or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Edge of Evolution
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Edge of Evolution - Page 3

post #81 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Exactly, selective pressure changes the genetic variance of a species. This is adaptation -- if there were no preexisting resistant individuals the species would likely die out before a random mutation happened to create a novel resistance. Evolution has never made a claim of intentionality in the mutations -- the creationists have but that is a smoke screen.

Above you say and I quote: "if there were no preexisting resistant individuals the species would likely die out before a random mutation happened to create a novel resistance."

Ok so my question is what is the accounting or basis for the origins of these "preexisting resistant individuals" as you call them? In other words what accounts for their origins? You seem to be suggesting that they exist and if not for them adaptation could not happen. I ask then what about the origins of them? How do you account for their origins?

Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #82 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by mania View Post

There is no controversy (except among the unlearned).

This statement of yours is incorrect. There are many educated people who do not buy into the assumptions of the theory of evolution. I suppose that all you have to share is how you prefer to belittle others with a different view.

Shame on you. You should be able to do better than that.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #83 of 146
Fellowship:

What "assumptions of the theory of evolution" do these educated people not "buy into"?

Quote:
How do you account for their origins?

First let me say that I think it shows the amazing power of Darwin's theory of evolution via natural selection that so many believers now do not even argue against the evolution of life via natural selection or against the idea of common descent.

So now we are at a point where science is challenged to show where life came from, but that has already been done for decades. The exact way life came into existence on our planet is unknown, but firm theories exist and many experiments have been done (and will be done) showing the "creation" of organic molecules from inorganic molecules using simple electricity or other sources of energy that were available an on the ancient earth.

So we have two options to choose:
1) Religious ideas of origins, which answer no questions at all.
2) Naturalistic ideas of origins, which have answered an astonishing number of questions in a (relatively) very short amount of time (~160 years since The Origin of Species was published, and religion has existed since recorded time).
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #84 of 146
Quote:
"Those who promote evolutionism (the irrational belief in biogenesis by evolution as fact)(also known as evolutionists) try to confuse natural selection with evolution, saying that natural selection is the engine of change which gave rise to species. This is demonstrably false.

You perhaps remember the example of the peppered moths in England during the early part of the industrial revolution. When the soot from the mills turned the trees black, the peppered moths, normally white, were now visible to birds and were eaten. A variant of the peppered moths, with dark coloration, blended in and was left to grow. So, most moths were now the dark variety. When the air was cleaned, and the soot was washed away by rain, the dark moths showed up and were eaten, allowing the species to revert to the white variant. This is often given as an example of evolution, and it IS an excellent example of natural selection. If evolution is only natural selection, then the common conception of evolutionary biogenesis is mistaken, and scientists should be doing their best to clear it up.

However, they continue to meddle in religion and philosophy where they have no business.

The moths changed only in response to a temporary change in the environment, and only changed because the variants, already existing, were released from selection pressure. When the environment changed back, the original moth population reestablished itself with the variants in the minority. There was no permanent change, and the change was within the constraints imposed by the environment.

To return to probability--

One can design any experiment to fail. I can see how probability would make no sense if each occurrence had infinite possibilites, but we can constrain the experiment so there are very limited possibilities. Looking at Virginia Whitetail deer for a moment, a generation is about three years. These deer have made no noticeable change since they were first described in the 1700's. So we might conclude that a significant change occurs in evolving species only once in about 100 generations or more. Of course, some species are known to remain the same for much longer--sharks and cockroaches, for example. Virginia whitetails are subject to tremendous selection pressure from predators and hunting, and yet they remain the same.

So each major event of evolution, which results in a major adaptation of the creature, is subject to the pressure of natural selection (before man was on the scene, anyway, as they believe.) Predators cull the weak and sick and poorly adapted. Poorly adapted predators cannot find prey. Any change in a creature that did not convey a benefit would result in its selection by nature, and its genes would not be passed on.

But we are ignoring that immense difficulty with evolutionary change for the moment, and are simply looking at the possibility that 1000 major changes could happen.

If evolution, in its infinite variety of choices, brings a new creature to birth, it is subjected to the pressure of natural selection. Any creature that does not fit the current environment is ruthlessly exterminated. THIS is what allows the process to be tested by probability. In order to survive, the creature must either stay the same (the usual strategy) or change within the extremely narrow constraints placed on it by natural selection in the current environment.

