Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 268 of total 268 in this topic |
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 06:51am PT
|
Ah, the holy books of our newest and daftest religion.
What larks.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 08:39am PT
|
My bookmark library grows.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 09:43am PT
|
Hey, thanks for that Ouch. He's my hero. A smart, rationale, and humble man. I recently re-read the Origin of Species (1859) and was blown away by how rationale and persuasive it is. In spite of the plethora of additional evidence for evolution since his time, I would contend all you need to do is read this book to grasp 95% of the theory as we know it today.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 09:59am PT
|
Uh, evidence?
You do know that it's never been observed, its mechanism is unknown and it's never been replicated in the lab, right?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 10:05am PT
|
Blight, you are a real fundamentalist. Go back and read Josh McDowell and Ravi Zacharias. That would make you good.
What about you given a single evidence that supports God?
edit: Thanks for the links Ouch! and LEB.
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 10:18am PT
|
I'm with eeyonkee.
I had read Origin of Species back in high school, but didn't go back to it until a year or two into my PhD in Ecology & Evolutionary biology. I was pretty blown away by how Darwin covered pretty much everything waaaaaaay back when.
Personally, I detest reading stuff online. Most papers, I'll print out - one sided, and try use the backs for scrap paper just to assuage my guilt. I print out my own stuff, too, for editing. Somehow it's just so much easier without all the scrolling, the flickering, and with a pen in hand.
Cute troll, Blight, if somewhat predictable and banal.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 10:23am PT
|
"Blight, you are a real fundamentalist. Go back and read Josh McDowell and Ravi Zacharias. That would make you good."
What about you given a single evidence that supports God?"
What on earth are you talking about?
Who said anything about God? And who are the people you mentioned? I'm not a creationist, if that's what you're getting at.
Oh, and no troll by the way, just facts: there really isn't any scientific evidence for the mechanism of evolution.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 10:35am PT
|
Blight, You are uninformed. Evolution is about as far from a religious belief as can be. And there are thousands of separate pieces of evidence for it. It is THE unifying concept in all of biology. My opinion is that people who do not "believe" in it are just plain ignorant.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 10:38am PT
|
"Uh, evidence?
You do know that it's never been observed, its mechanism is unknown and it's never been replicated in the lab, right?"
No dice blight! plenty of evidence and observations. Please address the following; drug ressistant bacteria, Breeds of dogs,cultivated roses, bioengeniered food, your appendex, cataloges of foramanifera evolution,, Homo erectus, monoterems, Archeopterix in solenhofen limestone (lizards with feathers), the ontoloigical developmentof the human fetus.
You guys always bury your head in the sand on these topics.
The onus is on YOU babe!
|
|
Maysho
climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 10:40am PT
|
I am right now working my way through a new book, "The Plausibility of Life-resolving Darwin's dilemma" by Mark Kirchner and John Gerhart. A good challenge for me as I have not really studied biology before. This was given to me by Anji, my son's older sister, (Chappy's daughter by the way) who is half way through a PHD in evolutionary biology at Harvard. She is studying gene expression in a favorite flower, the Columbine. We are all very proud of her as a Yosemite kid who is crankin academically. I am about to visit her and am trying to bone up on her world in evo-devo. Anyhow, the thesis of the book is to describe "facilitated variation" as filling in some key missing pieces from Darwin's theory. Seemingly, one motivation for this publication now is to solidly refute the "intellegent design" camp.
Peter
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 10:47am PT
|
Congrats to Anji, Maysho - phew. I could never get a handle on that evo-devo stuff... too much stuff involving things I can't really directly see for me. I'm always impressed by people studying it, regardless of where they are. I really think the future of a lot of things (for example, drugs?) lies in that sort of integration between genetics, evolution, etc. Always preferred the warm fuzzy stuff myself, of course (though to be fair I ended up studying cold slimy stuff in the Hudson River).
Blight - If "there's no evidence for evolution" isn't a troll, I don't know what is!
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 10:51am PT
|
In retrospect, I totally agree with you Aya, a troll...and I bit. Good posts by all of the non-trolls!
