Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
42 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,507 Year: 18,543/19,786 Month: 963/1,705 Week: 215/518 Day: 39/50 Hour: 1/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is evolutions primary mechanism mutation ?
ausar_maat
Member (Idle past 3784 days)
Posts: 136
From: Toronto
Joined: 10-04-2005


Message 61 of 141 (249813)
10-07-2005 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by jar
10-07-2005 12:33 PM


Re: Evolution's primary mechanism
Let me approach this differently.

Since you obviously have a strong foundation on the subject, I would ask you, personally, has there been any observation whatsover, contraction or other problems pointed out from creationists that have, according to your knowledge, any worthwhile scientific value. If not, then case closed. But if so, which ones, and how do you cope with them?

That way we're on a common base and this can be mutually beneficial.

thank you


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by jar, posted 10-07-2005 12:33 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 1:03 PM ausar_maat has not yet responded
 Message 63 by jar, posted 10-07-2005 1:04 PM ausar_maat has not yet responded

    
ausar_maat
Member (Idle past 3784 days)
Posts: 136
From: Toronto
Joined: 10-04-2005


Message 62 of 141 (249817)
10-07-2005 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by ausar_maat
10-07-2005 1:01 PM


Re: Evolution's primary mechanism
I would have pointed out Intelligent Design arguements but I have not read a single book from them. I just bought Darwin's Black Box though. If anyone wishes to share their personal review before I start reading, please do so. It is most welcomed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 1:01 PM ausar_maat has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31466
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 63 of 141 (249818)
10-07-2005 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by ausar_maat
10-07-2005 1:01 PM


Re: Evolution's primary mechanism
No. I beleive in Creation as an Article of Faith, but there is no evidence to support that belief.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 1:01 PM ausar_maat has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8863
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 64 of 141 (249821)
10-07-2005 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by ausar_maat
10-07-2005 11:05 AM


Theory vs Particulars
Because from my humble vantage point, it seems the Evolution model is telling you what the 10 000 piece puzzle looks like with about a 10th of the pieces assembled and available.

You are mixing the theory of evolution with the particular path that living things have taken through time. We have only a few pieces of the puzzle that show us how animals evolved; much, much less that a 10th. We have a very complete theory of how this happens; much, much more than 90%.

The exact steps that living things took as they evolved are details of one of the pieces of evidence supporting the theory. Having only some of these pieces is not a "gap" or "space" in the theory at all.

Our theory of gravity (general relativity) describes the nature of spacetime and why a rock will fall. Being unable to predict or not k knowing the particular path that a rock took to arrive at the bottom of a cliff has nothing to say about the strength of the theory involved.

Likewise the theory of evolution describes why organisms do not remain (mostly) constant overtime and the way in which populations can be expected to change. Being unsure of a particular pathway that populations have taken to get from one point to another has nothing to do with the strength of the theory.

Alright, if it doesn't constitute "space", perhaps you could explain to me what does?

It is simply a gap in our knowledge of the particulars of the evolution of some populations. Such gaps are not a weakness of the {btheory[/b] as long as all the available pieces fit the patterns predicted by the theory.

It is very important to your understanding that you get the concept of a theoretical model and the separation of that form specific instances of the application of the model. With a physics (that was it wasn't it?) background I am surprized that you are having such a problem with this.

qsTo say they have absolutely no valid points or any worthwhile observations whatsoever would be narrow at best. [/qs]

Each of those points should probably go in a separate opening post for a new thread. But when we ask for such things we get stuff like: "If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?" and such. If you could be very specific about what these points are we would all enjoy it.

In the evolution model, specifically, the genus Homo model, we don't have that data yet, but we can still see the flaws.

You are mixing up terms here. It is totally incorrect to use the word "model" for both the theory of evolution and the details of Homo evolution. There are gaps in the record of how Homo evolved there is no contradiction between what we do see in the Homo record and the theory of evolution.

If we did see H. Sapien 300 million years ago it would be a serious problem for the evolutionary model. There is enough fossil evidence to make this a very difficult fit with what is known and with the theory as well.