We can design a simple experiment to determine the probability of 1000 major changes (FAR too few for evolution to have happened) occurring in the lifetime of the universe, assuming that these changes happen once in each 100 generations (FAR more often than warranted by the evidence). This will follow the line of a single organism evolving into a higher organism requiring 1000 changes. Only the direct descendants of that original organism which are directly in the line to the higher organism are considered to have evolved for this experiment. A basic textbook will show that the answer is (1/100)to the power of 1000. This number is unimaginably small.[(1/2)to the power of 1000 is 1/(10 to the power of 300). This number is far smaller.]

So--in order to have a 1-1 chance of one creature having been formed by a line of evolution, it would require (100 to the power of 1000) generations, or 10 followed by 1001 zeroes.

Now we are only considering those creatures in the direct line of this evolution, to a specific descendant. Assume again that each creature in this line reproduced after living for one second. There would only be 157,680,000,000,000,000 (1.6x10^17) reproductions in five billion years. Roughly 10^983(1 followed by 983 zeros) times that many reproductions would be needed for our hypothetical one original organism to have an even chance of evolving into anything requiring 1000 changes--not even considering the problem of how it got here in the first place. Five hundred thousand billion years is not enough time for life to have evolved.

Even more problems for evolution: There are many more changes than 1000 needed for pre-cellular life to become human,changes happen less often than once in a hundred generations, and if anything at all has a generation only one second long it is difficult to imagine."

http://www.rae.org/eddiejoe.html
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #85 of 146
Pure comedy gold.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #86 of 146
duplicate post.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #87 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post



First let me say that I think it shows the amazing power of Darwin's theory of evolution via natural selection that so many believers now do not even argue against the evolution of life via natural selection or against the idea of common descent.

So now we are at a point where science is challenged to show where life came from, but that has already been done for decades. The exact way life came into existence on our planet is unknown, but firm theories exist and many experiments have been done (and will be done) showing the "creation" of organic molecules from inorganic molecules using simple electricity or other sources of energy that were available an on the ancient earth.

Quote
"Evolutionism tells more about the person who holds to it than about the world we live in. Fortunately, there are few dedicated believers, and few of the general public have an unqualified acceptance of it. Here we have the peculiar phenomenon of a large number of usually highly intelligent people, most of whom know that evolution cannot possibly account for the origin of life, continually attempting by whatever means possible to convince the general public that it is a proven scientific fact. Limited success would be expected in such an openly dishonest endeavor, and it is shown by the fact that 70% of the general public believes that creationism should be taught in the public schools.

There was an entire country, the former Soviet Union, which took evolutionism as the official philosophy of the nation, but fortunately has now largely abandoned it as the irrational tree bore its increasingly bitter fruit.

Evolutionism is the manifestation of a psychopathology, a need to believe, in certain people who are irrationally dedicated to it. Those who are dedicated to materialism have little else that they can believe. A healthy skepticism has no place in those pathologically dedicated to the philosophy, and this pathology is further demonstrated by unmitigated attempts to spread this gospel of irrationalism to the unconverted, regardless of its known defects.

One would think that religious people would not have a need for evolutionism, but this is demonstrably not the case. It often coexists in the minds of many with some form of Christianity, and fulfills some need to displace and explain away uncomfortable implications of their faith. These displacements, however, are more perceived than real. The problems remain and are simply ignored rather than being confronted and dealt with on a realistic basis. This is a futher manifestation of the pathology of evolutionism.

Often the excuse is given for promoting evolution, that it would require redoing biology, geology, and various other sciences if evolutionism was discarded. This is somewhat true. However, there would be less impact than one would think at first. The evolutionary relationships between species have to be constantly revised as new interpretations come to light, and give no real information about relations between species, as the links are based on only speculated kinship without real evidence. This sort of assumption of speculative evolutionary kinship is more of a hindrance to understanding than a help."

http://www.rae.org/eddiejoe.html
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #88 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

Above you say and I quote: "if there were no preexisting resistant individuals the species would likely die out before a random mutation happened to create a novel resistance."

Ok so my question is what is the accounting or basis for the origins of these "preexisting resistant individuals" as you call them? In other words what accounts for their origins? You seem to be suggesting that they exist and if not for them adaptation could not happen. I ask then what about the origins of them? How do you account for their origins?

