agree with that. German Shephards can come from wolves, but wolves can't come from bears.
quote: It violates the 2nd Law: In any ordered system, open or closed, there exists a tendency for that system to decay to a state of disorder, which tendency can only be suspended or reversed by an external source of ordering energy directed by an informational program and transformed through an ingestion-storage-converter mechanism into the specific work required to build up the complex structure of that system."
quote: I don't contend with that. However, the assertion that all life is somehow interrelated and intertwined is a metaphysical mystery that no one has been able to reproduce or witness through natural means. Aside from which, it violates genetic coding and attempts to usurp the 2nd Law.
quote: That was a great post. It was very well-thought out, and was mindful of scientific observation. I do not deny that macroevolution is a very appealing theory. I mean, it provides the ultimate form of escapism IMO. But for how undeniably evident it should be, it simply isn't. Aside from which, there is no logical explanation for how any organsim became actual at all. For the sake of brevity, I'll just say that the First Cause can never be known in some sort of Newtonian principle. Nonetheless, we still have the plain fact that we are dealing with a metaphysical principle that has never extended itself to offer any verifiable proof. The proof that it is seriously lacking won't be manifested on creationist websites, but rather, usernet's like Talk Origins. Go in there and make a mental note of virtually all of the dialogue. The dialogue from start to finish is attempting to debunk those pesky fundies. But people don't worry about things that cause no threat. So there is little doubt that they understand the frailty of their own theory, for however appealing it may be in the abstract. I leave you with a quote to ponder. It summarizes what I feel your 'list' amounts to. “The anemia in the bag of evidence for evolution is vivdly portrayed by modern vogue pro-evolution arguments. You have left the field and laboratory and now feverishly, in collaboration with slide rules and banks of computers, grind out abstract esoteric mathematical formulas and calculations in an effort to prove your case. In other words, rather than demonstrate within the laboratory or field, the feasibility of evolution, you hand me something like, an abstract formula.” -Dr. Wysong
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: Well, your post was clear to me and I can certainly appreciate it, however, it runs counter to making any kind of prediction. I'm not sure if it was you or someone else, but someone today said that evolution makes predictions all the time. Well, which is it? Does it make predictions, or is it so nonsensical that we really can't make any legitimate predictions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: I know that alot of evolutionists have objections to the 2nd Law as it relates to biological evolution. Here's the problem. 2LoT has become muddled to the point of obscurity. But you can't fault creationists with sole ownership of the problem. There have been some evolutionists who have tragically gone off the deep end by ascribing and asigning everything to 2LoT. I've found a website that is completely objective to explain how this all came to be. Simply read it and critique it and maybe you will understand why entropy, (not neccesarily, thermodynamic law) plays a central role in everything. The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Entropy and Evolution. by Brig Klyce
quote: 1. Symbol S For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work. 2. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system. 3. A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message. 4. The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity. 5. Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.
quote: No, unfortunately it doesn't because even though we recieve energy, there isn't this perpetual increase of emitted energy into that system. The plain fact of the matter is, anything that began does not have the same amount of usefulness as when it first derived. And what is the natural tendency for all things? Destruction, deterioration, death. Nothing circumvents this very evident law, but you allege that life is always reaching higher and higher, which is funny because your contemporaries understand that this logic runs counter to the prevailing facts about life. Therefore, taking notice of entropy is not a point that is moot. And creationists mention it for good reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Sorry I haven't responded sooner, my internet was down for a couple of days. You don't realize how dependent we've become on computers until its taken away from you. In any case, lets pick up the dialogue again.
quote: The way you worded the first points seemed contradictory to me, but perhaps its a false dichotomy. Maybe I just misunderstood it. I don't think any one of us can honestly state definitively whether or not any given population is increasing or not. Take for example ants. There are so many ants, and so many colonies of them all over the world, it seems nearly impossible for us to know empirically, either way, whether they are increasing or if they are experiencing a stasis. I would say, just based off of crude observation, that they are largely static. What we do know is that overall, if any creature births 30 creatures of its own kind, a small percentage will survive, we'll say 15%. That's very crude, but it certainly appears to be the case. Okay, this is where the confusion was. Fact 1 seemed to conflict with Fact 2, but you said that they should be increasing, but that are actually not increasing. I wouldn't say that they should or not be increasing. It is what it is. And whatever it is, I don't think we can't state that empiricaly.
quote: In mammals or large reptiles, its much easier for us to track their progress. We know certain populations are declining. But overall, I agree that out of 30 creatures born of one union, roughly 15-25% will survive. That figure can fluxuate, but on average, I'd say that is accurate for an overall assumption.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: Didn't I already agree with that premise? If a union produces 30 offspring, in most cases, few will survive to reproduce. Its cyclical and variant on a number of circumstances, but looking at the average this appears to be true of most populations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: Well then, I appreciate the caution.