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 10:52am PT
|
And in restrospect, myself, I used the word "stuff" a lot. Oh well... time for another cup of coffee, I guess.
|
|
Maysho
climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 11:00am PT
|
Thanks Aya, maybe trolls evolved from cold slimey stuff in the Hudson River!
It seems like it won't be long before they can follow the evolution of gene expression in plants to target searches for effective compounds for drug development, improving greatly on the "shotgun" and more random plant testing they do today.
Peter
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 11:02am PT
|
"Please address the following; drug ressistant bacteria, Breeds of dogs,cultivated roses, bioengeniered food, your appendex"
I'll make it quick, I'm busy this afternoon:
Drug resistant bacteria are not evidence of evolution because the genetic material which enables them to adapt to their environment is already inside them. No new genetic material appears, and that is crucial to evolution.
Breeds of dogs did not evolve, we created them by selective breeding. Evolution is supposed to work by itself.
Cultivated roses? As above.
Bioengineered food? As above.
Your appendix is not vestigial, it's part of your lymphatic system.
Cataloges of foramanifera evolution? Fossils are not observations of evolution happening. Those animals died millions of years ago.
Homo Erectus? Show me observations of homo erectus turing into homo sapiens and I'll be happy. If you can't observe it happening, you have the problem I mentioned.
Monoterems? I take it you mean monotremes. What about them? Has someone seen them evolve all of a sudden?
Archeopterix? Again, so what? The last Archeopterix died millions of years ago and nobody has any evidence what it evolved from or what it evolved into. That's not evolution!
Last but not least, the human fetus does not evolve, it grows.
*sigh*
Alright, I'll tell you what. You seem confused (not to mention a bit uninformed). I'll lay it out for you.
Show me empirical evidence of any species acquiring, without any deliberate manipulation, a new organ or limb, and I'll be happy.
Now come on, that's what the theory of evolution says happened. So why would it be difficult to provide some simple evidence?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 11:12am PT
|
Darwin has no clear conception how the evolution is taking place, neither does he have any idea about whose evolution. He simply takes account of the body. A body never evolves.
It is the soul within the body, that evolves, transmigrates from one body to another
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 11:15am PT
|
Mmm: you don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.
|
|
the Fet
Knackered climber
A bivy sack in the secret campground
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 11:19am PT
|
Typically when dealing with someone who rejects evolution you aren't so much trying to convince them of evolution. You are battling their fear of death and their perceived place in the universe.
Edit: IMO of course.
|
|
pc
climber
East of Seattle
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 11:22am PT
|
Not quite true Werner.
A climber evolves calluses. A cowboy evolves bow legs. Someone in the sun alot evolves tanned skin...
The clues to evolution, short, medium, and long term seem well laid out.
Edit, Oops: PC's full if sh#t. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism
|
|
sketchyy
Trad climber
Vagrant
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 11:23am PT
|
Visit a museum of the civil war. The uniforms wouldnt fit the average 7th grader today.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 11:24am PT
|
Are you serious? You really think that callouses, bow legs and tanned skin evolve?
Wow.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 11:26am PT
|
"Visit a museum of the civil war. The uniforms wouldnt fit the average 7th grader today."
Again, that's not evidence of evolution. The genes which determine our height are already present, no new genetic material has emerged.
It might concievably be construed, at a stretch, to be indicative of natural selection, but that's a completely different process.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 11:30am PT
|
Darwin's knowledge.
He does not know about the soul. So the existence of soul, to understand this is the first education.
One who does not know this, he remains animal.
|
|
cjain
Mountain climber
Lake Forest, CA
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 11:31am PT
|
Regarding audio books, Librivox.org is a volunteer-run organization that records public domain books into audio. They have collection of free audio books or their web site for download.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 11:36am PT
|
Guess I'm feeling a little testy because I haven't been able to solve a programming problem that's been on my plate since yesterday.
