Evolution in pieces.

Do they need to? Did I ever ask you to walk without breaking the law? I find it telling that the only way you can defeat my anaolgy is by recourse to artifical barriers. Present the barrier that prevents it. After all, if you said "it isn't possible to walk from New York to London", you'd be correct in saying so - not because of a fundamental limitation on how long you can walk, but because there's a specific obstacle - that big pond - in the way.There's no fundamental limitation on what mutation can do to genetic codes. If you believe that there's a specific limitation or obstacle between microbes and man, then you have to present it to be taken seriously. What kind of proof can I offer that something isn't there except that I've looked for it and haven't found it?

Ok, since you are suggesting the ToE is wrong perhaps we should back up a bit first. The theory is the best explanation we have to the facts at hand. Let's summarize the facts first then.Life arose by undetermined means about 3.5 billion years ago. At that time and for most of 3 billion years after it was relativily simple.At just over half a billion years ago life developed parts which could fossilize and the rate of diversification increased. There were organisms with characteristics of modern phyla but no modern organisms whatsoever.From then on each period of time had life forms different in many ways from the earlier ones and still no fully modern forms. At each time we find a more modern form, eg., amphibians, reptiles, mammals etc. appearing in "stages".Overall as we get closer to the present the organisms of a particular class are more like current forms.Finally, as we get to only 10's of millions of years before the present the overall pattern of life is much like today but with none of the present exact species.Today we can see that the genetic relationship between the organisms matches the relationship that was first, independently inferred from the fossil record.These are the facts at hand. These are what has to be explained by any theory we devise.The ToE explains these and many other facts. There isn't another theory available that has been put forward and stood up to scrutiny.Now, you seen to have some disagreement with it and the whole disagreement seems to be that small changes heaped on small changes can not produce a large overall change. Since we have seen that large changes have occured (by some means which is what we are arguing about) and we know that small changes do occur (by the mechanism suggested by neo-Darwinism) it seems a bit odd to argue with the most reasonable conclusion.Therefore we haven't "proved" (in a mathematical sense) the ToE "right". But it is the best theory put forward so far.The only other suggestion that could come from your arguement against the affect of many small changes is that occasionally there is some other mechanism which takes place now and then while the understood genetic mechanisms operate most of the time.The result would be, it seems, a neo-neo-Darwinism with a new mechanism added.------------------
Common sense isn't

Look, physical law would be the same as scientific law metaphorically, when a law does not allow something you cannot there for do it, if you break the law then you get in trouble. With science, evolution follows the less resistant path, so in fact if evolution ran into a law it would not bypass it. Eatherway, being possible or not, possibility does not matter. We are trying to say it did or didn't happen. Mutation leading to man from bacteria is a theory, it is not proven. I dont need to prove that it is wrong, it is a theory it is not proven.Im done with you, I stand where I am, you need to show me evidence that mutation can lead to man from bacteria, if you cannot then shush. Don't respond, you are annoying me with petty arguments.------------------
The Elder

Life either arose on earth once or more than once.If it arose once then it did get from single celled organisms to man somehow or another.If more than once there may be some disconnect. However, we can't see the disconnect anywhere. It certainly doesn't seem to be there in the last 300 million years or more. Where is that disconnect? Where is the point that one chain of offspring stopped and another started anew?

There's no physical law that prevents you from trespassing. Case closed. It's not a theory. It's a specific application of theory. That theory says that natural selection + random mutation is sufficient to account for all of life's diversity on this planet. We know that NS + RM is sufficient to account for some life. I assume you agree. That's enough to set a trend - if you feel, however, that NS + RM fails specifically for some organism, it's incumbent on you to prove it. The fact that NS + RM is known to account for some life is sufficient reason to try to generalize it to all life.If you don't feel that's valid reasoning, then your issue isn't with evolution - it's with the process of generalizing from observed trends. But if you feel that generalizing from the specific to the universal can't ever work, then that's a position you need to defend.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-20-2003]

Ok,I read entire post, it seems factual in the metaphorical world. Moving on/skipping so I can respond to whats importent. That seems right, I dont like to assume so I wont agree with small leading to big, Honestly I dont care and I can wait for the correct answer. The most reasonable conclusion could be wrong, commen since or faith is not the way of science. It seems that you recognize that small evolution cannot lead to big-e factually, but you accept that small can lead to big because there is nothing more out there explaining what happend. I ask a question then, if we took away the connection from species which are related to small leading to big evolutionary changes, such as the reptile to mammal ear, and whatever else is out there, what would the imagery look like? I say whatever that looks like is also another conclusion we can come too.------------------
The Elder

If you asked a police officer if you can tresspass after the owner said you cannot do it, the physical barrier would be the police officer. LOLGarbage. Garbage also. If I see that the theory has gaps, I wont believe it, I dont have to prove anything. The gap is their, thus, I dont believe it. Very simple. You have yet filled the gap, and once again you are going on with garbage. SPEAK SOMETHING FACTUAL ABOUT MUTATION LEADING TO MAN FROM BACTERIA.------------------
The Elder[This message has been edited by The Elder, 12-20-2003]

Ok,Post 126.

quote:

---

I ask a question then, if we took away the connection from species which are related to small leading to big evolutionary changes, such as the reptile to mammal ear, and whatever else is out there, what would the imagery look like? I say whatever that looks like is also another conclusion we can come too.

