Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 9:01 PM
32 online now:
Dredge, DrJones*, JonF, kjsimons, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (6 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,169 Year: 9,205/19,786 Month: 1,627/2,119 Week: 387/576 Day: 62/128 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345678Next
Author Topic:   Evolution and the BIG LIE
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1097 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 16 of 108 (441333)
12-17-2007 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by crashfrog
12-17-2007 3:17 AM


Re: Icon Problems
Excellent point Crash. And even more telling from a broad-brush perspective, only 7 extant phyla are known from the 'explosion' out of ~34 currently known. Not the "most known taxa" claimed by ICR or AiG. And that is ignoring the greater and greater diversity of precam fossils that are being found, especially the matching of the 'small shelly fragments' to known phyla.


"I have seen so far because I have stood on the bloated corpses of my competitors" - Dr Burgess Bowder
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2007 3:17 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

    
Elmer
Member (Idle past 4070 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 17 of 108 (441334)
12-17-2007 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Kitsune
12-17-2007 3:01 AM


Re: Thank you Beretta
hi lindalou--

Actually, the statement, "This is the first fact to learn about evolution: this is what evolution is, the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.", is so nebulous that it really says nothing more than that, 'heredity is evolution, and evolution is inheritance of traits that vary across populations from one generation to the next'.
Which in fact, is simply not true. Not even at the most trivial level, say the ratio of brown eyes to blue in members of a certain human lineage. The same applies at even more serious levels, such as the differential ratio inherited traits-- such as haemophilia in european aristocrats [see 'Queen Victoria, descendents of'], or anaemia in certain populations of african descent, or even HIV resistance from plague survivors dating back to the days of the roman empire. No matter what population geneticists would like the world to continue to believe, differential trait inheritance is NOT evolution.

Evolution only takes place when an entirely new trait is introduced into the biosphere, [this is called, 'origins'] or when an old trait
is entirely extinguished from a taxon.[this is 'extinction']

Evolution is not, as we've been convinced by the Ronald Fisher crowd, and as repeated above, nothing more than differential 'hands of cards' dealt out of the same old 'deck', 're-shuffled' and 're-dealt', generation after generation.

Edited by Elmer, : clarification


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Kitsune, posted 12-17-2007 3:01 AM Kitsune has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Wounded King, posted 12-17-2007 7:33 AM Elmer has not yet responded

    
Beretta
Member (Idle past 3763 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 18 of 108 (441337)
12-17-2007 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Kitsune
12-17-2007 3:01 AM


Time
what is to stop it from becoming macroevolution over a longer stretch of time, as more and more changes accumulate?

Darwinian evolution requires far more than the deformed molecules of mutation to explain the origin of new organs and body plans -it needs beneficial changes in anatomy. There is no proof that this is genetically possible only a belief that this must have happened -"well we're here aren't we!"
Time -lots of it - is the magic ingredient.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Kitsune, posted 12-17-2007 3:01 AM Kitsune has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by RickJB, posted 12-17-2007 8:31 AM Beretta has responded

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 3763 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 19 of 108 (441347)
12-17-2007 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by crashfrog
12-17-2007 3:17 AM


Re: Icon Problems
Not much of an explosion, really.

Well it is actually an explosion if all living things are supposed to be the modified descendants of one or a few original forms.It's an explosion unless you are sure evolution happened in which case it is played down and is not really an explosion. To put gradual and sudden in context -the following analogy given by Jonathan Wells in response to criticism of his "Icons of Evolution' book - explains it well -
"Imagine yourself standing at the end of a football field which represents 3.8 billion years ago and let the other end of the field represent the present day. As you walk from one goal line to the other, you see only single celled organisms as you pass the 25-yard line, then midfield, then the 75 yard line; only as you approach the 84-yard line do you notice the first multicellular organisms -some sponges, some worms and jellyfish. Then in the space of a single stride, most of the other animal phyla appear and most of these are still with you when you reach the other goal line. This is not a branching tree pattern; no animals for 5/6 of the history of life, then most modern body plans in a flash. some paleontologists have aptly compared this pattern to a lawn instead of a tree."