Werner, respectfully, I absolutely believe that it's this kind of "magical thinking" that is the most dangerous thing facing our species and planet today. You have your own magical thinking, the fundamentalist Christians have theirs, the Muslims have theirs... all incompatible, of course. None of it can be proven or even considered rationale. You might as well believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
Blight, I don't even know where to start....
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 11:39am PT
|
All the proof is there.
The onus, burden of proof is on you ........
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 11:46am PT
|
Blight, I don't even know where to start....
Of course you don't. You've just seen a good number of beliefs you held without questioning them shot down and exposed as lies. That's difficult to accept.
Nevertheless, the challenge is right there: Show me empirical evidence of any species acquiring, without any deliberate manipulation, a new organ or limb, and I'll be happy.
It's what the theory of evolution you subscribe to says happens. So why not just demonstrate it? Or will you go with the age-old "time scales are too short" lie as your excuse?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 11:49am PT
|
ok Blight, who ever you are (you are an avatar)...
Show me empirical evidence of any species acquiring, without any deliberate manipulation, a new organ or limb, and I'll be happy.
Now come on, that's what the theory of evolution says happened. So why would it be difficult to provide some simple evidence?
Have you read Origin of the Species? it's goal is to provide a theory of the biological diversity of species, why are species, what is the definition and how do they come to be. First Darwin explains many emperical facts regarding species, their types, their relationships, the observation that species that existed in the past are now extinct, the variations due to "breeding," etc.
He then goes on to develop what we know today to be the Theory of Evolution, where these changes take place over a long time period, and are driven by a selection process responsive to environmental challenges.
The theory in its original statement does explain all of the observed biological facts, and provides a powerful scheme for understanding all living things.
Not bad.
In further development, the theory has become an even better explanation of observations, more nuanced as the complications of the biological world have been discovered.
The Theory of Evolution does everything you would want any theory to do, it provides predictions which are testable, it unifies a divergent set of emperical observations, it provides a foundation on which to build a scientific explanation of life.
What you are asking for is irrelevant, the theory more than meets the test of explaining the observations.
If you have evidence that the theory has predicted something which has not happened then I'd be interested in hearing about it... if you have another theory which can explain the emperical body of observation that would be interesting to hear also.
But if you are here to make a naive poke using the same old arguements, then you are wasting both your time and ours.
"No one alive today was alive when (Adam, Moses, Jesus, Mohamed, Buddha, Confuscious, Lao Tze, etc.) were, therefore, there is no direct evidence that they ever existed, it is all conjecture."
That sounds silly to me... just as silly as when you substitute anything else in the parenthesis that occured in the past.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 11:54am PT
|
Unfortunately it remains just that --
Theory
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 11:57am PT
|
Werner, there is nothing wrong with "theory"... theory provides a means to understand a thing, where the thing is imperfectly understood or described.
All our knowledge is provisional, as we do not have a perfect view of reality. It is the most amazing aspect of modern science that we have worked out a way of providing a quantitative method for explaining an incomplete set of information in such a manner as to provide understanding.
No reason to deprecate theory, no reason to worship it either...
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 11:58am PT
|
What you are asking for is irrelevant, the theory more than meets the test of explaining the observations.
What observations? Darwin's work I don't dispute. The mechanism of evolution as currently described, though? You'd have to be insane to accept it.
I fail to see how asking for evidence to support your assertions is irrelevant. That's how science works.
If you have evidence that the theory has predicted something which has not happened then I'd be interested in hearing about it
It's impossible to prove that something hasn't happened using science. More to the point, the onus is not on me to provide evidence that you're wrong. You're the one touting the wacko theory, you're supposed to prove that it's right.
... if you have another theory which can explain the emperical body of observation that would be interesting to hear also.
You haven't provided any of the evidence I asked for.
Be clear about this: the general outline of evolution as per Darwin, I think, is pretty solid and hard to argue with. I'm disputing the mechanism as currently understood.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 12:03pm PT
|
"....theory provides a means to understand a thing, where the thing is imperfectly understood or described."
So it is a defective proccess.
A sane person needs the absoult truth, summum bonum.
|
|
phoolish
Boulder climber
Athens, Ga.
