or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Don't Believe In Evolution? Read This.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Don't Believe In Evolution? Read This. - Page 3

post #81 of 522
dmz:

Quote:
Well, for one, no one has documented a case of new species, or organs through Darwinian processes, and not for a lack of trying -- as Richard Feynman said "If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong."

What evolutionary model predicts that we would see speciation in complex organisms in such a short period of time (roughly 150 years since Darwin published)? Evolutionary biology describes the speciation of complex organisms as taking tens of thousands of years at a minimum. It is illogical and dishonest to portray 150 years as a time in which speciation of complex organisms should have occurred if evolutionary theory holds.

And as far as not witnessing the evolutionary process acted out on an organ, you are carrying vestiges of a different past in your body right now. Tell me, dmz, what is your appendix doing right now?

Quote:
And entropy, shemtropy, I can't get around Michael Polanyi's very astute observation, that you end up having to endorse the idea that chaos == complexity. I just can't go there.

Of course you cannot go there, because you have no ground to stand on. If you went there you would end up in a freefall.

Natural selection takes care of the organization. If it works it lives and if it doesn’t work it dies. It is that simple. Deleterious mutations will not be selected for and beneficial mutations will be selected for.

As ever with you, being pithy is a mask for not having an argument.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #82 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy

Just an observation. The fossil record shows what species formed and about when it happened. It tells us nothing of the process that gave us the new species. The evidence is said to be consistent with species evolving, but this is not the only possible explanation of the evidence.

Also, it has been pointed out often that there are gaps in the fossil record, and it's been assumed that these would be found. With no luck in finding them, a few biologists came up with a theory called punctuated equilibrium, saying it happened in big jumps, not baby steps. As a result, gaps are now expected in the fossil record. The problem is that punctuated equilibrium is mathematically less probable than Darwin's original proposal.


Alright, I've just read up on punctuated equilibrium and I'm not sure why someone would see it as mathematically improbable.

It makes good sense to me... in an ideal environment with little selective pressure at play, organisms tend to stay the same.

In more extreme circumstances, it's sink or swim and only those equipped to survive do.

Why is this improbable?
post #83 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK

or clinton

No, they usually start with Clinton.
post #84 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz

Well, for one, no one has documented a case of new species, or organs through Darwinian processes, and not for a lack of trying -- as Richard Feynman said "If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong."

And entropy, shemtropy, I can't get around Michael Polanyi's very astute observation, that you end up having to endorse the idea that chaos == complexity. I just can't go there.

Oh, ok, so evolution and Darwinian processes still hold true, but random, made-up DMZ strawman evolution continues to be an utter falsehood of a blundering mind.
post #85 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ

I don't get the distinction you're attempting to draw.

--Speciation is the formation of a new and distinct species.

check this out, it is about the microevolution of viruses....

http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/a...dle_frames.htm

...so yes, this sort of thing is 'happening all the time', but we're still only playing with a fixed amount of information. And even then, this mutation/reassortment has it's limits; after a certain amount of time, the errors introduced cause fatal errors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_catastrophe

And most important, and not for lack of experimentation, in the end, they're still just viruses.


Also, from the unabridged MW, [part of] a definition for "species":

Quote:
...agrees grammatically with the genus name : a group of intimately related and physically similar organisms that actually or potentially interbreed and are less commonly capable of fertile interbreeding with members of other groups, that ordinarily comprise differentiated populations....

...and a little cutting and pasting of my own:

David L. Stern, "Perspective: Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Problem of Variation," Evolution 54 (2000): 1079-1091.
Quote:
One of the oldest problems in evolutionary biology remains largely unsolved...
Historically, the neo-Darwinian synthesizers stressed the predominance of
micromutations in evolution, whereas others noted the similarities between some
dramatic mutations and evolutionary transitions to argue for macromutationism.

Robert L. Carroll, "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15 (January, 2000): 27.
Quote:
Large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of
extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and
species.