quote: Yes, I agree that natural selection removes, or attempts to remove undesirable traits. But this doesn't encompass every taxa. This goes into what I was saying about dogs (as an example) having a tremendous capacity for variablity, genetically speaking, but it will eventually hit a brick wall. There are only so many combinations. If something doesn't exist, you can't insert new genetic information. You can assume that it will replicate itself or delete an allele here or an allele there. But if it the possible combination isn't there to begin with you can't just magically make one. For instance, on a lock combination of a safe, there are only so many variables out of nine numbers. The combinations are well into the thousands, and that's a large number, but we aren't going to ever get the number 10 by shuffling 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9. Does that make sense?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: For face value, yes.
quote: No, not necessarily. For instance, most people that develop cancer don't recieve it before they procreate. Most people get cancer later in life. And whether they die or not, that information is coded in the DNA to the next generation. So, whether they live or die is inconsequential to them passing on this detrimental affliction/information. Therefore, even natural selection has its limitations. In other words, some people are predisposed to certain ailments, yet it doesn't affect their ability to procreate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: I agree that the 'safe' analogy is a crude model, but it provides us a basis for understanding it theoretically. The genome, however, is what it is. There is a maximum number of variables that it can possess in any given specimen. Octopi DNA is different from human DNA. There is a gulf between the two that is inviolate. What that means is, if you have AB, you could concievably get BA, AA, or BB, but how in the world are you going to get ABC, if C doesn't exist somewhere in the genome already, even in junk DNA? But macroevolution is dependent on making a C where a C doesn't exist and moreover, can't exist.
quote: New traits comes simply changing the order, not inserting genetic coding that doesn't already exist. Even 'genetic insertion' is misleading. You aren't really inserting truly new information. You are inserting something that wasn't in that placement before, or you are replicating. This is a far cry from pulling the 'C' chromosome from thin air. Now, it should be noted that most animals have, for the most part, similar DNA. Humans share 97.5% DNA similarity with a chimp. In the same token, they share 96.5% similarity with a field mouse and 52% DNA with a banana! That doesn't mean that any one of us evolved from fruit.
quote: Oh, I agree that the possible combiniations are inconceivably great, much more than the 'combination safe.' But if you have the number 100, there is a finite number of combinations available to you. Therefore, there really is a brick wall. But I also agree that a seemingly modicum of change can have irrepairable consequences. But that's another you need to consider. The vast preponderance of genetic mutations are either neutral or horrifically detrimental.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: I think any evolutionist, by necessity, eventualy will have to rest their claims on the transfer and mutation of genes. The reason why they are so adamant on this point is that the theory would collapse without it. Mathematician and molecular biologist, Harold Morowitz, calculated the odds that just one paramecium arranging DNA by chance, is: 1 in 10 to the billionth power. To help aggrandize the enormity of this improbability, 10 to the 50th power is considered, ”absolute zero.’ When you reach absolute zero, it is so improbable that we might as well say that it is impossible. That's just to arrive at any lifeforms at all. But since the First Cause can never be witnessed again, lets just speak about already extant beings for the time being. The fact is most mutations are silent. They are mostly benign deletions from copying errors in the genes. Its important to note, however, that the only reason most mutations are benign is because of specific cells that serve to repair mutations. In fact, it is their only function. Therefore, in all actuality, all mutations are truly harmful, especially if these specific cells, themselves, are the product of a mutation. There would be nothing to stop these free radicals from culturing rogue, mutated cells without their assistance. We now know that genes are composed of DNA strands, a magnificently complex molecule. DNA is an encoded message or language. The language has four letters, which form 64, three letter words. The function of the gene acts as a blueprint to tell the cell how to build a particular protein, of which I already described in a previous post how astronmically improbable it is just to arrive at one protein. Anyway, the genes are provided with basic instructions for creating protein insulin, myoglobin, hemoglobin, etc. Though most mutations are neutral, a very large percentage is devastatingly harmful. A prime example of a harmful mutation would be cancer, which I already touched upon. In the most rare occasions, a mutation can be beneficial. This kind of mutation is not truly advantageous, however. For instance, many evolutionists use Sickle Cell Anemia as a prime example of a good mutation. It is premised upon the idea that the disease effects mostly the Negro population, and because the Negro population is greatest in the malaria stricken continent of Africa, it has served to benefit their survival, because SCA can act as a barrier to Malaria. They also cite that SCA only effects people adversely when it is carried through both the female and the male’s chromosomes. So, if the mutant gene is found in only one host, the individual is known as a ”carrier.’ He or she carries the gene and it serves as an immunity. What they fail to realize is, the more individuals that procreate, the greater and more frequent the disease will be, and the less the immunity will be. The ”immunity’ will literally be bred out of existance. Aside from this, its as if no one has taken into consideration how terrible this disease really is? So, you don’t have Malaria, but now you have Sickle Cell Anemia? I just don’t see how that is any better since SCA is a degenerative disease that prevents the proper oxygenation of cells. The red blood cells become deformed, taking the form of a crescent moon (hence the name, Sickle cell), and thus, prevent hemoglobin from properly passing through and oxygenating the body. If your cells do not receive the proper amount of oxygen then they will become ischemic. If the cells starve for oxygen, they die. If your cells die, you die. It’s as simple as that. So, that's how I disagree that mutation could be the propulsion of macroevolution. In other words, it effects reproduction because the more people breed, the more this disease will effect us by removing the immunity. Therefore, I don't agree that SCA, or any other mutation, could be advantageous.... (I'll be cautious here): There are no truly advantageous mutations that I know of and I've heard lots of testimonies on it.