Fellowship

Their origin?

Random mutations that occur entirely naturally all of the time.

This also answers your unfounded numbers game.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #89 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

Evolutionism tells more about the person who holds to it than about the world we live in. Fortunately, there are few dedicated believers, and few of the general public have an unqualified acceptance of it. Here we have the peculiar phenomenon of a large number of usually highly intelligent people, most of whom know that evolution cannot possibly account for the origin of life, continually attempting by whatever means possible to convince the general public that it is a proven scientific fact. Limited success would be expected in such an openly dishonest endeavor, and it is shown by the fact that 70% of the general public believes that creationism should be taught in the public schools.

There was an entire country, the former Soviet Union, which took evolutionism as the official philosophy of the nation, but fortunately has now largely abandoned it as the irrational tree bore its increasingly bitter fruit.

Evolutionism is the manifestation of a psychopathology, a need to believe, in certain people who are irrationally dedicated to it. Those who are dedicated to materialism have little else that they can believe. A healthy skepticism has no place in those pathologically dedicated to the philosophy, and this pathology is further demonstrated by unmitigated attempts to spread this gospel of irrationalism to the unconverted, regardless of its known defects.

One would think that religious people would not have a need for evolutionism, but this is demonstrably not the case. It often coexists in the minds of many with some form of Christianity, and fulfills some need to displace and explain away uncomfortable implications of their faith. These displacements, however, are more perceived than real. The problems remain and are simply ignored rather than being confronted and dealt with on a realistic basis. This is a futher manifestation of the pathology of evolutionism.

Often the excuse is given for promoting evolution, that it would require redoing biology, geology, and various other sciences if evolutionism was discarded. This is somewhat true. However, there would be less impact than one would think at first. The evolutionary relationships between species have to be constantly revised as new interpretations come to light, and give no real information about relations between species, as the links are based on only speculated kinship without real evidence. This sort of assumption of speculative evolutionary kinship is more of a hindrance to understanding than a help.

Fellows?

Do you have any thoughts of your own? Or do you just like copying and pasting from random Creationist websites du jour?
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #90 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Their origin?

Random mutations that occur entirely naturally all of the time.

This also answers your unfounded numbers game.


If you could give me an approx. number of generations it took to get from blue-green algae to a giraffe.

Also could you explain to me how many generations it took to go from caterpillar to butterfly

I mean afterall these things do not happen over night do they.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #91 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Fellows?

Do you have any thoughts of your own? Or do you just like copying and pasting from random Creationist websites du jour?

Any brain in that pointy head of yours?

I completely agree with the content of my posts.

If I did not I would note it. As for reading materials we all have material we agree with or disagree with. I believe it was groverat who called one book here "bullshit" or something like that and you know that is entirely ok with me as I am not one who cares to limit the thinking and or opinions of others.

I just wish some would not be so quick to try to brand others "unlearned" or such who have a differing opinion regarding the origins of life forms.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #92 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

I completely agree with the content of my posts.

If I did not I would note it. As for reading materials we all have material we agree with or disagree with. I believe it was groverat who called one book here "bullshit" or something like that and you know that is entirely ok with me as I am not one who cares to limit the thinking and or opinions of others.

I just wish some would not be so quick to try to brand others "unlearned" or such who have a differing opinion regarding the origins of life forms.

Fellows

Well...

Two things:

It is disingenous and indeed plagerism when you cut and paste direct text regardless of whether you agree with it or not. At the very least for your readers, you should have put the text in quotes and attributed it to the appropriate source. Agreeing with the text and directly copying as your own ideas are two far far different things.

You are unlearned, you ascribe to a prehistoric account of the origins of life when that account is not only unprovable, it is wrong by all observations. (Let alone it being only one of the plethera of stories early man came up with).

With respect to the number of generations -- it is an impossible question to answer since rates of mutation vary (they are temporal rather than generational), the length of generations vary etc. I will tell you this -- blue green algae as currently existant is as evolved as a giraffe. Caterpillar/Butterfly? They are different stages of life of the same organism -- they evolved concurrently -- there are examples of caterpillar species that are unable to become butterflies due to mutations in later developmental stages...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #93 of 146
Fellowship:

If you're going to be copying and pasting from other websites, at least provide the link.

Quote:
I completely agree with the content of my posts.