In defence of evolution, other critics of Wells have admitted that it was a sudden explosion but have argued that that is exactly what we'd expect for various other 'plausible' reasons that are actually not plausible at all. It appears that above and beyond all other considerations, evolution is not to be questioned even when the evidence makes it look plain wrong.

those 8000 species were largely hard-shelled organisms whose ancestors had no hard body parts to speak of, and therefore nothing to fossilize.

That was the standing explanation until soft bodied fossils were found and so it no longer makes sense as an excuse for all those missing organisms.

Which one is the big lie -evolution or intelligent design??? I know what I think though I'd prefer to call evolution the big indoctrination or the big deception.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2007 3:17 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2007 12:23 PM Beretta has not yet responded

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 3763 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 20 of 108 (441350)
12-17-2007 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Kitsune
12-17-2007 3:12 AM


Re: Icon Problems
the term "explosion" is misleading.

Personally I believe that saying it is not an explosion in relative terms would be far more misleading.It sure looks more like a lawn than a tree to me but then I'm not dedicated to evolution as the only possible answer.

the sparseness of the pre-Cambrian fossil record is believed to reflect some difficulties in meeting those conditions.

Unless it's just another way of explaining the lack of evidence and determining to stay with evolution despite the lack of evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Kitsune, posted 12-17-2007 3:12 AM Kitsune has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2261 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 21 of 108 (441351)
12-17-2007 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Elmer
12-17-2007 4:47 AM


Re: Thank you Beretta
Evolution only takes place when an entirely new trait is introduced into the biosphere, [this is called, 'origins'] or when an old trait
is entirely extinguished from a taxon.[this is 'extinction']

Is their any reason why we should accept your made up definitions for what evolution is over, say, those of evolutionary biologists?

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Elmer, posted 12-17-2007 4:47 AM Elmer has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 22 of 108 (441355)
12-17-2007 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by mobioevo
12-16-2007 11:59 PM


Re: the Theory of Evolution definition
I think you should state or make more clear the "several validated theories" that you refer to so that there is no ambiguity to creationists or students of evolution in what you mean. This may seem cumbersome but I think it will bring more validity to your definition if you keep vague words out.

Thanks, that's why the several layers of detail vs conciseness are necessary.

The next level down was

(2) a synthesis of several validated theories on how hereditary traits in populations change from generation to generation; it includes theories on how change is enabled, and it includes theories on how changes made within each generation are selected.

Giving us a theory statement of

The Theory of Evolution is that all the diversity of life is explained by a synthesis of several validated theories on how hereditary traits in populations change from generation to generation; it includes theories on how change is enabled, and it includes theories on how changes made within each generation are selected.

see the Definition of the Theory of Evolution thread

Welcome to the fray.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by mobioevo, posted 12-16-2007 11:59 PM mobioevo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by mobioevo, posted 12-17-2007 12:31 PM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 37 by mobioevo, posted 12-17-2007 4:07 PM RAZD has responded

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3156 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 23 of 108 (441356)
12-17-2007 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Beretta
12-17-2007 5:01 AM


Re: Time
Beretta writes:

Darwinian evolution requires far more than the deformed molecules of mutation to explain the origin of new organs and body plans -it needs beneficial changes in anatomy.

You haven't, I assume, noticed that all amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds and mammals are tetrapods? The reason? Common heritage.

Tetrapods

Beretta writes:

There is no proof that this is genetically possible.

You're in total denial. There is convergence of evidence across fields such as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and many others.

Transitional sequences.
List of Transitionals


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Beretta, posted 12-17-2007 5:01 AM Beretta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Beretta, posted 12-17-2007 9:14 AM RickJB has responded

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 3763 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 24 of 108 (441358)
12-17-2007 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by RickJB
12-17-2007 8:31 AM


Re: Time
You haven't, I assume, noticed that all amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds and mammals are tetrapods? The reason? Common heritage.

One of the most striking features of the fossil record is the Cambrian explosion which provides no support for the common ancestry of the animal phyla. Homology remains unexplained by evolutionary biology, so even at the level of the vertebrate classes it cannot be used to distinguish between common ancestry and common design. The early embryonic similarities that supposedly demonstrate the common ancestry of the vertebrates turn out to be non-existant, while embryos of other phyla are even less similar.