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 12:15pm PT
|
Blight:
Evolutionary science is observational, like astronomy.
Get a basic understanding of the way the sciences work, and then you can talk about problems with theories.
For now, you're just blowing smoke that only fundamentalists who don't understand scientific processes will believe.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 12:18pm PT
|
Evolutionary science is observational, like astronomy.
Then show us your observations.
If you want us to believe that multicellular life forms grew from unicellular ones, show us it happening. If you want us to believe that species can develop new limbs and organs, show us it happening.
Refusing to provide evidence to back up your a*#ertions isn't science. And slinging accusations that I don't understand science when you're clearly unable to demonstrate just exactly where my ideas are wrong isn't either.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 12:23pm PT
|
Yes Blight, do not back down.
Vijnana or science is established truth.
You cannot make any change by experimental knowledge. It is already settled.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 12:28pm PT
|
As always Ed, your prose is lucid, to the point, and well thought out.
pc. I don't know if that was a troll or not (and I'm still not convinced that Blight is not just playing devil's advocate), but what you describe is most certainly not how evolution works. That sort of thinking, espoused most vocally by a Frenchman, Lamarck, was prevalent during Darwin's time and eventually became discredited in scientific circles.
|
|
pc
climber
East of Seattle
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 12:28pm PT
|
Blight ranted, "Are you serious? You really think that callouses, bow legs and tanned skin evolve? "
Call it what you like, adaptation, evolution, whatever. Werner stated that the body doesn't evolve and I gave him some examples of it doing just that.
Definition: Evolve, to develop by a process of evolution to a different adaptive state or condition.
Edit,
Eyonkee, I was not talking about evolution, I was talking about a micro scenario of adaptation. I'm not an expert, just trying to poke at Werner a little. I'll retract it completely if it's already been discredited as a starting point for evolution. Thanks. Back to music for me ;)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 12:38pm PT
|
Pc
Hahaha you can't poke at me, there's nothing to poke at.
You will fail ............
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 12:50pm PT
|
I am proof of evolution.
I was once cold and slimy in the Hudson River.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 12:57pm PT
|
Blight, you have a very flawed view of science...
"If you want us to believe that multicellular life forms grew from unicellular ones, show us it happening. If you want us to believe that species can develop new limbs and organs, show us it happening.
Refusing to provide evidence to back up your a*#ertions isn't science. And slinging accusations that I don't understand science when you're clearly unable to demonstrate just exactly where my ideas are wrong isn't either. "
While I believe at some point the process of multicelluar growth will be understood in detail, it is not an assertion of evolution that what exists must exist. That is, evolution provides a theory about how it all could exist, selection and herdity being important aspects of this. You would like to prove a positive, which is not what science is about.
An explanation (theory) makes predictions and can can be tested as to its consistency with observation.
Agreement with observation is does not prove the theory is correct.
Disagreement with the observation does usually "disprove" the theory, however.
So far, evolution is consistent with the body of observation. Can you show that multicelluar organisms did not evolve from single cell organisms? I don't think so.
By the way, two different theories consistent with all the observations can not be distinguished on the basis of the emperical evidence. It is only by pushing the theories to predict new phenomena, and then going and observing/experimenting to the point that one and/or the other fails in its prediction, that the two can be distinguished.
The power of the theory is that it leads you to knowledge that you did not previously have. The theory of evolution has been an important tool in understanding biology for at least a century. There is nothing else which comes close.
Not absolute truth, but it's not clear that absolute truth is important if you want to understand most everything you see around you.
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 02:31pm PT
|
*sigh*...
Why do people get sucked into these arguments? They're not even debates...
Has ANYONE'S mind ever been changed by an argument about evolution on the internet (or anywhere else for that matter)?
All of these points have been addressed and readdressed a million times (I'll bet I'm not even exaggerating). Energy much better spent on climbing, or sitting indoors working on a lab report and studying for an exam in my case, I suppose.
The people who don't believe in evolution tend to either a. not understand its actual mechanisms (natural selection being among them)or b. not WANT to understand them because they'd rather believe in creationism or "intelligent design" or whatever. Who cares?