Be that as it may, when you just swipe large tracts of texts from others you are adding nothing at all to the discussion.

Since you are, apparently, unable to articulate these things yourself we cannot engage with you in a discussion. You merely present it as if it were holy text, to either be accepted in whole or rejected in whole. This is not discussion, this is parroting.

I called Behe's book "bullshit" (and more!), but I both read and understood it, and this is a subject I know about. I dismissed it with my own thoughts and provided those thoughts, which were my own, for discussion.

But let me give you the benefit of the doubt and let me engage some of the arguments you have plagiarized in the hope that you can participate in a discussion about the ideas.

Quote:
The moths changed only in response to a temporary change in the environment, and only changed because the variants, already existing, were released from selection pressure. When the environment changed back, the original moth population reestablished itself with the variants in the minority. There was no permanent change, and the change was within the constraints imposed by the environment.

What is most interesting about this is that it takes, as an example, an instance of temporary adaptation and then complains that it is temporary. It is akin to me asking out a black woman and then screaming angrily that I do not date black women when she shows up to dinner.

First, what is a "permanent" change on the scale of evolution? All things are subject to adaptation and every form of life is technically "temporary" since we know of nothing organic that has remain completely unchanged since its origin.

In that particular story we merely have the advantage of a relatively quick shift in environmental factors that allowed us to observe natural selection in action on a complex organism.

Quote:
Looking at Virginia Whitetail deer for a moment, a generation is about three years. These deer have made no noticeable change since they were first described in the 1700's. So we might conclude that a significant change occurs in evolving species only once in about 100 generations or more. Of course, some species are known to remain the same for much longer--sharks and cockroaches, for example. Virginia whitetails are subject to tremendous selection pressure from predators and hunting, and yet they remain the same.

Why should they change dramatically? If they survive then what they do works fine and there is no impetus to radically alter anything about their physiology or environment. Evolutionary theory does not predict that organisms will change wildly without tremendous outside pressure, or even that they will change with outside pressure.

The author is creating a ridiculous straw man argument.

I especially like the extended personal attack you copy/paste in response to my reference to experiments that have created organic material from inorganic material. How on earth do you have the nerve to lecture others about tact when you refer to this thinking as "psychopathy"?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #94 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

If you could give me an approx. number of generations it took to get from blue-green algae to a giraffe.

Also could you explain to me how many generations it took to go from caterpillar to butterfly

I mean afterall these things do not happen over night do they.

Fellows

What's with the impossible improbabilities? Perhaps trying to prove what DID HAPPEN didn't!

Climate change, p = 1, plate tectonics, p = 1, fossil record, p = 1, population bottlenecks, p = 1, population extinctions, p = 1, natural variations, p = 1, selective pressures, p =1, mutations, p = 1, resource competition/availability, p = 1, catastrophic events, p = 1. invasive species (humans being the best current example), p = 1, yadda, p = 1, yadda, p = 1, yadda, p = 1, ...

It's when you make absurd assumptions, based on indeterminate improbabilities (O(1), O(10), O(100), O(1000), ... , O(10^100), ... , O(10^1000)) that you get into all kinds of trouble.

Because they have no basis in FACTS, either empirical or observational!

Multiplying a continuous series of small numbers (0 < n(i), i = 1, 2, ... < 1), leads to an even smaller number, doh, by your argument life shouldn't even exist, BUT IT DOES!

I did not post this reply, it didn't happen, you are not reading this, it is an impossible improbability!

Shuffle a deck of 52 cards, deal them out one at a time, record the sequence, the probability that that sequence was actually dealt, p = 1! The probability that it would be repeated (on average over many, Many, MANY deals) is 1/52! (factorial), so what. Each time the cards are dealt, a random sequence happens, p = 1.

DOH!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #95 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Pure comedy gold.

Well yeah.
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #96 of 146
Anyone else read this or is this yet another thread where I am the only participant to have read the book being discussed?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #97 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

Anyone else read this or is this yet another thread where I am the only participant to have read the book being discussed?

The only fiction I reads is Stephen King, Dean Koontz and some mysteries if the premise sounds promising.

Oh, Nora Roberts writing as J.D. Robb, the detecttive Dallas series.
What can I say.
post #98 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

Anyone else read this or is this yet another thread where I am the only participant to have read the book being discussed?