The evidence from molecular comparisions is also problematic.
As biologist Michael Lynch wrote -"Clarification of the phylogenetic (ie. ancestor-descendant) relationships of the major animal phyla remain an elusive problem with analyses based on different based on different genes and even different analyses based on the same genes yielding a diversity of phylogenetic trees."
So, common ancestry of the major animal groups is not a 'fact' -it's not even a well-supported hypothesis.
There is no evidence that selection can change chickens into turkeys much less turn bacteria into animals. The most widely advertised anatomical mutant, the four winged fruit-fly is an evolutionary dead end.
Extensive studies of selection and mutation have been carried out on bacteria (because it is possible to study millions of organisms and thousands of generations in a relatively short time), yet as British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton wrote "Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another."

There is convergence of evidence across fields such as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and many others.

That'll be the mountains of evidence that supposedly contradict the other mountains of evidence that say it is not true?

I used to believe in evolution -I don't any more -it doesn't make any sense in the light of the evidence against it. Besides why is the other side of everything against evolution kept out of the textbooks with such dedication -if there's nothing to fear from the evidence then let the opposing evidence be taught.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by RickJB, posted 12-17-2007 8:31 AM RickJB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by RickJB, posted 12-17-2007 9:57 AM Beretta has not yet responded
 Message 26 by reiverix, posted 12-17-2007 10:37 AM Beretta has not yet responded
 Message 28 by mobioevo, posted 12-17-2007 10:51 AM Beretta has not yet responded
 Message 29 by Wounded King, posted 12-17-2007 11:46 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3156 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 25 of 108 (441365)
12-17-2007 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Beretta
12-17-2007 9:14 AM


Re: Time
Beretta writes:

I used to believe in evolution -I don't any more -it doesn't make any sense in the light of the evidence against it.

Show me a single competing model that similarly attempts to explain the diversity of life on the planet.

ID? No, because it is nothing but ill-informed ToE criticism. It has no model. There is no ID theory. There is no attempt to identify either the "design" process or the "designer". ID explains nothing.

Beretta writes:

Besides why is the other side of everything against evolution kept out of the textbooks with such dedication -if there's nothing to fear from the evidence then let the opposing evidence be taught.

Such as what? What other theory is there, besides "Godidit"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Beretta, posted 12-17-2007 9:14 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
reiverix
Member (Idle past 3985 days)
Posts: 80
From: Central Ohio
Joined: 10-18-2007


Message 26 of 108 (441371)
12-17-2007 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Beretta
12-17-2007 9:14 AM


Re: Time
Besides why is the other side of everything against evolution kept out of the textbooks with such dedication -if there's nothing to fear from the evidence then let the opposing evidence be taught.

Yeah right! You ducked out of this thread without providing anything except nonsense. Comical.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Beretta, posted 12-17-2007 9:14 AM Beretta has not yet responded

    
mobioevo
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 34
From: Texas
Joined: 12-13-2007


Message 27 of 108 (441373)
12-17-2007 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Beretta
12-17-2007 1:46 AM


Re: Thank you Beretta
There is no such thing as "microevolution" or "macroevolution," the only word biologists use is evolution.

Macroevolution versus microevolution


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Beretta, posted 12-17-2007 1:46 AM Beretta has not yet responded

    
mobioevo
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 34
From: Texas
Joined: 12-13-2007


Message 28 of 108 (441374)
12-17-2007 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Beretta
12-17-2007 9:14 AM


Out of context
quote:
biologist Michael Lynch wrote -"Clarification of the phylogenetic (ie. ancestor-descendant) relationships of the major animal phyla remain an elusive problem with analyses based on different based on different genes and even different analyses based on the same genes yielding a diversity of phylogenetic trees."

I would like to see your source for Michael Lynch's quote you use. I have read most of what Michael Lynch has wrote and don't remember this quote. When I do a Google search all I get is links to ID misinformation.

-------

Edit.

I found the source in question. It is funny because if you search the entire quoted section with the "(ie. ancestor-descendant)" part you are directed to ID websites, but when you take it out you will hit Michael Lynch's paper. You can review the actual paper at this link

Here is the abstract of the paper.