Andrew M. Simons, "The continuity of microevolution and macroevolution," Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15 (2002): 688-701.
Quote:
A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of
microevolution and macroevolution -- whether macroevolutionary trends are
governed by the principles of microevolution.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #86 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz

check this out, it is about the microevolution of viruses....

http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/a...dle_frames.htm

...so yes, this sort of thing is 'happening all the time', but we're still only playing with a fixed amount of information. And even then, this mutation/reassortment has it's limits; after a certain amount of time, the errors introduced cause fatal errors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_catastrophe

And most important, and not for lack of experimentation, in the end, they're still just viruses.


Also, from the unabridged MW, [part of] a definition for "species":



...and little cutting and pasting of my own:

• David L. Stern, "Perspective: Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Problem of Variation," Evolution 54 (2000): 1079-1091.

• Robert L. Carroll, "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15 (January, 2000): 27.

• Andrew M. Simons, "The continuity of microevolution and macroevolution," Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15 (2002): 688-701.

That MW part pretty much dispels your whole point with regards to this macro/micro: the fact that we have hundreds of well documented cases of speciation, which as you underlined, means that these new species are genetically incompatible with the species they came from, pretty much cements the case for evolution, both macro and micro.
post #87 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

That MW part pretty much dispels your whole point with regards to this macro/micro: the fact that we have hundreds of well documented cases of speciation, which as you underlined, means that these new species are genetically incompatible with the species they came from, pretty much cements the case for evolution, both macro and micro.

Facts. Pah.

I feel sorry for poor God.

He's made all this fantastically beautiful stuff of mindblowing age, so amazingly turned that the simple is incredibly complex and the incredibly complex so, so simple; and He hasn't been shy about cluesthe evidence is everywhere.

And yet the people who claim they're most into Him and His works are like 'Not now, God, I've got my nose in this great Book.'

'But... but... I made all this fantastic stuff for you!'

'I told you, God. I'm reading.'
post #88 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

That MW part pretty much dispels your whole point with regards to this macro/micro: the fact that we have hundreds of well documented cases of speciation, which as you underlined, means that these new species are genetically incompatible with the species they came from, pretty much cements the case for evolution, both macro and micro.

I think you're confusing 'subspecies', with 'species'. (the Ernst Mayr definition is the one cited in the MW reference.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #89 of 522
I see these debates rage all over the internet. Why bother trying to convince DMZ? You aren't going to be able to convince an adult who so adamantly sticks by fairy tales to understand the world around them. An adult that will twist all reason based on really what amounts to a bed time story blown out of proportion. I have never seen a person on DMZs side of the debate finally realize that their belief system is made up by man and discounts the entire universe to focus on earth and it's ecosystem. Talk about micro..... It really shows religion to be the crutch that it is.

To me this whole debate on evolution is so small scale and worthless. You have people out there willing to believe in some "god" who plopped man down on a little planet because there's no way man came out of an accident. Yea- no way we aren't so important that a supreme being had to produce us, when in fact they ignore the beauty of this infinite universe and all of it's mysteries that DID produce us could be god. Hell, the universe may as well be god. It certainly fits the description. All knowing, all seeing, infinite....... blah blah. And who would us- the universe's creations- be to question it's methodologies?
post #90 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

...means that these new species are genetically incompatible with the species they came from...

One more thing: I need some examples of that happening, I don't think you understand the difference between what happens in animal husbandry and one species turning into another.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #91 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz

One more thing: I need some examples of that happening, I don't think you understand the difference between what happens in animal husbandry and one species turing into another.

Here you go, your own link right back at ya: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
post #92 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz

I think you're confusing 'subspecies', with 'species'. (the Ernst Mayr definition is the one cited in the MW reference.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

I think your confusing the term "speciation" with the term "subspeciation." (Hint: the latter one doesn't exist.)

You can't just keep on making up shit and changing around definitions to try and pretend you're right; it's pretty clear you have next to no idea what you're talking about.
post #93 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

I think your confusing the term "speciation" with the term "subspeciation." (Hint: the latter one doesn't exist.)

You can't just keep on making up shit and changing around definitions to try and pretend you're right; it's pretty clear you have next to no idea what you're talking about.