I "believe" in evolution. Is it the end of the world if someone else doesn't?
I guess the answer to why engage in these things is because it's just an interesting flexing of intellectual muscle, or something, but to me it ceased to be interesting long ago. Is there anyone these days who gets involved in these discussions that HASN'T already had the same discussion with someone else before?
edit: very sorry... I realized that maybe that post was a little insulting to everyone involved in the discussion. Oh well, I didn't mean it that way... maybe as an eco/evo person I'm just more exposed to it and more bored with it than most.
When's it going to stop raining?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 02:38pm PT
|
"Not absolute truth, but it's not clear that absolute truth is important if you want to understand most everything you see around you."
So sorry, it is thee most important!
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 02:53pm PT
|
ok, I know I should probably drop this, but I really am intrigued by people who claim that evolution is bunk. I started a thread a while back prompted by my own father's doubts. Blight, I could (and may, later, when I have some time), debunk your assertions against evolution one by one, but I want to put the onus on you.
Its been estimated that over a trillion species have come into existence and gone extinct - I don't know what a reasonable estimate of species existing today is, but it's undoubtedly in the millions. My question is, what's a reasonable alternative to evolution...that God created each of these species as is? Does He just make new ones as the old ones go extinct? Why? And what about the fact that we can classify animals into phyla, orders, families, genera and species? These catagories are somewhat arbitrary, of course, but pretty much anyone will recognize that cheetahs, lions, tigers, and lynxes are more closely related to each other than to say, wolves and all of the mammals are more closely related to each other than to, say, snails. How did this obvious hierarchical relationship among animals happen?
There are no dinosaurs anymore, but certain bone structures in birds are very similar to the dinosaur fossils we find. Why? Coincidence?. And why did the dinosaurs (and the other trillions of species die out in the first place)? Much of Darwin's work involved documenting the nature and distribution of animals between islands and nearby continental areas. He found that locations nearer each other had more closely related (but still clearly different) species than locations farther apart.
Volcanic islands pop up out of the ocean from time to time. They obviously start off with no life, but ultimately harbor lots of species, almost none of which are identical to any other place on the planet.
I could go on and on. Evolution easily explains all of this. Give me another explanation that comes close.
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 03:02pm PT
|
I believe that birds are dinosaurs. And reptiles, for that matter.
Birds are awesome.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 03:10pm PT
|
Evolution is accepted, but not Darwin's theory.
It is confirmed in Padma Purana that the species of life evolved from aquatics to plants, vegetables, trees; thereafter insects, reptiles, flies, birds, then beasts, and then human kind. This is the gradual process of evolution of species of life.
|
|
Maysho
climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 03:12pm PT
|
I never understand why on this topic religion and science are incompatible. Not being religious in the classic sense, I still think/feel that nature is miraculous. It is a miracle that an ancestor of bacteria appeared on this piece of rock 3 billion years ago, and that there are bio-chemical processess that were conserved and carry through all life forms today. I appreciate, (from a distance), the Catholic Church view that "god" started it all and accept evolution as the mechanism for the work to continue, or the Talmudic scholars who view biblical time as "relative" making room for modern science and still fitting in their view of "the beginning".
Being awestruck by nature, and always curious to learn more, is all the faith I need.
Peter
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 03:19pm PT
|
Well said Maysho. Werner, what's the difference? And why should we believe some ancient text written by persons who thought the earth was flat and was the center of the Universe?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 03:20pm PT
|
Werner, I am too humble to aspire to learning "absolute truth" and perhaps too skeptical of my own abilities to recognize it, thus I do not seek it.
Aya, my belief in science is important to me, but once we are having a scientific arguement, as I believe Blight started, it is important to conduct the argument in a scientific manner. Science is not a democracy, so it is important to hear divergent views and explanations. However, those proposing such views must do so within the strictures of scientific discourse. They cannot redefine science. The authority of the definition of science is obtained by the success of science in explaining the world around us. That is why it is so important to defend it from those who would misunderstand it intentionally to advance non-science agendas.