Don't know how to read. And if I did, it wouldn't be works of Fantasy.

I here the DI has the largest collection of Fantasy in the world though!

I also understand works of ID are filed in the Dewey Decimal Classification system under either 666 or 999 (aka garbage can sections).
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #99 of 146
Link to a NYTimes article that treats a rather interesting side story in modern evolutionary science.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #100 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

Anyone else read this or is this yet another thread where I am the only participant to have read the book being discussed?

I have been around the subject far too long to read that book Groverat. I read several hours each day. When I have time to read something that is not work related, I prefer Steinbeck.
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #101 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Well...

Two things:

It is disingenous and indeed plagerism when you cut and paste direct text regardless of whether you agree with it or not. At the very least for your readers, you should have put the text in quotes and attributed it to the appropriate source. Agreeing with the text and directly copying as your own ideas are two far far different things.

You are unlearned, you ascribe to a prehistoric account of the origins of life when that account is not only unprovable, it is wrong by all observations. (Let alone it being only one of the plethera of stories early man came up with).

With respect to the number of generations -- it is an impossible question to answer since rates of mutation vary (they are temporal rather than generational), the length of generations vary etc. I will tell you this -- blue green algae as currently existant is as evolved as a giraffe. Caterpillar/Butterfly? They are different stages of life of the same organism -- they evolved concurrently -- there are examples of caterpillar species that are unable to become butterflies due to mutations in later developmental stages...

lol I was really impressed at how articulate those posts by Fellows were.... Guess I should have google a few sentences first... Caughtcha, buddy!

With regard to the rates of mutation, etc., as a layman, this has always seemed to me a pretty big stumbling block for the theory of evolution. Ignoring the bit about green-algae and giraffes (you know what he means, anyway ), it should be possible to determine some kind of average time or number of generations for certain evolutionary stages to be reached. For example, determine the rough number of transitional forms that had to be traversed to get from some ancestral species to a later species and divide by the time (or # of generations, as appropriate) that it was supposed to have taken. What would the result be, approximately?

It certainly seems, given the advanced forms of life in existence, that there would not be enough time in the known life of the world to account for the number of random mutation/natural selection cycles that would be necessary. Perhaps it is necessary to assume that life was evolving extremely fast in the early periods? Thoughts?
post #102 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by meelash View Post

Perhaps it is necessary to assume that life was evolving extremely fast in the early periods? Thoughts?

Things can go very fast when you get sun burned and your skin cells decide to become cancer. A little bit of UV and in just a few month you will have completely genetically altered cells growing on your body which replicate by using your own truncated DNA . Now imagine what this can do to bacteria.

Now let's look at early life:
Science is now thinking away from the "RNA first" idea and looking at simpler molecules. The early earth had loads of energy sources as well as constant inflow of matter from the accretion disk. The atmosphere had not yet developed (early life created our NO2 atmosphere) so there was a lot more radiation of all kind. This radiation supplied energy and altered chemical processes a in wildly random fashion. Indeed it would be logical that a myriad of pre life biochemistry had "evolved" before the programmed replication happened when one of these chance molecules developed so many open charges that it attracted the nearby molecule with similar reactivity to form the first replication by program which later became what we now call RNA.

BTW In cosmological time 100 billion years is hardly a heart beat.
post #103 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

BTW In cosmological time 100 billion years is hardly a heart beat.

What is 100 billion years? The estimated age of the earth is 4.5 billion years. Are you saying that life began evolving pre-Earth, and then immigrated?
post #104 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

BTW In cosmological time 100 billion years is hardly a heart beat.

Isn't that greater than estimated age of the universe? Like by many times over?
post #105 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

100 Billion years?

Um... The universe is currently aged at ~15 Billion...

Yes indeed this one is still young. The one before retired at 4 trillion years.
post #106 of 146
100 Billion years?

Um... The universe is currently aged at ~15 Billion...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #107 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by meelash View Post

lol I was really impressed at how articulate those posts by Fellows were.... Guess I should have google a few sentences first... Caughtcha, buddy!

With regard to the rates of mutation, etc., as a layman, this has always seemed to me a pretty big stumbling block for the theory of evolution. Ignoring the bit about green-algae and giraffes (you know what he means, anyway ), it should be possible to determine some kind of average time or number of generations for certain evolutionary stages to be reached. For example, determine the rough number of transitional forms that had to be traversed to get from some ancestral species to a later species and divide by the time (or # of generations, as appropriate) that it was supposed to have taken. What would the result be, approximately?