I think it's pretty clear you don't have any examples to offer.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #94 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah


I feel sorry for poor God. . .

If you are even 10 percent serious about what you posted back there, you may be interested in Fazale Rana's book, Origins of Life. I'd recommend it to anyone who thinks those who believe in God are brain dead.

post #95 of 522
Why the recommendation?
post #96 of 522
dmz:

Do you not realize that you are parsing quotes, playing semantics, and picking nits? The intellectual retreat is so evident I am amazed that you do not see it.

Also, can you cite any evolutionary model that would call for speciation in large, complex organisms in such a limited time scale?

Do you have any response to my argument that the constant, steady, abundant supply of energy that the sun gives allows evolution and entropy/information theory to mesh perfectly?


MacRR:

The effort is not to convince dmz, but the audience. In a presidential debate, Bush is not trying to convince Kerry, he is trying to convince (or at least educate or influence) the people watching. A key part of this is to get dmz (and other creationists) to trot out the most common arguments so that I (and others) have an opportunity to utterly destroy those arguments.

You will notice that I ask dmz straight-forward questions and they are ignored. This is yet another tactic on both our parts.

It is my hope that a thorough, rational explanation of biological evolution will educate interested, non-participating parties about the subject and answer questions they may have had going in.


snoopy:

God is fine, so long as he stays away from science.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #97 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsLan^


Alright, I've just read up on punctuated equilibrium and I'm not sure why someone would see it as mathematically improbable.

It makes good sense to me... in an ideal environment with little selective pressure at play, organisms tend to stay the same.

Okay, I've read up a bit myself and see two issues. One is that species do change rather quickly under environmental stress. For example, skin color takes only 10,000 years or so. This is an adaptive process for the population that is under stress.

However, a change from one species to another is several orders of magnitude more complex than an adaptive response. I'm not a biologist, so I don't know how many characteristics are different, from one species to the next. It is a bunch. To match the fossil record, all of these characteristics must have changed during the same very short time period in producing the new species. If they were strung out in a series, we would have the same problem with the evidence in the fossil record: links missing for a long geological time span.

So, in effect, punctuated equilibrium may makes it more difficult to support evolution. We are asked to believe that all the necessary changes, going from one species to another, occurred in a short time like 50,000 years or so. It's a matter of probability. What punctuated equilibrium suggests to me is evolution guided by intelligence, not chance.

So, whether you string them out or make all changes in parallel, you have an issue of probability. Doing them all at once is more difficult to support, if we speak of random change.

post #98 of 522
Quote:
What punctuated equilibrium suggests to me is evolution guided by intelligence, not chance.

No evolutionary biologist would ever say that evolution is "guided by chance". As I have already said, the actual process of evolution is natural selection, which is non-random.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #99 of 522
dmz, i got up at 4am, you were here, i went to work, got back at 6pm and you're still here. Have you done anything today?
post #100 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR


Why the recommendation?

I didn't make it clear. I think it's an interesting book for anyone interested in the issues of evolution and creation. Beyond that, the book shows origins of life to be more complex and harder to explain that most people realize, and that belief in a creator is not as far fetched as many would have us believe.

post #101 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK

dmz, i got up at 4am, you were here, i went to work, got back at 6pm and you're still here. Have you done anything today?

Slept, OCRed and then proofed an American history reader, and then waited for examples of macroevolution.....

...and I'm stilllll waiting!

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #102 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz

Slept, OCRed and then proofed an American history reader, and then waited for examples of macroevolution.....

...and I'm stilllll waiting!

i'd like to help, but i really cant contribute anything more than feeling a sense of taking the piss smugness at everyone who'se been here a hundred times before, and still not learned that its all pointless, why do you guys bother?
post #103 of 522
Um- I thought there was the bible for that....



Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy

I didn't make it clear. I think it's an interesting book for anyone interested in the issues of evolution and creation. Beyond that, the book shows origins of life to be more complex and harder to explain that most people realize, and that belief in a creator is not as far fetched as many would have us believe.

post #104 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz

check this out, it is about the microevolution of viruses....

http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/a...dle_frames.htm

...so yes, this sort of thing is 'happening all the time', but we're still only playing with a fixed amount of information. And even then, this mutation/reassortment has it's limits; after a certain amount of time, the errors introduced cause fatal errors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_catastrophe

And most important, and not for lack of experimentation, in the end, they're still just viruses.


Also, from the unabridged MW, [part of] a definition for "species":



...and a little cutting and pasting of my own:

David L. Stern, "Perspective: Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Problem of Variation," Evolution 54 (2000): 1079-1091.

Robert L. Carroll, "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15 (January, 2000): 27.

Andrew M. Simons, "The continuity of microevolution and macroevolution," Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15 (2002): 688-701.

Two points:

1. Speciation is macroevolution.

2. Scientists don't get their definition of species from Websters, dear.

Why would you-- given the readily available scientific definitions in the links I posted?

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat

What evolutionary model predicts that we would see speciation in complex organisms in such a short period of time (roughly 150 years since Darwin published)? Evolutionary biology describes the speciation of complex organisms as taking tens of thousands of years at a minimum. It is illogical and dishonest to portray 150 years as a time in which speciation of complex organisms should have occurred if evolutionary theory holds.

We've seen speciation in fish, plants, and insects.

We're not just talking about a virus here.
post #105 of 522
snoopy:

Quote:
I didn't make it clear. I think it's an interesting book for anyone interested in the issues of evolution and creation. Beyond that, the book shows origins of life to be more complex and harder to explain that most people realize, and that belief in a creator is not as far fetched as many would have us believe.

The improbability of the origin of life does not, in any way, increase the probability of a supernatural explanation. The supernatural explanation has its own set of problems that is not answered by expounding upon the improbability of the origin of life.

As far as the “as many would have us believe” part, who are you talking about and what arguments are they making?

The probability of the origin of life is extremely low if you narrow your scope to the earth itself, but we live in an entire universe. The origin of life is allowed to be extremely improbable, because it only needs to have happened once to explain our existence.

ShawnJ:

Perhaps we have seen verifiable speciation in complex organisms. My point is not that it is impossible to see it (because obviously it happens), but that even if we do not see it then it is not disproven.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #106 of 522
im sure this thread is missing some extra large text and photo's of clint.
post #107 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz

I think it's pretty clear you don't have any examples to offer.

There's loads of examples in that excellent speciation Wikipedia article I just pointed out. You know, the one that YOU just cited?

I mean, I could cut and paste the entire article if you wanted, since it's pretty much just a giant list of examples, but I think you can manage to read some links, especially since you linked there first.
post #108 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy

If you are even 10 percent serious about what you posted back there, you may be interested in Fazale Rana's book, Origins of Life. I'd recommend it to anyone who thinks those who believe in God are brain dead.

The very phrasing of this "challenge" of yours shows that your thinking about these issues is all mixed up. There are plenty of people who believe in both God and evolution, yet you say this as if the two ideas are mutually exclusive.

I personally think that God is a powerful, but imaginary, idea, and not a very useful scientific idea. Saying "God did it!", while obviously having a lot of emotional appeal for many people, has no logical or otherwise useful explanatory power. Assigning responsibility to God for the performance of all things in the universe one currently can't otherwise explain is nothing more than a ridiculously dressed-up way of saying "I don't know" without admitting that you don't know.

Trot out all of the problems you think exist with evolution and the most you possibly accomplish is discrediting evolution and putting yourself back to square one, "I don't know how the variety of species we see happened." None of this moves you a single step further towards proving there's some All Powerful Being out there that must be the only other possible explanation.

If you object to the notion that all of the wonder and majesty of life is just too, too complicated to happen "by chance" (and it's a complete misunderstanding of evolution to think evolution means "by chance"), how on earth are you getting closer to a better explanation by proposing that there's some Intelligence out there which either "always" existed or which sprang out of nothingness, with nothing else to create It and all of Its complexity?

