Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9078 total)
131 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Phat, vimesey (5 members, 126 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,028 Year: 6,140/6,534 Month: 333/650 Week: 103/278 Day: 1/24 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   natural selection is wrong
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4903 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 256 of 276 (123747)
07-11-2004 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Wounded King
07-11-2004 6:00 AM


But "signficantly more frequently" is very subjective. If somebody is wrong 99 percent of the time, and another is wrong 95 percent of the time, it can be expressed as 5 times more right, or just 4 percent more right. Obviously my intended meaning is, when you see a mutation in nature, you should guess it doesn't get preserved, regardless if it's avantageuous or not.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Wounded King, posted 07-11-2004 6:00 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Wounded King, posted 07-12-2004 6:23 AM Syamsu has replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5104 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 257 of 276 (123748)
07-11-2004 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by biochem_geek
07-11-2004 12:35 PM


Here's a list of known, beneficial mutaations....
> Here's a list of known, beneficial mutaations....

And all any of them involve is germs mutating into the same kind of germs.

Germs do not interest me. Give me a list of beneficial mutations amongst mammals or birds, and make the mutations which could plausibly lead to a new kind of animal.

Anything else is BS.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by biochem_geek, posted 07-11-2004 12:35 PM biochem_geek has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Steen, posted 07-11-2004 3:13 PM redwolf has replied
 Message 261 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2004 4:34 PM redwolf has not replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 258 of 276 (123749)
07-11-2004 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by redwolf
07-11-2004 9:56 AM


Re: And here is another prize post of nonsense
Ah, but your arguments ARE dishonest in the way I pointed out. That you chose to run away from that observation certainly is your choice, though.

Now, what REAL science do you have to offer, and what REAL evidence do you have for your claims?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by redwolf, posted 07-11-2004 9:56 AM redwolf has not replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 259 of 276 (123758)
07-11-2004 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by redwolf
07-11-2004 10:36 AM


quote:
In real life, mutations which involve changes large enough to conceivably lead to new kinds of animals all have names, such as Down's Syndrome, Tay-Sachs Disease, Cri-Du-Chat Syndrome etc. etc.
That is an outright FALSE claim. Yes, some mutations that cause HUMAN illnesses have "popular" names. That is by no means true for the rest of the biosphere. And yes, we have many times provided examples of such significant changes with numerous references. So far you have NOT disproven ANY of those, merely repeating already disproven claims. Remember what I said about inherent dishonesty in creationist arguments? This is one example of that.
quote:
Ever notice the women going door to door collecting money for the Mothers' March of Dimes? Ever notice that they're ALWAYS collecting money for research aimed at eliminating mutations, and not for research aimed at causing them? Think there might be a reason for that?
You think there is a reason why you don't know about the massive research into mutations?

Funny, how you seem to think that ALL mutations are about human diseases!

quote:
Other than that, the amounts of time it would take to spread ANY kinds of mutations, "beneficial" or otherwise, around our planet sufficiently to create our present biosphere has been shown to be impossible, i.e. to involve trillions to quadrillions of years and not the 4 billion which is claimed or the million or so which is likely the reality of the situation:
Funny how that site is a mirror image. Care to provide something that can be read?
And interestingly enough, the author of that site now have the following disclaimer:

"This page originally contained an article called "Why I Disbelieve Evolution". That article, and its related sub-articles, have stagnated, and no longer accurately reflect my current position. "

Hmm, seems like your "evidence" is no longer accepted, even by the one who wrote it. That's PATHETIC, redwolf.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by redwolf, posted 07-11-2004 10:36 AM redwolf has not replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 260 of 276 (123759)
07-11-2004 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by redwolf
07-11-2004 2:17 PM


Re: Here's a list of known, beneficial mutaations....
{quoteGerms do not interest me.[/quote]Which is not our fault. That you have no interest in mutations that disprove your claim is duly noted as just ever so more creationist dishonesty.
quote:
Give me a list of beneficial mutations amongst mammals or birds, and make the mutations which could plausibly lead to a new kind of animal.
What is a new "kind" of animal? Do you accept a new species as evidence? If so, I will gladly provide evidence of this. If you are merely interested in a beneficial mutation in mammals, I will gladly provide that as well.

So let me know what you want to accept as evidence of you being flat-out wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by redwolf, posted 07-11-2004 2:17 PM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by redwolf, posted 07-11-2004 6:37 PM Steen has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 780 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 261 of 276 (123770)
07-11-2004 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by redwolf
07-11-2004 2:17 PM


Give me a list of beneficial mutations amongst mammals or birds, and make the mutations which could plausibly lead to a new kind of animal.

There's never, in the history of life, been a "new kind of animals."