It's very vulnarable in some aspect. But sometimes, when you say this, or found certain creationists objections to be valid, it's at the risk of heretic scorns it would seem. In this EvC debate, for the most part, it's all either this or either that. Us or them, choose.

The discussion will not progress at all unless you make the precise objections very clear. The scorn arises because, over and over again, the creationist objections are based on a combination of lack of understanding of the theory and of lack of knowledge of the available evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 11:05 AM ausar_maat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 1:56 PM NosyNed has responded

  
ausar_maat
Member (Idle past 3784 days)
Posts: 136
From: Toronto
Joined: 10-04-2005


Message 65 of 141 (249846)
10-07-2005 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by NosyNed
10-07-2005 1:15 PM


Re: Theory vs Particulars
quote:
It is very important to your understanding that you get the concept of a theoretical model and the separation of that form specific instances of the application of the model. With a physics (that was it wasn't it?) background I am surprized that you are having such a problem with this.

I do, I did and it does,

but I think perhaps you don't quite understand what I'm trying to establish. I will have to find a way to clarify it for you.

a little later though... ;)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by NosyNed, posted 10-07-2005 1:15 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by NosyNed, posted 10-08-2005 2:35 AM ausar_maat has not yet responded
 Message 71 by NosyNed, posted 10-11-2005 5:48 PM ausar_maat has not yet responded

    
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 141 (249969)
10-08-2005 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by ausar_maat
10-07-2005 12:30 PM


Re: Evolution's primary mechanism
It seems to me that you've been told that evolution has holes and flaws, but no one who told you about them went into much more detail. If the creationists made some observation that goes against our current understanding of evolution, then we don't simply look beyond that observation, as though it wasn't there, we modify the theory, assuming the evidence is reliable. Nowadays, such observations that go against the theory of evolution rarely, if ever, are reliable. It gets harder and harder to trust information from creationists when they deliberately falsify evidence or when they themselves ignore evidence against their own beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 12:30 PM ausar_maat has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8863
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 67 of 141 (249975)
10-08-2005 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by ausar_maat
10-07-2005 1:56 PM


clarification
I do, I did and it does,

Well, so far what you've posted suggest a confusion about the concepts. I'm anxious to see your clarification.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 1:56 PM ausar_maat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by AdminNosy, posted 10-10-2005 9:58 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Springer
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 141 (250575)
10-10-2005 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Gary
09-13-2005 8:29 PM


language comparison invalid
The problem with using the example of language evolution is that linguists can trace exactly how, for example, French and Spanish both evolved from classical Latin. Even though French and Spanish are quite different, their gradual evolution from Latin has been worked out in detail.
People can make the comparison, but it's a false analogy. Nature is infinitely more complex than languages. The evolution of, say, a bat's wing from a functional forelimb of a non-flying mammal through gradual transitions is not only empirically absent in the fossil record, it is conceptually impossible to visualize. If you doubt this, I'd love to see I diagram of five of six bat precursors, from a non-flying mammal to a bat precursor who has achieved the ability to glide. With each precursor, explain to me how the gradually elongated phylanges are going to have a selective advantage with each stage, ensuring preferential survival of the newer species. At some point the animal is going to have to sacrifice its forelimb in favor of flight, prior to the achievement of its ability to even glide. I want to see what such an animal looks like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Gary, posted 09-13-2005 8:29 PM Gary has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Gary, posted 10-11-2005 4:37 AM Springer has not yet responded
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 10-11-2005 11:34 PM Springer has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 69 of 141 (250595)
10-10-2005 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by NosyNed
10-08-2005 2:35 AM


bump for ausar maat
In the last few days you have been asked to support a number of things.

Please get to that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by NosyNed, posted 10-08-2005 2:35 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 141 (250644)
10-11-2005 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Springer
10-10-2005 9:11 PM


Re: language comparison invalid
Did it recently become illegal to use simpler, more familiar subjects to explain more complicated ones?