I also believe it is possible to believe in religion and science simultaneously, however being consistent in each practice may pose some interesting difficulties. I for one have choosen one, science. It fulfils my needs.
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 03:41pm PT
|
Hm...
Did Blight bring up religion at all?
I'm not sure of its relevence to this discussion, per se.
edit: oh, Werner did.
And yes: unfortunately when arguing pro/con evolution, a lack of understanding of science makes communication difficult. But it's very difficult to address everything in a back and forth like this (not saying by any means you shouldn't try - it's no skin off my back, of course!) However, it may be more fruitful to first address the issues what basic science consists of, and proceed from there.
I'm convinced that it's all one big misunderstanding... if people only understood, there'd be no argument!
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 09:29pm PT
|
Aya, I also believe that birds Are dinosaurs, but not reptiles. -I don't think dinosaurs are (were) reptiles, but are related through a common ancestor, not unlike reptiles and amphibians.
And to at large, what Ed said about scientific rigor, don't come on the field without the equipment.
also
¿Blight= Jody?
-has either/both Read origin of species?
And also, to agree with that guy who seems to have gone extinct; I think the serial extinctions over history are most likely along the lines of polarity shifts/orbit shifts etc. the extinctions and lowering populations leading to the cretacious / cenozoic boundary make the comet idea a bit too deus ex machina to be likely.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 10:27pm PT
|
Hey?
Where did everybody go? hahahahaha
Light weights ..... hehehe
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 10:32pm PT
|
Nobody left but us dinosaurs. har
|
|
Maysho
climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 11:05pm PT
|
Just sittin here, sippin a beer, trying to evolve.
Peter
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 11:17pm PT
|
Jay, I guess I like making the class reptilia monophyletic and throwing the birds in there with them.
They should go in the subclass archosauria, along with crocodiles (and dinosaurs)
Here're the best pictures I could find online:
And one showing the birds-are-not-reptiles paraphyly (they seem to ignore dinosaurs)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2006 - 11:29pm PT
|
OK .....
Darwin he does not know, he has no perfect knowledge, and he's cheating. Cheater. He does not know.
The soul, from the monkey's body is coming to human body.
Not that the monkey's body is changing into human body.
Evolution of matter. Matter cannot evolve. That is not possible.
But evolution of life, life is the origin of matter. Evolution is not of the matter, but of the life.
|
|
Jello
Social climber
No Ut
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2006 - 12:01am PT
|
OK Werner, I get what you're saying. Evolution is a scientific reality, but the cause of evolution is spiritual, not material. Ties it all together. None of us is entirely wrong. And even your explanation may be improved upon, and therefore is not, most probably, absolute truth.
EDIT: The soul, requiring greater expression/earthly experience than monkey body/mind/earthly reality allows, creates a cosmic vacuum that is filled by the emergence of human existence...evolution.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2006 - 12:55am PT
|
Nice Aya, I need to search. There was one phylogenetic tree (I'm guessing Bakker)that put the birds and dinos on the same path in a way that made non reptilean sense to me, I'll be looking. Interesting placement of turtles and croc's; I think what we think of as reptiles, today, are actually a pretty diverse bunch.
Maysho, of course, is a case of punctuated equilibrium. Seems like yesterday, thirteen years old #1 first generation friend in his teeth, leading Crimson Cringe. Some details may be specious due to lack of rigor in recording.
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2006 - 01:03am PT
|
Jay - I am honestly not that familiar with all of Bakker's work, but I aquick flip through "The Dinosaur Heresies" didn't really turn up anything. I'm not disagreeing with you by any means, though - reptilia, dinosauria, archosauria, aves, etc. etc. all seem to be somewhat fuzzy.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2006 - 01:40am PT
|
Aya I don't have the books where I am now, might not even be Bakker, but I will find and post! .. about the time we will have all forgotten about this...
I see this more as comparing notes, than agreeing or diagreeing.
|
|
Maysho
climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2006 - 03:58am PT
|
Wow, woke up off the couch to wrap my mind around "punctuated equilibrium"?
thanks, Jaybro, I think! Was 16 then, but looked 11.