All life is the same kind. We come up with hierarcheal terms that describe the degree of related-ness between organisms, but they're not separate "kinds".

But the fact that we can heirarcheally classify organisms is one of the strongest arguements for their common ancestry, and in fact it's one of the reasons they developed evolution in the first place.

Anything else is BS.

What's BS is this classification system you've invented, where there's "kinds of animals." Ludicrous!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by redwolf, posted 07-11-2004 2:17 PM redwolf has not replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5104 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 262 of 276 (123794)
07-11-2004 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Steen
07-11-2004 3:13 PM


Re: Here's a list of known, beneficial mutaations....
>What is a new "kind" of animal?

A new kind of animal would be one with new organs, new requirements for integration of the new organs with old ones, a new basic plan for survival, and all of the instincts and skills necessary for survival via the new plan. One example would be baleen, or whalebone, as opposed to the kinds of teeth which killer whales have and which whale ancestors presumably had. Another example would be wings, as opposed to arms.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Steen, posted 07-11-2004 3:13 PM Steen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by CK, posted 07-11-2004 8:29 PM redwolf has replied
 Message 265 by crashfrog, posted 07-11-2004 10:58 PM redwolf has not replied
 Message 268 by Steen, posted 07-12-2004 7:06 PM redwolf has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 3441 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 263 of 276 (123820)
07-11-2004 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by redwolf
07-11-2004 6:37 PM


Re: Here's a list of known, beneficial mutaations....
I'm sorry this last post makes no sense to me at all - could you re-phrase it slightly? How are new organs interegrated with old?

Are you talking about some strange form of hyper-evolution?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by redwolf, posted 07-11-2004 6:37 PM redwolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by redwolf, posted 07-11-2004 9:21 PM CK has not replied

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 5104 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 264 of 276 (123824)
07-11-2004 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by CK
07-11-2004 8:29 PM


Re: Here's a list of known, beneficial mutaations....
A new kind of creature with a new basic plan for existence might have some utterly new features, wings, a beak, flight feathers, whatever, but these all have to work together or they're useless and they have to work together with organs which are left unchanged from the previous state as well. This is basically a complex systems integration requirement.

Suppose you're a velociraptor or a lizard and God or the mutation genie decides to give you some wings. You might think that was cool for about five seconds until you thought about it, but after that, you'd come to the realization that you were totally ****ed. In order for the wings to be anything other than a curse, you will also need a beak, since you no longer have arms and hands to feed yourself with, you'll need flight feathers and the cute system birds have for rotating flight feathers, a fan-like tail with tail feathers, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, and basically about a baker's dozen new organs, and the instincts and skills to use them.

In other words, just getting the wings, or just getting any of the other features by itself, which is all mutations could ever do for you, would be a fatal affliction. That in fact is the sort of thing which the ladies walking door to door for the Mothers' March of Dimes are working to prevent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by CK, posted 07-11-2004 8:29 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by biochem_geek, posted 07-12-2004 12:03 AM redwolf has not replied
 Message 269 by Steen, posted 07-12-2004 7:10 PM redwolf has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 780 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 265 of 276 (123834)
07-11-2004 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by redwolf
07-11-2004 6:37 PM


One example would be baleen, or whalebone, as opposed to the kinds of teeth which killer whales have and which whale ancestors presumably had. Another example would be wings, as opposed to arms.

But neither baleen nor wings are novel structures. Baleen are modified teeth, and wings are arms with feathers. (That's why birds don't have arms.)

So, there's never new "kinds" of animals, there's only modifications from old ones. Ultimately, since you get back to a single common ancestor, there's only really one "kind" of life - life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by redwolf, posted 07-11-2004 6:37 PM redwolf has not replied

  
biochem_geek
Inactive Junior Member


Message 266 of 276 (123853)
07-12-2004 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by redwolf
07-11-2004 9:21 PM


Re: Here's a list of known, beneficial mutaations....
Alright, for the sake of argument here are some beneficial human mutations

The fact that these are all mutations that make a small difference to the phenotype of the organism carrying them is exactly what evolutionary biology predicts. Small changes co-evolving, to generate the sort of systems that you are talking about. No one claims that a dinosaur was one day born with wings and that was a bird. Rather something more like this probably occurred:

-Some dinosaurs developed arms that had "wing like features" - perhaps an extra flap of skin - this mutation proved beneficial for some reason, maybe because it allowed the dinosaurs that carried to cool themselves more efficiently.
-Natural selection continued to favour larger flaps ‘till one day the flap-armed dinosaurs could use these flaps to slow their decent from trees, meaning they could perhaps live high up in trees and ambush ground dwelling species. (There are snakes alive today that do almost exactly this.) At the same time animals that had randomly mutated to have slightly lighter bones or feather like scales will be favoured - because these mutations wil allow a carrier to better expolit this way of life
-From here NS could favour bigger and bigger flaps till you get something akin to the gliding mammals like flying foxes and sugar gliders.
-Finally flying as we know it is favoured as the “flaps” turn into true wings. All along the way other “small step” mutations that give rise to feathers, beaks, hollow bones and the sort of “brain software” required for flight are selected for.

