So then give me a straightforward answer. The question again (6th time) is...
dmz-
Is there any possible evidence that could convince you of the validity of evolution as a scientific theory? If so what?
Good luck getting a straight answer. A straight answer = commitment. If you commit you have to address your committal => no straight answer will be forthcoming. DMZ may hint at the asnwer then chastise you later for misinterpreting his/her response, but you're not going to get a simple answer.
[B]Honestly, people, anyone here involved with game or fisheries management of any kind? Pat answers of that nature might fly on TV but in the real-world solutions are a bit more elusive.
B]
Well DMZ, I got started with fisheries working on my old mans gillnetter on the Columbia River when I was 10. In high-school I started working on a purse seiner in Alaska every summer for the next 7 years until I graduated with a degree in zoology. Over the years I have worked off and on for the National Marine Fisheries Service collecting fisheries and marine mammal data on fishing boats from the Bering Sea to the Mexican Border. I calculate I have spent about 5 years of my life living and working at sea. I have dissected 42 marine mammals in the course of my work. I wouldn't say I was involved in management though. I don't like office work. I am the flunky they send out to collect the data in 30 foot seas and freezing weather so they can stay warm and toasty in Seattle. I prefer it that way. None of this particularly qualifies me to answer your question on baleen whales, but you are the one who asked.
I answered your question in a simple way because reading your writing here I can see you lack a fundamental understanding of biology. You write a lot of complicated sentences, but I find most of it incomprehensible. In fact I find most of the creationist literature, which I have in fact read a lot of, mostly incomprehensible too. Evolution, if you take the time to understand it with an open mind, makes much more sense than creationism.
Good. a thread about creationism. DMZ - never actually come across anyone who believed in creationism before. So I'm quite interested in hearing more of your arguments for creationism, rather than arguments against evolution.
A couple of queries about creationist thinking...
- if the world was created 6000 years ago, do you think there has been evolution since, or have species been static?
- am I right in thinking that fossils, whether of dinosaurs or Neanderthals, as seen as a 'test of faith'
should point out that I'm a hardcore geneticist. big fan of DNA. but am happy to consider and debate alternative points of view, even though it seems strange to me to relate the origins of the Earth to a literal reading of the Old Testament. (which as a history of a middle-eastern people, describing their experiences and how they understood the world several thousand years ago, makes perfect sense. several thousand years later, less so)
was at the Human Genome Organisation meeting in Berlin last month. strangely enough, didn't meet any creationists there.
So then give me a straightforward answer. The question again (6th time) is...
dmz-
Is there any possible evidence that could convince you of the validity of evolution as a scientific theory? If so what?
it is pretty clear that dmz isn't actually reading the posts, but rather scanning and then retorting with a variation of "there isn't enough time for evolution"
it is pretty clear that dmz isn't actually reading the posts, but rather scanning and then retorting with a variation of "there isn't enough time for evolution"
Well DMZ, I got started with fisheries working on my old mans gillnetter on the Columbia River when I was 10.....
Excellent---someone who has seen the elephant.
Then you know first hand the unpredicatbility in Fisheries managment---and how frustrating it is to hear F&G biologists give one opinion, and the commies trot in their guys and tell the opposite story.
Ah yes, can we get more studies? VERY frustrating.
It floors me to have to deal with that sort of uncertainty at the real-life level and then hear FAR OUT theorizing about millions of years ago whales just "got along" with figuring out how to use the baleen that mysteriously appeared in the mouths.
Not to mention NO ONE here on this fourum wants to tackle the genetic path, or populations it would take to fight the odds and arrive at a what we have today.
You should be able to answer this quesiton, what is the accepted incidence of information-adding mutations? There has to be a rate of change that can be quantified when you consider the transformations over time from one genus/spiecies to another. Since we have quantified the genomes of several species, you should be able to start seeing whether or not you have the time, or space for the populations involved, to make that transformation. Or what it would take in any case.
Funny, a lot of people have been saying the same thing to you.
You expect to ask and ask and ask, complain when you don't get answers, heap on objections with more questions when you do, and still won't answer anything yourself.
You're about a dozen questions behind at this point.
I propose that no one responds to dmz until he answers several questions himself, pretty damned thoroughly, with him also providing clarifications when asked to any (increasingly hypothetical) responses he might provide.
Waiting for this to happen will probably put this thread out of its misery.
You should be able to answer this quesiton, what is the accepted incidence of information-adding mutations? There has to be a rate of change that can be quantified when you consider the transformations over time from one genus/spiecies to another. Since we have quantified the genomes of several species, you should be able to start seeing whether or not you have the time, or space for the populations involved, to make that transformation. Or what it would take in any case.
A mechanism which is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, where a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations which change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances where this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors [Lang et al. 2000].
RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. [Zhang et al. 2002]
Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. [Brown et al. 1998]
That's interesting, but I'm already willing ---only for the sake of argument---to accept that information-adding mutations are incidental. There should be a pathway of getting from one species to another. Based on a rate of information-adding mutation incidence we should be able to match this up with the time it is "believed" to have taken.
Actually, falling for juvenile rehtoric techniques isn't habit forming. But then most of you guys are either in high school or fresh out of college---get a clue.
Actually, falling for juvenile rehtoric techniques isn't habit forming. But then most of you guys are either in high school or fresh out of college---get a clue.
Okay, but is there any possible evidence that could convince you of the validity of evolution as a scientific theory? If so what?
I'm not impressed by you either. Could you dodge the important question any less obviously?
I'll join in: Is there any possible evidence that could convince you of the validity of evolution as a scientific theory? If so what?
If you can't answer this question, consider your argument a complete failure and this thread ended.
I think this is very, very telling. The admistrator himself. How many of you tattled?
It should be patently obvious to a thinking person that the answer to this ongoing question is the very thing I am asking.
But you are all stung by the question---and resort to cheap games to avoid a direct, damaging assualt on your beliefs. I understand this isn't something any of you have been taught how to handle---academia has not kept it's house in order, and applied true scientific scrutiny to what evolution claims to be. But you should lose arguments with a little more class---maybe just admitting that you accept 99.9% of evolution on an irrational faith.
It's easy to "circle the wagons and dig" in at the University, or on National Geographic TV offeringsd where you don't have to answer hard questions; here on the Internet you should be prepared to be asked orginal questions that didn't end up on the cutting room floor, or went begging for a lack of funding.
Pathways between species, information-adding mutation incidence, times, rates of change while maintianing the healthiest, best-of-the-best creatures---all questions without any answers. How DARE I ask this--the nerve.
History will pass by those who will not adapt. ID is coming and none of you are ready. Tattling to the administrator will not help you.
Comments
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
So then give me a straightforward answer. The question again (6th time) is...
dmz-
Is there any possible evidence that could convince you of the validity of evolution as a scientific theory? If so what?
Good luck getting a straight answer. A straight answer = commitment. If you commit you have to address your committal => no straight answer will be forthcoming. DMZ may hint at the asnwer then chastise you later for misinterpreting his/her response, but you're not going to get a simple answer.
Originally posted by dmz
[B]Honestly, people, anyone here involved with game or fisheries management of any kind? Pat answers of that nature might fly on TV but in the real-world solutions are a bit more elusive.
B]
Well DMZ, I got started with fisheries working on my old mans gillnetter on the Columbia River when I was 10. In high-school I started working on a purse seiner in Alaska every summer for the next 7 years until I graduated with a degree in zoology. Over the years I have worked off and on for the National Marine Fisheries Service collecting fisheries and marine mammal data on fishing boats from the Bering Sea to the Mexican Border. I calculate I have spent about 5 years of my life living and working at sea. I have dissected 42 marine mammals in the course of my work. I wouldn't say I was involved in management though. I don't like office work. I am the flunky they send out to collect the data in 30 foot seas and freezing weather so they can stay warm and toasty in Seattle. I prefer it that way. None of this particularly qualifies me to answer your question on baleen whales, but you are the one who asked.
I answered your question in a simple way because reading your writing here I can see you lack a fundamental understanding of biology. You write a lot of complicated sentences, but I find most of it incomprehensible. In fact I find most of the creationist literature, which I have in fact read a lot of, mostly incomprehensible too. Evolution, if you take the time to understand it with an open mind, makes much more sense than creationism.
Hey, dmz, is there any evidence that would convince you that evolution is true?
A couple of queries about creationist thinking...
- if the world was created 6000 years ago, do you think there has been evolution since, or have species been static?
- am I right in thinking that fossils, whether of dinosaurs or Neanderthals, as seen as a 'test of faith'
should point out that I'm a hardcore geneticist. big fan of DNA. but am happy to consider and debate alternative points of view, even though it seems strange to me to relate the origins of the Earth to a literal reading of the Old Testament. (which as a history of a middle-eastern people, describing their experiences and how they understood the world several thousand years ago, makes perfect sense. several thousand years later, less so)
was at the Human Genome Organisation meeting in Berlin last month. strangely enough, didn't meet any creationists there.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
So then give me a straightforward answer. The question again (6th time) is...
dmz-
Is there any possible evidence that could convince you of the validity of evolution as a scientific theory? If so what?
it is pretty clear that dmz isn't actually reading the posts, but rather scanning and then retorting with a variation of "there isn't enough time for evolution"
Originally posted by progmac
it is pretty clear that dmz isn't actually reading the posts, but rather scanning and then retorting with a variation of "there isn't enough time for evolution"
there isn't enough time to read the posts
Originally posted by craiger77
Well DMZ, I got started with fisheries working on my old mans gillnetter on the Columbia River when I was 10.....
Excellent---someone who has seen the elephant.