It's sort of like telling a kid who asks where babies come from that a stork brings them. This might briefly satisfy the mind of a very young child who's been carefully kept away from cable TV, but what have you really explained? Isn't the next logical question, "Where does the stork get the babies from?"

God is just like the stork. Where does all of this complexity of life we can't explain come from? "Well, my son, God brings it!"
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #109 of 522
I realize the semantics of debate- but I am saying both sides have their heels dug in. I find it hard to believe that people are actually on the fence- that some people consider "the jury to be out" as it were. Either you buy BS by the batshitload or you don't.

DMZ never addresses anything I say . Either he ignored me, or he's not going to play with me.

Oh well, tis a compliment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat


MacRR:

The effort is not to convince dmz, but the audience. In a presidential debate, Bush is not trying to convince Kerry, he is trying to convince (or at least educate or influence) the people watching. A key part of this is to get dmz (and other creationists) to trot out the most common arguments so that I (and others) have an opportunity to utterly destroy those arguments.

You will notice that I ask dmz straight-forward questions and they are ignored. This is yet another tactic on both our parts.

It is my hope that a thorough, rational explanation of biological evolution will educate interested, non-participating parties about the subject and answer questions they may have had going in.

post #110 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat


No evolutionary biologist would ever say that evolution is "guided by chance". As I have already said, the actual process of evolution is natural selection, which is non-random.

Evolution has two parts, no? First a random, chance change occurs. Then a selection process occurs, which is non-random as you say. If a change is bad, the creature does not propagate. If good, it survives to propagate.

Because there are so many possible change that could take place, way more than a billion, it would take a long time to get to one that can not only survive but produce a beneficial change. Now, on top of that, punctuated equilibrium expects us to believe that the hundreds of thousand of changes necessary to go from one species to another all occurred at once. So we have billions times hundreds of thousand, divided by a few thousand in the population.

If we had to wait for the chance appearance of such a creature the population would be long gone before it came along. Actually, we must wait for two such creatures to come along, making it even more difficult. So, was it chance? Maybe if there was but a single case of evolution you might argue yes. But we are also supposed to believe that this is the norm for production of all the new species of life.

To me it looks more like changes were guided by either intelligence or some yet undiscovered natural law.

post #111 of 522
'Way more than a billion'...

Er, no?

The number of changes that are possible in DNA are actually quite small - we're constantly discovering ways in which DNA has backup mechanisms, redundant information, and just plain amazing resiliency. Why? Because it works, that's why.

I'm actually just starting to get into the midst of this with the semantic analysis of 'non-coding' DNA with a researcher in Australia. Turns out my software analysis techniques may have some applicability... My suspicion is that you're dead right about us not understanding the mechanism yet. I'd certainly believe that, before ascribing it to ID or any other invisible, omnipotent, unprovable sky being.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #112 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ

Two points:

1. Speciation is macroevolution.

2. Scientists don't get their definition of species from Websters, dear.

Why would you-- given the readily available scientific definitions in the links I posted?



We've seen speciation in fish, plants, and insects.

We're not just talking about a virus here.

Oh stop it -- the MW definition was the Ernst Mayr definition.

...and speciation is not macorevolution -- the jump from micro- to macro- has yet to occur (which was the point of posting those periodical citations.)

The whole topic of that jump is controversial within the godless, pagan, nonreligious, unreligious, indevout, undevout, ungodly, unholy, unsanctimonious, blasphemous, impious, profane, and sacrilegious evolution crowd.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #113 of 522
MacRR:

Quote:
I realize the semantics of debate- but I am saying both sides have their heels dug in. I find it hard to believe that people are actually on the fence- that some people consider "the jury to be out" as it were. Either you buy BS by the batshitload or you don't.

You would be surprised by how many people genuinely know nothing about evolutionary theory. It is not taught adequately in public schools and when it is addressed, it is in such an environment of bitterness and controversy that it is distrusted.


snoopy:

Quote:
Evolution has two parts, no? First a random, chance change occurs. Then a selection process occurs, which is non-random as you say. If a change is bad, the creature does not propagate. If good, it survives to propagate.