---

------------------
The Elder[This message has been edited by The Elder, 12-20-2003]

No, that's not why I accept it. There is a thread about why one might accept evolution. To me it is the sum of many things. The genetic concordance with fossil information is a big one though. I don't really understand this. Are you saying if we took away the evidence connecting some of the so-called higher taxa we might arrive at a different conclusion?I think we can look into history to say what the result would be. 150 years ago most of the detailed transitional fossil evidence we have wasn't found. None of the genetic evidence was available at all. Definitive measurement of the actual time available wasn't available (and, in fact, there were things to suggest that it was wrong)At this time Darwin and Wallace put forward a theory to explain what was available. (It was about what I gave in the "facts" post above (without the genetics)). Even then it was obviously powerful enough to convince many, many people. So I think the conclusion might be the same. It would just be much more tentative and less obviously a very solid conclusion than it is now.Since then all the additional data has become available. More fossils, deep time and genetics. All have come after the proposing of the theory and all support it.

Ok, We are not talking about "evolution" The word evolution would be summed too about microevolution. We are talking specifically about "large changes". Technically nobody knows how they occur, it is built around assumption. "assumptions are the mother of all err. Yes, we must find the mechinism connecting "higher taxa to smaller taxa. If no mechinism exists then a new theory will eventually be revealed and will await arrivel of confirmation. With no confirmation that would convict a saint as a felon. In fact, almost all trends die off. We can look at clothing models and life to see this change. What evidence other then the fossil record and phylogenetics support evolution?1.)Fossil record brings up assumptions
2.)phylogenetics is based on similarities and can only lead to similarites.for example: the tree on 29 evidences which I know you have seen, which represents a "universal phylogenetic tree" could be intrepreted as similarities of species in order. So Bacteria is more similar to the next species on the list, and so on all the way too man. Apperence of evolution does not infact mean we are related.------------------
The Elder

What is this, argument by making up circumstances? Where did the police come from? How were you observed walking through the trees on Farmer Brown's back acres?Aren't you one of the ones that complains about the reliance on chance in the Toe? Why do your own arguments now rely on chance? Where? Where's the gap? I mean, sure. There's a gap in our knowledge. But where's the gap in the theory?There's a gap of about 20 years in the life story of Jesus. Can we assume therefore that you don't believe in the Bible? Why would you assume that, just because we don't know everything, that we don't know anything? The difference between bacteria and humans is explainable entirely by genes. Bacteria have different genes. Mutation can change genes. No known limit has been discovered on the ability of mutation to alter the base sequences of DNA. Therefore there's no known process that would prevent the very, very gradual accumulation of mutations that would result in the very-very-very far removed decendants of bacteria from being humans.It's pretty simple logic.

Huh? We know exactly how they occur. The same as small changes: mutation. That's like saying we don't know where large trees come from.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-21-2003]

My point was I didn't care about the example because I thought it was a bad one. Honestly I dont care to win or lose this conversation I only gain intelligence from it. For the record I am not a creationist, I am a student, I am around all sorts of people who have no bias opinion about religon or evolution because they DONT CARE, I am in those catagories and the only difference is I like to learn about them. Now that is as much information I am going to provide about my personal character. Mutation is the primary gap. you are claiming that mutation has no observed limit, I agree with the observation but not with the concept. A comparible sentance would be, There is no God because he has not been observed. Just because something has not been observed does not mean that it can have no limit WRT mutation. In any subject I assume the worst, you seem to assume the best, in my life I have found assuming the worst has keep me out of trouble, and has keep me in truth. I will assume the worst with mutation and that it cannot and will not lead to bigger changes. One of the things that has been observed with mutation is, mutation has not ever shown/been-observed to have a enhancment of any kind, so within your logic since it has not been observed to have a enhancement you should not claim it to move forward into bigger changes because a bigger change would be a enhancment, which is a contradiction to mutation currently. That is why mutation is a theory because it is not factual information yet, we have not had enough time to confirm the theory. Thats an assumption.------------------
The Elder[This message has been edited by The Elder, 12-21-2003]

No, the comparable sentence would be "there's never been an ovservation of God, so there's no reason to believe God exists." There's a subtle difference: that statement is scientific. Yours was not. Science isn't about what is, oddly enough. It's about what is that we can know about. God may or may not be one of those things.Your barrier, on the other hand, is definately something we should be able to know about - we should be running into it constantly in biology experiments. So the fact that we never, ever observe it in the place it's supposed to be is a pretty strong indication that it isn't there. To the contrary - I try to assume as little as possible. For instance, if there's no evidence for something, I don't assume it exists.But the lack of evidence where we would expect to find it is an indication that you can assume a thing doesn't exist.I can appreciate somebody who wants to keep an open mind to all possibilities. But the problem is that you've chosen to keep your mind so open all your brains have fallen out, so to speak. You're so open to possibilities that you refuse to conclude that some of them aren't possible. In that situation, how can you ever decide anything or know anything? Any time you decide "that must be so", you've chosen "that other must not be so." How can you ever make any decisions at all? Nonsense. There's considerable documentation on beneficial mutations. For instance, pesticide resistance in insects. I'd say that's pretty beneficial, wouldn't you? No, that's a conclusion.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-21-2003]

My response:The Mutation Problem-
added by edithttp://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.aspI'll be back tommarow sometime gotta leave.
-------------------
The Elder[This message has been edited by The Elder, 12-21-2003]