Michael Lynch writes:

Given the uncertainties in the fossil record and the paucity of informative morphological characters, there is still considerable uncertainty as to the phylogenetic affinities and times of origins of essentially all of the phyla of animals. A multilocus analysis of amino-acid sequence data for mitochondrial genes suggests that the major triploblast phyla began diverging approximately 630 million years ago. These results support the hypothesis that the so-called Cambrian radiation of animals actually initiated about 100 million years prior to the Cambrian, as the fossil evidence suggests. In addition, phylogenetic analysis supports the monophyly of animals, an early (~900 million years ago) branching off of the cnidarian lineage, the monophyly of deuterostomes and protostomes, and the inclusion of nematodes in the protostome lineage. The results of this study suggest that, with appropriate levels of taxon sampling and a focus on conserved regions of protein-coding sequence, complete mitochondrial genome analysis may be sufficiently powerful to elucidate the genealogical relationships of many of the animal phyla.

Lynch goes on to say in the paper after the first quote above on page 323 on the 3rd paragraph on the right of the page,

Given the substantial evolutionary time separating the animal phyla, it is not surprising that single-gene analyses yield such discordant results. Under such circumstances, the statistical noise associated with the substitution process leads to a high probability that phylogenetic analyses based on different molecules will yield different topologies (Philippe et al. 1994; Ruvolo 1997)...

The phylogenetics of the animal and even the eukaryotic common lineage is still fuzzy due to difficulties in molecular biology techniques and the lack of funds to sequence all of these organisms genomes. The fuzziness is not due to the lack of evidence supporting evolution. It will take some time and money to resolve these difficulties, but this is hard when there is such hostility toward evolution. Recently a faculty member in the department that the university I was at was denied funding for a study on evolution because as the grant reviewer said, "It would only give answer in evolution."

Anyway, imagine my surprise when I found this quote by Michael Lynch used out of context. When you use a quote that is describing the limitations in a study you should follow with why those limitations exist. I'm sure you just copied and pasted the quote from a third party website, but in the future I urge you to search out the primary source to get the facts straight.

You can read more about Michael Lynch and his research at his website.

Edited by mobioevo, : found the source and it was used out of context.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Beretta, posted 12-17-2007 9:14 AM Beretta has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Kitsune, posted 12-17-2007 12:27 PM mobioevo has not yet responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2261 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 29 of 108 (441382)
12-17-2007 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Beretta
12-17-2007 9:14 AM


Re: Time
The early embryonic similarities that supposedly demonstrate the common ancestry of the vertebrates turn out to be non-existant, while embryos of other phyla are even less similar.

So vertebrate embryos aren't similar, but embryos from other phyla are less similar? Doesn't that mean in fact that vertebrate embryos are more similar? Just making vacuous claims doesn't do anything, where is the counter evidence rebutting the mounds of embryonic developmental data showing conservation in developmental systems?

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Beretta, posted 12-17-2007 9:14 AM Beretta has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 108 (441385)
12-17-2007 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Beretta
12-17-2007 7:18 AM


Re: Icon Problems
Well it is actually an explosion if all living things are supposed to be the modified descendants of one or a few original forms.

8000 known species over 30-80 million years? That's a pretty sedate explosion, don't you think?

To put gradual and sudden in context -the following analogy given by Jonathan Wells in response to criticism of his "Icons of Evolution' book - explains it well -

The problem is that Wells - who is not a biologist - explains it wrong. You've been lied to about the Cambrian explosion, Beretta, by Wells himself and by others.

In defence of evolution, other critics of Wells have admitted that it was a sudden explosion but have argued that that is exactly what we'd expect for various other 'plausible' reasons that are actually not plausible at all.

Who says they're not plausible? You?

That was the standing explanation until soft bodied fossils were found and so it no longer makes sense as an excuse for all those missing organisms.

Soft-bodied fossils are quite rare. That we're lucky enough to have a few examples doesn't change that. Your argument is like saying that, because one guy won the lottery once, we all must have a million dollars in our wallets. It doesn't make any sense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Beretta, posted 12-17-2007 7:18 AM Beretta has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Wounded King, posted 12-17-2007 12:59 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Prev1
2
345678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019