It certainly seems, given the advanced forms of life in existence, that there would not be enough time in the known life of the world to account for the number of random mutation/natural selection cycles that would be necessary. Perhaps it is necessary to assume that life was evolving extremely fast in the early periods? Thoughts?

hardeeharhar posted this NYT link earlier;

From a Few Genes, Lifes Myriad Shapes

See also (NYT);

Humans Have Spread Globally, and Evolved Locally
Darwin Still Rules, but Some Biologists Dream of a Paradigm Shift
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #108 of 146
.....
post #109 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by meelash View Post

lol I was really impressed at how articulate those posts by Fellows were.... Guess I should have google a few sentences first... Caughtcha, buddy!

With regard to the rates of mutation, etc., as a layman, this has always seemed to me a pretty big stumbling block for the theory of evolution. Ignoring the bit about green-algae and giraffes (you know what he means, anyway ), it should be possible to determine some kind of average time or number of generations for certain evolutionary stages to be reached. For example, determine the rough number of transitional forms that had to be traversed to get from some ancestral species to a later species and divide by the time (or # of generations, as appropriate) that it was supposed to have taken. What would the result be, approximately?

It certainly seems, given the advanced forms of life in existence, that there would not be enough time in the known life of the world to account for the number of random mutation/natural selection cycles that would be necessary. Perhaps it is necessary to assume that life was evolving extremely fast in the early periods? Thoughts?

Read the NYTimes article.


Basically as I said earlier in this thread -- you don't need to build up completely new genetic cascade to turn a short neck into a long neck -- you can simply modify a few of the genes that regulate the formation of a short neck. The genes even blue green algae have are highly adaptable. Not much has changed since cyanobacteria first appeared -- especially not since the first yeast started budding. Humans are simply differently developed yeast (in a sense).

Mutational rate probably did go faster for the first fraction of a time simply based upon low fidelity copying mechanisms. However, it isn't the mutational rate you are interested in ultimately -- it is the extremity of the selection pressure. Rapidly changed and consistent selective pressure will result in fast transitions.

Think about it this way -- humans come in many forms, internally they have even more differences, but let's base this upon the way we look outside, and I am going to ask you to remember that sickle cell trait is a resistance mechanism to malaria common basically only in black populations.

Two scenarios:

The intensity of the sun suddenly increases and remains high for two hundred years. Cancer rates in lighter skin humans, especially young children increase rapidly lowering the fecundity of paler skinned children. The entire population becomes more resistant to malaria due to the relatively increased fecundity of the black populations who are sickle cell trait over populations of people who are not.

The intensity of the sun suddenly decreases and remains low for two hundred years. Vitamin D production in darker skinned individuals falls off -- their fecundity rates fall dramatically due to general poor health (and indeed cancer). The entire world population becomes more sensitive to malaria due to this change in human population dynamics.

The ability of the populations in these two scenarios to survive a mutant and highly fatal malaria strain is completely dependent upon whether the sun turns up or down.

It doesn't take any more variance to 'evolve' than already clearly exists out there. Creationists think that once a species is defined it starts fresh -- all individuals are alike. And this view point is simply wrong. The variances that came to exist in the previous rounds of selection generally remain around and give a greater distribution of responses to selective pressure than would have originally existed.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #110 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

Yes indeed this one is still young. The one before retired at 4 trillion years.

That's an extrapolation of 2.92 * 10^2 over the current age estimate of 13.7 BYA from Earth's (or the current human cosmologist's) POV.

Ultimate fate of the universe
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #111 of 146
This link is also very informative:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html

Extrapolation is the most important weapon against creationism.
If we try and extrapolate the energy consumption of a being capable to influence matter on a grand scale as in forming our universe, a couple cans of red bull are not going to do it.
post #112 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

This link is also very informative:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html

Extrapolation is the most important weapon against creationism.
If we try and extrapolate the energy consumption of a being capable to influence matter on a grand scale as in forming our universe, a couple cans of red bull are not going to do it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for science, understanding, and knowledge.

But untestable theories lead to faith, to belief.

We appear to be at the center of the observable universe as are all other objects wrt their observable universe.

