Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9174 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,610 Year: 4,867/9,624 Month: 215/427 Week: 25/103 Day: 5/9 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Logic
jar
Member
Posts: 34056
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 9 of 302 (313960)
05-20-2006 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by dorkfrommarn
05-20-2006 3:36 PM


Re: Need, want or curiosity
I would say that right now there is no sign that there is a reason in evolution. The walker is not heading for Bagdad, that's just where he happens to end up.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by dorkfrommarn, posted 05-20-2006 3:36 PM dorkfrommarn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by dorkfrommarn, posted 05-20-2006 6:26 PM jar has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34056
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 16 of 302 (314136)
05-21-2006 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by dorkfrommarn
05-21-2006 9:40 AM


Macro vs Micro
I hope that this might help you.
So far we only have one sample of living things to study, and that is the pool of living things, and the remains of things that have lived, here on earth. So anything we say has to be taken with the unstated provision that what we are talking about is just the stuff we have seen so far. Someday we may find other life and all the rules may need to be rewritten to account for that new evidence.
But for now, here is what we see.
So far every lifeform we look at has some very basic similarities, the chemicals are the same, the building methods are the same, there really doesn't seem to be very much difference at the most basic level between humans and slime mold.
Things like micro and macro, species or genus or order are simply arbitrary classifications that we assign for convenience and our human characteristic of putting stuff in boxes.
Let me try a couple analogies. Consider the light spectrum. We see light and color in certain ranges. We all have a pretty good idea of the macro differences, we know blue from green. But that only works when the differences are large, as we move from blue to green we pass through a whole series of micro colors, until we get to one where we're not sure if it is blue, or green.
They are all though just part of the visible light spectrum. There is no macro change between blue and green. Macro only comes in when the intervening micro color changes are removed. If they are present we see one continuous spread of all colors.
We can step back a little further and look at the electromagnetic spectrum. Again, we can find macro differences, gamma rays, xrays, ultraviolet, visible, infrared, microwave and radio, but these are arbitrary name assignments we use to label those boxes we are so fond of. There is no intrinsic difference between any of them, they are all electromagnetic waves. As we look closely at the boundaries of any two adjacent classes it gets harder and harder to tell which box we should put it in. Is it red, or infra red? Is it violet or ultra violet?
It's the same with living things. We can only apply the term macro when we ignore all of the micro steps inbetween. The differences are far more our perceptions and love of boxes than the properties of the things themselves.
Edited by jar, : to fix subtitle

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by dorkfrommarn, posted 05-21-2006 9:40 AM dorkfrommarn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by nator, posted 05-26-2006 8:18 PM jar has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34056
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 47 of 302 (318515)
06-06-2006 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Someone who cares
06-06-2006 11:36 PM


Yet another mistake
And, if it were true, it would not help evolution, it would show just the opposite, a whale losing legs. While evolution requires GAINING them.
That statement shows a major misunderstanding of evolution. It is not directional, towards adding something. Rather evolution is a history, it is looking backwards at what did happen. It could be gaining legs or losing them, or as happened several times, gaining wings, losing them and gaining them yet again.
It is change. And it is the history of what critters survived long enough to reproduce. It is not some issue of more or better, simply what worked.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Someone who cares, posted 06-06-2006 11:36 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 12:15 AM jar has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34056
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 59 of 302 (318544)
06-07-2006 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Someone who cares
06-07-2006 12:15 AM


Re: Yet another mistake
But, that case would not help evolution. If it were losing legs, then that's not showing evolution, where one cell supposedly evolved into a man with legs and arms and a body and a head, etc. This would not help evolution, it would only make it worse. Evolution needs great increases to make a single cell evolve into a human! But decreases don't help at all!
Yup, pretty clear you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
That's not a problem, we have all been in exactly that position.
When life started here, oh 3 or 4 billion years ago, it was single celled. At that stage there was no way to go except towards more complex. But over the years, things happened, and at times it was the less complex critters that were the winners in the survival game.
Remember, that humans are not a goal. We are just one of many of the critters, and it's way to early to tell if we are a successful one or not. It's absolutely certain that we are not going to be among the most successful designs, turtles and cockroaches got us beat hands down there.
Evolution is what works. If a creature that lost it's legs as it moved into a water environment had an advantage over the one with legs, and the legless wonder reproduced better than the legged one, eventually the population would be legless.
Evolution is just a history of what worked, what didn't.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 12:15 AM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 1:12 AM jar has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34056
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 75 of 302 (318627)
06-07-2006 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Someone who cares
06-07-2006 1:12 AM


Re: Yet another mistake
well, AnswersInGenesis is not much of a source, and we have all been there and seen what they have to say. In addition, the AIG article does not really offer any evfidence in support of their assertions, but only a series of arguments from incredulity. They really offer nothing to support their position except that they don't believe it.
Bu that still has nothing to do with the point I was making in my post. This post too simply shows that yet again you don't understand what is happening.
You say:
Ok, as I pointed out above, that wasn't true, that wasn't really a whale in evolution, check out that site I linked to. So the whole argument changes, that was not a whale losing legs, the first couple of creatures in the supposed "whale evolution" were not really whales, check out that site for details.
What is so funny is that AIG actually ends up proving macroevolution even while claiming it does not. You message itself is proof of macroevolution.
You say "... the first couple of creatures in the supposed "whale evolution" were not really whales,...". Of course not, they are the ancestors of the whales. That is why this is such a great example. Here is something that is clearly not a whale, and that overtime evolved into modern whales. The whales are almost as good an example of macroevolution as we are ourselves.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 1:12 AM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 8:54 PM jar has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34056
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 145 of 302 (319371)
06-08-2006 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Coragyps
06-08-2006 10:12 PM