This is a short sketch of what really happened, an of course we weren’t there so we will never no the actually details of how each step occurred. What the example hopefully does show you is that evolutionary biology doesn’t require saltations, and that the big differences that we observe between what creationists call “kinds” is the result of millions of years of evolutionary separation between major lineages and compounding “small step” mutations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by redwolf, posted 07-11-2004 9:21 PM redwolf has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 3408 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 267 of 276 (123893)
07-12-2004 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Syamsu
07-11-2004 1:16 PM


Dear Syamsu,

Why should you guess? Is that what your new and imroved system is to be based upon? Guesswork!

You don't need to guess, you can use population genetics to see what happens to specific mutations in a population. How can you possibly even know if the mutation is advantageous if it occurs in only 1 individual? You seem to have some platonic ideal of a beneficial mutation in mind.

Do you have any numbers to substantiate your claims? Do you consider germ cells containing mutations but which never become part of a zygote to be beneficial mutants which failed to be preserved? It is arguable that most mutations are lost but I would be interested to know what the actual basis of your assumption that this is so actually is.

How far would you go in this? Is your contention that most animals which are born fail to reproduce, since most animals will have some mutations differentiating their genes from those of their parent? Or are you suggesting that animals with more mutations than normal are more likely to be embryonic lethals thereby removing more mutations from the population than are present in animals becoming viable members of the population?

Does this apply to all mutations equally or are you saying that beneficial mutations are particularly prone for some reason?

TTFN,

WK

p.s.

quote:
If somebody is wrong 99 percent of the time, and another is wrong 95 percent of the time, it can be expressed as 5 times more right, or just 4 percent more right.

How is this in anyway subjective? You are just describing the same thing in two different ways, they mean exactly the same thing. I would agree that significantly more frequently can be a subjective phrase but your example doesn't show that it is at all. You can also remove some of the subjectivity with a little statistics you simply have to agree on a significance level. Then people will know exactly what you choose to call a significant level of difference.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Syamsu, posted 07-11-2004 1:16 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Syamsu, posted 07-13-2004 12:50 PM Wounded King has replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 268 of 276 (124100)
07-12-2004 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by redwolf
07-11-2004 6:37 PM


What is a "kind."
quote:
A new kind of animal would be one with new organs, new requirements for integration of the new organs with old ones, a new basic plan for survival, and all of the instincts and skills necessary for survival via the new plan.
All of those in one animal before it is a new kind? So you are basically saying that a new "kind" has to be somewhere around a new Phylum?

Your argument is still a bit vague, so I am merely trying to clarify your claim so it even remotely fit into what we know about biology today. Is it possible for you to set us some form of dividing line as to what is a new kind, based on traditional classifications of organisms?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by redwolf, posted 07-11-2004 6:37 PM redwolf has not replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 269 of 276 (124101)
07-12-2004 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by redwolf
07-11-2004 9:21 PM


Re: Here's a list of known, beneficial mutaations....
quote:
A new kind of creature with a new basic plan for existence might have some utterly new features,
Well, the nylon bacteria would fit, but then you said that you had "no interest in bugs," right? Guess you want to eliminate any evidence before it is presented. Well, whatever rocks your boat in such arguments.

As for your assumptions about the dinosaur getting wings, they are just plain silly, but I don't think we want to bother with that; I doubt you would reply.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by redwolf, posted 07-11-2004 9:21 PM redwolf has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4903 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 270 of 276 (124227)
07-13-2004 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Wounded King
07-12-2004 6:23 AM


I think deleterious mutations in germcells killing them before they get to form a zygote should be included yes, because advantageous mutations which apply to germcells getting to the zygote are also included.

The difference between preservation of deleterious / neutral and advantageous is not signficant when most all advantageous mutations get wiped out also. I guess more then 5 percent preservation would be somewhat signficant, otherwise I would prefer to say that most all mutations advantageous or not, get wiped out. Otherwise it being a bit misrepresentive to say that advantagueous mutations tend to be preserved, when over 95 percent of advantageous mutations are wiped out.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Wounded King, posted 07-12-2004 6:23 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Wounded King, posted 07-13-2004 1:40 PM Syamsu has replied
 Message 272 by Steen, posted 07-13-2004 10:08 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022