The link I provided earlier in this thread suggests, that there is much more to the universe than we are currently able to quantify or theorize with a high degree of confidence.

We've only been at this thing called science for a very short time, by any metric. Every time we improve our methods (theories, experiments, and observations) we see things that we were unable to see before.

Signed,
Buzz Lightyear
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #113 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

This link is also very informative:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html

Extrapolation is the most important weapon against creationism.
If we try and extrapolate the energy consumption of a being capable to influence matter on a grand scale as in forming our universe, a couple cans of red bull are not going to do it.

Not that this is particularly relevant to the discussion, but:

Your statement here is not very meaningful, since believers in a deity will consider that being to be super-physical, i.e. not composed of matter and energy, but beyond the realm of our physical universe.
post #114 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by meelash View Post

Not that this is particularly relevant to the discussion, but:

Your statement here is not very meaningful, since believers in a deity will consider that being to be super-physical, i.e. not composed of matter and energy, but beyond the realm of our physical universe.

So doG is "super-physical" but isn't temporal, isn't spatial, isn't matter, isn't energy? Perhaps you meant to say superficial.

I think you just PROVED that doG doesn't exist!

Please explain EXACTLY how Divine Providence works in OUR physically real universe?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #115 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

So doG is "super-physical" but isn't temporal, isn't spatial, isn't matter, isn't energy? Perhaps you meant to say superficial.

I think you just PROVED that doG doesn't exist!

Please explain EXACTLY how Divine Providence works in OUR physically real universe?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. God is not matter and energy, he is the creator of matter. He would obviously not be an ordinary part of our universe, subject to "energy consumption" limitations and so on, if he were the creator of that universe.

As for being temporal, time is relative right? So being outside the realm of the physical laws of this Universe and the properties of matter and energy kind of precludes being "temporal" in any ordinary sense of the word.

Spatial?-- hmmm.. I don't know. Is space also relative? If that were true, then what is a vacuum? What is Space? Bigger questions then I have an answer for.
post #116 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Read the NYTimes article.


Basically as I said earlier in this thread -- you don't need to build up completely new genetic cascade to turn a short neck into a long neck -- you can simply modify a few of the genes that regulate the formation of a short neck. The genes even blue green algae have are highly adaptable. Not much has changed since cyanobacteria first appeared -- especially not since the first yeast started budding. Humans are simply differently developed yeast (in a sense).

Mutational rate probably did go faster for the first fraction of a time simply based upon low fidelity copying mechanisms. However, it isn't the mutational rate you are interested in ultimately -- it is the extremity of the selection pressure. Rapidly changed and consistent selective pressure will result in fast transitions.

Think about it this way -- humans come in many forms, internally they have even more differences, but let's base this upon the way we look outside, and I am going to ask you to remember that sickle cell trait is a resistance mechanism to malaria common basically only in black populations.

Two scenarios:

The intensity of the sun suddenly increases and remains high for two hundred years. Cancer rates in lighter skin humans, especially young children increase rapidly lowering the fecundity of paler skinned children. The entire population becomes more resistant to malaria due to the relatively increased fecundity of the black populations who are sickle cell trait over populations of people who are not.

The intensity of the sun suddenly decreases and remains low for two hundred years. Vitamin D production in darker skinned individuals falls off -- their fecundity rates fall dramatically due to general poor health (and indeed cancer). The entire world population becomes more sensitive to malaria due to this change in human population dynamics.

The ability of the populations in these two scenarios to survive a mutant and highly fatal malaria strain is completely dependent upon whether the sun turns up or down.

It doesn't take any more variance to 'evolve' than already clearly exists out there. Creationists think that once a species is defined it starts fresh -- all individuals are alike. And this view point is simply wrong. The variances that came to exist in the previous rounds of selection generally remain around and give a greater distribution of responses to selective pressure than would have originally existed.

Okay, so a basic premise of your explanation and this example is that a large diversity is already existent in the population. This is obviously very relevant today, with 7 billion humans spread out all over the world, with all kinds of inter-racial connections and so on, but in early periods of evolutionary history, wouldn't this have been much more limited? A small population in the thousands or tens of thousands, living in the same geographical area would not have that much genetic variation to draw on in the case of an extreme selective pressure being applied. As you go back further in time, the population and variation decreases, thus increasing an unreasonable dependence on fortuitous mutations and/or long periods of very favorable environmental conditions.