Re: Great example
the link works both ways down here. And I'm even further down the line than you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Coragyps, posted 06-08-2006 10:12 PM Coragyps has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34056
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 155 of 302 (319398)
06-09-2006 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Rob
06-09-2006 12:00 AM


Re: Great example
Can any of you provide references showing an increase in genetic information durring cell division or mutations?
Can you tell me whether ACT, CGA, TAC or CAG has more information?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Rob, posted 06-09-2006 12:00 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Rob, posted 06-09-2006 12:43 AM jar has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34056
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 161 of 302 (319408)
06-09-2006 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Rob
06-09-2006 12:43 AM


on pairs and tells
Can you tell me whether ACT has more or less information than say... ATCGAACTGAC?
Nope, can't until you can define what information is.
A bacteria doesn't have 3 billion characters in it's genome like you do...
That's close. IIRC the human genome is about 2.9 billion pairs while maize is only 2.5 billion base pair. Chimps have about 2.8 billion base pairs. The lungfish genome is about 35 times the size of the human genome and Amoeba dubia has more than 600 billion, Amoeba proteus more than 290 billion base pairs and the common toad, Bufo bufo, have more than 6.9 billion base pairs.
The point is, the length of a genome really doesn't mean a whole lot.
As to seeing evolution in the code such as you suggest, they happen all the time. It's likely that you carry 6-8 such mutations yourself right this minute and that you yourself will have about 30 such mutations during your lifetime.
Edited by jar, : change subtitle

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Rob, posted 06-09-2006 12:43 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Rob, posted 06-09-2006 1:57 AM jar has replied
 Message 209 by Rob, posted 06-10-2006 6:20 PM jar has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34056
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 173 of 302 (319479)
06-09-2006 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Rob
06-09-2006 1:57 AM


Re: on pairs and tells
Others have dealt with most of the errors or misunderstanding your post, but I'd like to deal with one other aspect.
Dembeski likes to pull the old complexity = information rabbit out of his hat and set it off hopping around the stage. He uses this as some magic trick to convince folk of ID. What is funny is that many folk here him speak, and he is a good speaker, and buy into the idea that something more complex is a sure sign of intellegence, even though they know that it is not true from personal experience.
I have been a software programmer, a system designer, and designed circuitry that extended over a 1000 miles. I can tell you that complexity does not equal information. Nor is complexity the product of intelligent design, that in fact the goal of intelligent design is simplicity.
If we look at any living thing, what we find is "just barely good enough".

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Rob, posted 06-09-2006 1:57 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Rob, posted 06-09-2006 9:42 AM jar has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34056
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 195 of 302 (319834)
06-10-2006 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Someone who cares
06-09-2006 11:55 PM


Re: Allow me to defend myself
No, that's not what it means. But take the bacteria, and take a human, which has more genetic code information?
Well, I think I responded to that back in Message 161.
The human is about average for the lower end of critterdom, having about the same amount as corn or chimps, but certainly not as much as a lungfish, or common toad or amoeba.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Someone who cares, posted 06-09-2006 11:55 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 8:57 PM jar has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34056
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 210 of 302 (320097)
06-10-2006 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Rob
06-10-2006 6:20 PM


Re: on pairs and tells
So what's the deal, are men evolving into Amoebas?
We don't have a clue. But we are evolving. Remember, Evolution can best be seen looking backwards. It's a history of what did happen.
Evolution is not worse ----> better, it's what is just good enough to get by. And when we do look back over our shoulder, that is just what we see. What we see is a bunch of features that really aren't all that great, but rather good enough to get by for awhile.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Rob, posted 06-10-2006 6:20 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Rob, posted 06-10-2006 6:45 PM jar has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34056
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 215 of 302 (320116)
06-10-2006 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Rob
06-10-2006 6:45 PM


Re: on pairs and tells
There is no such thing as devolving. It's all evolving no matter what direction.
And the 2nd. Law of Thermodynamics has nothing to do with evolution. We have lots of threads here on that.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Rob, posted 06-10-2006 6:45 PM Rob has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34056
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 220 of 302 (320175)
06-10-2006 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Someone who cares
06-10-2006 7:28 PM


Just some more basics.
Like in the lowest layer, there are fully developed sponges, trilobites, jellyfish, worms, and other organisms, and this is the bottom of the geologic column!'
Okay, just a few points.
We don't know what the bottom of the geological column is, and it's even possible may never know since the surface gets recycled. But we do know of stuff that goes back long before sponges, trilobites, jellyfish and worms.
Second, you say "fully developed". Well, yes. That is exactly what we would expect to see. No one except the Biblical Creationists sites ever expects to see some critter that is not fully formed.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 7:28 PM Someone who cares has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34056
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 235 of 302 (320251)
06-10-2006 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Someone who cares
06-10-2006 8:57 PM


Re: Allow me to defend myself
I didn't say the length of the genome. Just take the DNA content, which has more volume of DNA content?
What? LOL

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 8:57 PM Someone who cares 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