“Bad” and “good” are value judgments, and evolution makes no such value judgments. The changes can be logically categorized three ways: (1) such that they do not impact reproductive success, (2) increase reproductive success, or (3) decrease reproductive success. No values, no morals, just reproduction.

Quote:
Because there are so many possible change that could take place, way more than a billion, it would take a long time to get to one that can not only survive but produce a beneficial change.

Mutations can exist in perfect harmony with the rest of the “normal” genetic code. Most people, when considering evolutionary theory, forget the idea of a reproduction-neutral mutation/change.

I really do not know where you get “way more than a billion” from, however.

Quote:
Now, on top of that, punctuated equilibrium expects us to believe that the hundreds of thousand of changes necessary to go from one species to another all occurred at once. So we have billions times hundreds of thousand, divided by a few thousand in the population.

Do you know how DNA transcription works? There are a finite number of chemical compounds involved in DNA. I am very very confused by these seemingly-arbitrary numbers you are throwing around.

What are these “hundreds of thousands” of changes that are needed?

And why would we need two spontaneously produced creatures of a new species? You are making it seem as if a chimp gave birth to a human one day; the human tried having sex with a chimp cousin and it didn’t work. That is not how natural selection works. The vast majority of all speciation results not from dramatic mutation, but from population dispersal (which is relative based on the mobility of the given species - 10 feet might as well be 1000 light years to most primitive life forms).

Let’s walk slowly through an example:
Take a population of an animal, let’s call it AnimalX. This population of AnimalXs are separated by the umpteen different factors that separate populations (natural land formations, hunting patterns, social politics, etc…) and they live separately and do not interbreed although they are still physically capable of doing so. You end up with two groups from the same population that live separately and do not interbreed.

Let us also suppose that the environments of the two groups are slightly different. The original population lives in an arid region and the splinter group migrated to a more deciduous area.

After thousands of years, each group has adapted to its area and this happens via genetic mutation.

Now, you accept that these adaptations are possible, but you postulate that any change involving the physical capability to reproduce is not possible?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #114 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy

Evolution has two parts, no? First a random, chance change occurs. Then a selection process occurs, which is non-random as you say. If a change is bad, the creature does not propagate. If good, it survives to propagate.

Because there are so many possible change that could take place, way more than a billion, it would take a long time to get to one that can not only survive but produce a beneficial change.

Evolution is best described as a "bounded stochastic process." There's a element of chance in providing the raw material of variation, but the selective pressures of environmental stress are the most important factor.

It's important to realize that the most crucial developments in evolution have had nothing to do with human beings. The most amazing stuff had already happened well before we came on the scene, in single-celled evolution and in the evolution of the early precursors of modern plants and animal.

For single-celled life forms, especially things like bacteria, a "generation" can pass in less than ten minutes. Start with one bacterium, ten minutes later you can have two, another ten minutes 4, then 8, then 16, etc. If this process could continue for a full day (and it can't -- resources and space run out too quickly), in 24 hours you'd have 2^144, or about 2x10^43, bacteria -- which is way more than the 10^30 bacteria estimated to exist on this entire planet. Suffice to say that bacteria and many other single-celled life forms breed so fast and so plentifully that they provide an enormous supply of possibly beneficial variation, and they can die by the trillions, quadrillions, quintillions, and still bounce back very quickly.

No so-called higher-order life form comes close to the reproductive rates and resiliency of single-celled organisms, but the basics body plans for things like insects and vertebrates almost certainly developed among precursor species which bred at least as fast as organisms like roaches and rats.

You're completely wrong about a beneficial mutation having to occur in two of a species for it to be of use. As long as the new trait is carried by a dominant gene, half of that creature's direct offspring will have the trait even when breeding with a parter which has no copy of the gene. If this new trait is important enough, selective pressure will tend to favor the survival of descendants with two copies of the beneficial gene, leading to a species offshoot where the new beneficial trait breeds true for all, or nearly all, members.