I guess what is hard for me to believe is that the earliest cell/organism populations, when subjected to the kind of selective pressures necessary to create such extreme diversity in such a (relatively) short period of time, would not have just all died.

Take the first cell, for example, that was capable of reproducing on its own. How many copies could it have made in peace before some environmental change came along that would wipe out the whole population except for those that had undergone a particular type of mutation? A million? A billion? Even more? And you would have to have at least one (theoretically, but accounting for chance accidents and such, probably a significant number) of the cell population having mutated in that time, to, by chance, match whatever environmental change came along. And this process had to happen again and again for thousands of years, with a series of selective environmental changes that have enough pressure to wipe out the old and bring in the new, but not "by mistake" wipe out the whole population, leaving the whole thing to start from the beginning again (which might not be possible because those organisms would have been changing the environment from what it originally was, in the meantime--CO2 production, etc.)

It's very hard for me to wrap my head around that kind of a scenario. Of course, the argument, "Well, it happened didn't it? There's no other way to explain it!" is a valid one and actually quite common in all fields of science. But it's not convincing from a philosophical standpoint, and I don't think it qualifies as "proof" in the logical/mathematical sense. The theory of evolution should thus be taken as other scientific theories are: a useful model for predicting the behavior of the world around us, and not fodder for a religious/philosophical existence of God debate.
post #117 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by meelash View Post

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. God is not matter and energy, he is the creator of matter. He would obviously not be an ordinary part of our universe, subject to "energy consumption" limitations and so on, if he were the creator of that universe.

He?

Does doG have a mind?

Is doG everywhere and nowhere and somewhere? What is existence wrt doG?

What/where/how is heaven, limbo, and hell?

Please define timeless eternity?

Is doG allowed to go to limbo or hell? If not, why not?

Specifically, how does doG interact with our physically real universe? And by what means does doG achieve said interactions?

doG circa 2,500 BC;



doG circa 33 AD (because we humans need to put a face to such an abstract concept as doG because it makes doG real (e. g. pharaohs));



doG circa 2,000 AD (because doG can appear to us humans in any form, after all doG is doG);

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #118 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by meelash View Post

Take the first cell, for example, that was capable of reproducing on its own. How many copies could it have made in peace before some environmental change came along that would wipe out the whole population except for those that had undergone a particular type of mutation? A million? A billion? Even more? And you would have to have at least one (theoretically, but accounting for chance accidents and such, probably a significant number) of the cell population having mutated in that time, to, by chance, match whatever environmental change came along. And this process had to happen again and again for thousands of years, with a series of selective environmental changes that have enough pressure to wipe out the old and bring in the new, but not "by mistake" wipe out the whole population, leaving the whole thing to start from the beginning again (which might not be possible because those organisms would have been changing the environment from what it originally was, in the meantime--CO2 production, etc.).

While I don't want to get into this debate for the millionth time—because I know there's no evidence that will be strong enough to convince you, since your problem with evolutionary theory isn't about empirical fact but your faith—you haven't quite understood the mechanism operating here.

An environmental event only has to happen once. The pressures of selection after this environmental event will continue to operate on the survivors. Mutations don't 'match' an event, they allow an organism to survive it or benefit from the 'unbalanced' new ecological landscape that arises after it.

Also, the only people making evolutionary theory 'fodder' for a debate about the existence of the Christian God are Christians. There are plenty of people who don't have any problem believing both that Jesus was the son of God and that the existence of evolution is about as difficult to deny as, say, the nose on your face.
post #119 of 146
A single mutation in a regulatory gene can have major effects. A single mutation may result in dozens or even hundreds of other genes being expressed more or less than "normal", expressed during the wrong time during development or expressed in the wrong cells. Mutations in regulatory genes can bring big change fast.


Many here don’t seem to appreciate that mutation happen all of the time. Mutations are often lethal and not passed on. Sometimes they are neutral and remain at very low frequencies in the population. Sometimes they give an advantage under specific conditions and increase in frequency as a result of selection. The shorter the generation time of the organism, the faster the process. The frequency of a selected- for gene can easily go from less than 1% to 99% overnight in a culture of bacteria put under the appropriate selection.
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #120 of 146
Mutations aren't often that lethal, but this fact is just nit picking.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Edge of Evolution