I've seen a few fossil bats in museums. They are very rare. The ones I've seen were surprisingly well preserved, but they looked pretty similar to modern bats. The explanation given for their rarity was that bats tend to live in places where fossilization is rare, and when a bat dies it almost invariably is eaten by something or rots quickly. I think that fossil bats are interesting enough that people are probably looking for them, so if they are looking in the right places they may find more fossils in the future, despite their rarity.

I don't see why any of the intermediates between non-flying bat ancestors and modern bats would be at a disadvantage compared to animals unable to fly. Even though their forelimbs may become less useful on the ground, the advantage from gliding is great enough to offset this. Early gliders may not have had highly modified forelimbs anyway, they may have just had loose skin that can be stretched out into a surface to catch the air. There are plenty of gliding animals alive today that are not as well-adapted to flight as bats, so the intermediate may have been somewhat similar to flying squirrels alive today.

Bats don't have to give up the use of their forelimbs on the ground entirely before they can fly. Vampire bats can walk or run on all fours. This is how they often approach their prey. Flying foxes have a claw that they can hook onto things with as well. I found this image on Wikipedia:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Springer, posted 10-10-2005 9:11 PM Springer has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8863
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 71 of 141 (250891)
10-11-2005 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by ausar_maat
10-07-2005 1:56 PM


Still anxious to see your clarification ....
bump for ausar maat regarding this discussion left hanging.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 1:56 PM ausar_maat has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8863
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 72 of 141 (250901)
10-11-2005 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by ausar_maat
10-07-2005 7:08 AM


bump for ausar maat
Message 49

There are some specifics you were asked for. I think it is time for you to supply them so we can understand what your concerns are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 7:08 AM ausar_maat has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8863
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 73 of 141 (250984)
10-11-2005 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by ausar_maat
10-07-2005 7:08 AM


Bump for ausar maat
I am beginning to think you are deliberatly ignoring the questions put to you.

Would you supply the specific things that you think are wrong?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by ausar_maat, posted 10-07-2005 7:08 AM ausar_maat has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 74 of 141 (251013)
10-11-2005 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Springer
10-10-2005 9:11 PM


Re: language comparison invalid
The problem with using the example of language evolution ...

Are numerous, not least of which is that the idea of "language evolution" first came from biological evolution, so you are using an analogy of biology into language for an analogy of language back into biology, complete with all the problems that language has that do not fit the original analogy.

But you also have the main problem with language that you don't have with biological evolution -- and should have if ID were anywhere near a valid concept -- the fact that words can jump lineages because they are better.

a non-flying mammal to a bat precursor

is a flying squirrel by another name. or a flying frog.

it is conceptually impossible to visualize

Only for those with limited imaginations.

Enjoy.

This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*11*2005 11:35 PM


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Springer, posted 10-10-2005 9:11 PM Springer has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Gary, posted 10-12-2005 10:05 AM RAZD has responded

  
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 141 (251089)
10-12-2005 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by RAZD
10-11-2005 11:34 PM


Re: language comparison invalid
You make a good point in that words can jump from one language to another. It might be taking the analogy too far to think of that concept as hybridization. I hadn't thought of that one and I agree that the analogy isn't perfect, but the evolution of language still has very strong similarities to the evolution of living things.

One language can split into two or more groups, as English was split between Great Britain and America. After centuries of separation, the two languages have very obvious differences, but still retain many similarities, as would be the case between two populations within the same species which had been separated for many generations. If enough time has passed, the two populations may be able to interbreed, but may not produce fertile offspring, as horses and donkeys do. Similarly, someone with a thick British accent might have trouble understanding someone who speaks African American Vernacular. The ability to communicate effectively with someone speaking a different dialect is in this way analogous to the ability of animals to interbreed - one marks the separation between species, another marks the separation between dialects or languages. Languages change over time, as gene frequencies in populations also change over time. Both dialects and species are very fuzzily defined.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 10-11-2005 11:34 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by RAZD, posted 10-12-2005 4:03 PM Gary has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019