Then you know first hand the unpredicatbility in Fisheries managment---and how frustrating it is to hear F&G biologists give one opinion, and the commies trot in their guys and tell the opposite story.
Ah yes, can we get more studies? VERY frustrating.
It floors me to have to deal with that sort of uncertainty at the real-life level and then hear FAR OUT theorizing about millions of years ago whales just "got along" with figuring out how to use the baleen that mysteriously appeared in the mouths.
Not to mention NO ONE here on this fourum wants to tackle the genetic path, or populations it would take to fight the odds and arrive at a what we have today.
Originally posted by brandnewfatboy
should point out that I'm a hardcore geneticist.
You should be able to answer this quesiton, what is the accepted incidence of information-adding mutations? There has to be a rate of change that can be quantified when you consider the transformations over time from one genus/spiecies to another. Since we have quantified the genomes of several species, you should be able to start seeing whether or not you have the time, or space for the populations involved, to make that transformation. Or what it would take in any case.
Originally posted by dmz
You should be able to answer this quesiton
Funny, a lot of people have been saying the same thing to you.
You expect to ask and ask and ask, complain when you don't get answers, heap on objections with more questions when you do, and still won't answer anything yourself.
You're about a dozen questions behind at this point.
I propose that no one responds to dmz until he answers several questions himself, pretty damned thoroughly, with him also providing clarifications when asked to any (increasingly hypothetical) responses he might provide.
Waiting for this to happen will probably put this thread out of its misery.
<...sounds of crickets chirping...>
Originally posted by dmz
You should be able to answer this quesiton, what is the accepted incidence of information-adding mutations? There has to be a rate of change that can be quantified when you consider the transformations over time from one genus/spiecies to another. Since we have quantified the genomes of several species, you should be able to start seeing whether or not you have the time, or space for the populations involved, to make that transformation. Or what it would take in any case.
We're apparently on chapter 9 now, folks.
Mutations Adding Information.
A mechanism which is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, where a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations which change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances where this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
- Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors [Lang et al. 2000].
- RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. [Zhang et al. 2002]
- Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. [Brown et al. 1998]
A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references to the biological literature.dmz-
Is there any possible evidence that could convince you of the validity of evolution as a scientific theory? If so what?
A: Dodge (like he did a while a go)
B: Say 'no'
or
C: Ask you the opposite question.
Originally posted by DiscoCow
Want 'information'? Here you go (from our good friend T.O.).
Mutations Adding Information.
That's interesting, but I'm already willing ---only for the sake of argument---to accept that information-adding mutations are incidental. There should be a pathway of getting from one species to another. Based on a rate of information-adding mutation incidence we should be able to match this up with the time it is "believed" to have taken.
Originally posted by DiscoCow
He will either
A: Dodge (like he did a while a go)
B: Say 'no'
or
C: Ask you the opposite question.
Actually, falling for juvenile rehtoric techniques isn't habit forming. But then most of you guys are either in high school or fresh out of college---get a clue.
Originally posted by dmz
Actually, falling for juvenile rehtoric techniques isn't habit forming. But then most of you guys are either in high school or fresh out of college---get a clue.
Okay, but is there any possible evidence that could convince you of the validity of evolution as a scientific theory? If so what?
Originally posted by dmz
I am not impressed, here guys. Couldn't you could run of out of ideas more gracfully?
I'm not impressed by you either. Could you dodge the important question any less obviously?
I'll join in: Is there any possible evidence that could convince you of the validity of evolution as a scientific theory? If so what?
If you can't answer this question, consider your argument a complete failure and this thread ended.
Originally posted by Brad
I'm not impressed by you either. Could you dodge the important question any less obviously?
I'll join in: Is there any possible evidence that could convince you of the validity of evolution as a scientific theory? If so what?
If you can't answer this question, consider your argument a complete failure and this thread ended.
I think this is very, very telling. The admistrator himself. How many of you tattled?
It should be patently obvious to a thinking person that the answer to this ongoing question is the very thing I am asking.
But you are all stung by the question---and resort to cheap games to avoid a direct, damaging assualt on your beliefs. I understand this isn't something any of you have been taught how to handle---academia has not kept it's house in order, and applied true scientific scrutiny to what evolution claims to be. But you should lose arguments with a little more class---maybe just admitting that you accept 99.9% of evolution on an irrational faith.
It's easy to "circle the wagons and dig" in at the University, or on National Geographic TV offeringsd where you don't have to answer hard questions; here on the Internet you should be prepared to be asked orginal questions that didn't end up on the cutting room floor, or went begging for a lack of funding.
Pathways between species, information-adding mutation incidence, times, rates of change while maintianing the healthiest, best-of-the-best creatures---all questions without any answers. How DARE I ask this--the nerve.
History will pass by those who will not adapt. ID is coming and none of you are ready. Tattling to the administrator will not help you.