quote: I think that can happen and I think it does happen. But with the SCA analogy, it can also worsten with time via reproduction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: That's reasonable. Its not concrete, but it is well within the realm of possibility. I'm gonna go out on a limb and presuppose that you've posed these series of questions before, and based on their answers, you go back and say, "See, evolution is possible." But as I alluded to before, abstract methods don't circumvent or trump actual evidence out in the field. Even still, I'm really pleased with this forum and this particular debate. I found this forum (EvC) a few years ago but for whatever reason chose to go to another one. In retrospect, I wish that I chosen this one from the beginning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: I was actually referring to a lack of evidence out in the field. Instead of showing us actual and undeniable evidence of the macroevolutionary progress, we've been bogged down with some abstract reason why evolution should be real. In other words, there is no substitute for actual evidence. As of now, I've seen nothing even comparable to evidence of Darwinian evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: Meh. I like this one better. http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp
quote: I guess I'm not understanding why we are going over them again. I already answered all of the questions. In either case, yes, new traits can develop in any given specimen. But like I said, there is a finite number of possibilities. And to soldify that notion, we should be seeing radical changes in say, humans, if the DNA molecule is as similar to Chimpanzees as they are. At any given time, we should expect to see a mutation cause us to revert back to all the atavisms. But this doesn't happen.
quote: I object to 'improve' because that's completely subjective. And that goes back to what I was saying about the evolutionary model. It says, "Not improves, just changes." But then in the next instant, it says, "Organisms improve and inherit 'good' traits because of natural selection." Which is it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
"good" and "bad" and "beneficial" and "detrimental" I mean in the sense of increased reproductive fitness.
The problem is, I can't think of one instance in where cancer, Down Syndrome, or Cystic Fibrosis benefitted anyone in any way.
quote: Right, and I don't contend with that. We know that small adaptations occur. Where the theory gets hazy, (and I'm afraid in many cases, its intentional), is to obscure the line of possibility into the realm of what we know is currently impossible. I think that evolutionists silently agree that they'd love nothing more than an actual fossil that undeniably points to one species forming into an entirely new taxonomical niche. Thus far, the evidence to support said evolvement is either scant, inconclusive, or non-existent. From a philosophical point of view, I have no objections in believeing in evolution. It doesn't affect my relationship with the Creator one way or another. God could have used evolution as the vehicle. I then heed the words of Dr. Behe: “I don’t agree with creationism for theological reasons. I agree with it over the scientific implications.” -Dr. Michael Behe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: I'm referring to the vast difference in sequencing. Being that that we all have A,T,C,G structure, at some point if a true macroevolutionary progress due to mutation was going to occur, then it would have made itself evident by now. This is what was hoped for in Goldschmidt's 'Hopeful Monster' theory. He was was subsequently laughed at by his own peers over it. Then Gould and Eldrigde pruned the theory with punctuated equilibrium. In any case, there does seem to be an inviolate gulf affixed between us. If there wasn't, we'd expect to see humans and chimps able to procreate or a chance mutation so catastrophic that a human could actually birth a Chimpanzee (or whatever) for no good reason. Now, this isn't to say that some chimera's have been genetically spliced in the lab. But all this really is, is splicing a small segment of one creatures code onto another. But you couldn't splice together the sequence that creates an elephants trunk onto a human. In other words, if the principle is there, yet it doesn't happen in nature, then what compels to think it ever happened at all through a natural process?
quote: quote: No, its the same letters, but the sequence is so vastly different so as to not create these abberations. And this is what I meant by humans sharing 52% sequence similarity from a banana, but it doesn't mean that we evolved from fruit.
quote: Yeah, that's right. Its like a language system, concievably similar to the language code of computer programming. But the kind of genetic tailoring macroevolution speaks of would be required of a Programmer to institute a new policy. Even if you were to use Artificial Intelligence to show that it can do it all on its own, it was still required of a programmer to insert the capability to begin with. This message has been edited by nemesis_juggernaut, 05-07-2006 02:52 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: I'm sorry. I will absolutely accomodate that request.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024