I think you're suffering from a simple inability to appreciate that vastness of time, space, and population in which the developments of evolution can be played out, as well as a cramped view of the way genetic variations can arise and play out in a gene pool.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #115 of 522
Groverat-

point taken. Reading DMZ (hopeless) and then snoopy- snoopy proves me wrong. He's willing to debate and learn and evaluate your info (it would seem). It appears he's learning a lot .

I have just seen many many DMZs out there.

I'd say I am just as bad- in digging my heels in and all, but I am not into being afraid of some grey bearded man watching my every move with the intention of sending me to hell! I am more into the real world (universe) and not some ancient person's fantasy land trumped up to provide personal power through fear.

I agree, no way should religion be taught in public schools. If some parents want to meddle with their child's view on life, they can pay to do it- private schools love the money.
post #116 of 522
I am certainly open to theological arguments. Logic being the key factor.

I am in the middle of a podcast reading from Aquinas's proofs of the existence of god. It is obvious nonsense now, but given the scientific knowledge of his day, it is quite compelling.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #117 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz

David L. Stern, "Perspective: Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Problem of Variation," Evolution 54 (2000): 1079-1091.

Just for grins, I looked up this article. Here's the full abstract.




And a bit of the first paragraph:

"This macroevolutionary data has indicated, in broad strokes, that developmental systems have evolved largely by alterations in the regulation of a surprisingly conserved set of patterning genes. . . . However, the process underlying these patterns change and the identity of the individual mutations contributing to rearrangements in development remain largely unexplored. In contrast, an explosion of studies over the past several decades has illuminated patterns and processes of molecular evolution at the microevolutionary level. Little of this effort, however, has focused on the phenotypic consequences of molecular variation. This is likely due to a lack of interest, but primarily due to the difficulty, or at least the perceived difficulty, of the problem. I do not claim that this problem is easy to solve, but I will argue that a new perspective and a new set of tools, both borrowed from molecular developmental genetics will ease the task" (1079)

IT'S A NERD FIGHT! NERD FIGHT!

You think the Discovery Institute actually read the essay, or did they just do a keyword search for "evolution controversy" in the major journals, excerpt some of the abstract if they can, and then pray that no one will actually read the essay?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #118 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline


For single-celled life forms, especially things like bacteria, a "generation" can pass in less than ten minutes.

Yeah, I knew it was fast but, didn't have the facts on it. That's why infectious bacteria are developing strains that are immune to antibiotics as we speak. Forget antibiotics. Build your immune system and keep it strong.


Quote:

You're completely wrong about a beneficial mutation having to occur in two of a species for it to be of use. As long as the new trait is carried by a dominant gene, half of that creature's direct offspring will have the trait even when breeding with a parter which has no copy of the gene.

I've wondered about that. I've never paid much attention in the one biology class I had to take. Mathematics and physics is what I was interested in.


Quote:

I think you're suffering from a simple inability to appreciate that vastness of time, space, and population . . .

You could have stopped with time and space, and then you would have been wrong.

post #119 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter

You think the Discovery Institute actually read the essay, or did they just do a keyword search for "evolution controversy" in the major journals, excerpt some of the abstract if they can, and then pray that no one will actually read the essay?

Um, midwinter, that was a quote from an article in Evolution -- the -- International Journal of Organic Evolution put out -- by -- The Society for the Study of Evolution.

In other news of the completely unexpected, I stepped on the brakes of my car today -- and it slowed down.

Who could have known?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #120 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz

Um, midwinter, that was a quote from an article in Evolution -- the -- International Journal of Organic Evolution put out -- by -- The Society for the Study of Evolution.

In other news of the completely unexpected, I stepped on the brakes of my car today -- and it slowed down.

Who could have known?

dmz: you're being snotty again.

My point is that that the citation and bit from the abstract you provided (which appears on the Discovery Institute's talking points where you seem to have gotten your list of cites) as examples of "the controversy" within the peer-reviewed literature of the scientific community don't actually work. When you look at the actual article, the quote on DI's site is by no stretch of the imagination representative of what the article is actually about, which is proposing a new way to attempt to understand evolutionary processes.

(Edited several times to try to make this statement English)
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Don't Believe In Evolution? Read This.