Look me up next time you come up to Donner to climb or skate ski!
cheers,
Peter
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2006 - 07:51am PT
|
Thanks Jay.
Bakker, reminds me when I saw Jurassic Park II in the theather. I burst out laughing when the character that was clearly supposed to be Bob Bakker was eaten by the t-rex. I got a "wtf was so funny?" look or two...
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2006 - 09:30am PT
|
So instead of waking up in the Black Canyon this morning - the plan up 'til late yesterday, I'm here, in Golden, and it's snowing outside. Well, at least there's this thread...
That phylogenetic tree reminded of something, and Maysho actually said it - everything that is alive today and everything that ever lived at all - we're all from a single tree of life. To me, that's the biggest thing you can take away from Darwin's theory of evolution. There's more to the theory, of course, but the fact that every animal and plant alive today are cousins (like Jello and George), to me, is very profound.
As to the compatibility of the science to religious beliefs, I agree, as suggested by Maysho, that they are not inconsistent - but there are some parameters here. My point is that we do not call on arbitrary supernatural intevention to explain how we breathe, how the earth revolves around the sun, or how babies develop from fetuses. Why does the anti-evolution crowd feel differently about the origin of species. What's the big problem with having evolved from earlier life forms. It's a simple and beautiful idea. If you take man out of the mix, or as soon as you start calling on special, supernatural intervention to explain one species, this whole beautiful edifice crumbles. And you're left with something like "God creates species at his own whim".
Back to the thread topic. Although I like the works of Stephen Jay Gould (and I'm currently trying to get through his opus, 'The Structure of Evolutionary Theory', I'd rather read Darwin. After Darwin himself, I like reading Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is amazing in his ability to convey difficult evolutionary concepts.
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2006 - 09:41am PT
|
eeyonkee, I'm with you. Personally, I'm an aetheist, but I've never quite understood why some people are so devoutly anti-evolution (perhaps that's the reason why). But to my mind, it seems that it would be infinitely more satisfying to believe that God created evolution to yield the diversity of animals we have today - the beautiful, cruel, whatever-other-adjective-you-like world. But maybe that's why I'm an aetheist. We shouldn't really confuse not-accepting-of-evolution and religious, also; the two are not interchangeable. Either way, it's astounding to me that such an ultimately simple process can yield such profound results.
On a related note, a couple of months ago I saw the Darwin exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History here in NYC. It was interesting to see some of the original notes that Darwin took, but I seem to recall that I was overall somewhat underwhelmed.
eeyonkee, have you given Ernst Mayr a go? For example, Evolution and the Diversity of Life. It's very accessible, easy to read and quite comprehensive and interesting - I'd heartily recommend it if you're looking for books to read on evolution!
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2006 - 10:05am PT
|
Raymond, I just read that link from Dawkins - great stuff! Dawkins DOES have a way of 'cutting to the chase'. And thanks for the recommndation on Ernst Mayr, Aya. I've heard of him, but have not read him.
By the way, my interest in evolution is because it's so profound and extremely interesting. The anti-evolution crowd is always talking about how even proponents of evolution can't agree on some things. Well, duh! Life, it's origins, and how it all works is kind of a complicated thing. That doesn't, by any means, mean that it's so complicated that you have to throw up your hands and say this cannot be understood without throwing supernatural arguments in the mix.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2006 - 12:33pm PT
|
Yeah, I'm with you guys I don't get the indignation. What's with the gleefeull decleration that the Great unconformity, disproves science, and proves the earth 6k years, for instance.. The religous and scientific realms don't compete, they are seperate shperes.
Dawkins is great haven't read Mayr.
I saw an interview with bakker once where he said, "I got to get eaten in that second movie!"
You know, it seems like, from a certain viewpoint, you take the interelatedness stuff the onk mentions as evidence Of the likelyhood of god.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2006 - 01:05pm PT
|
"is a variant of an argument from ignorance"
&
""Because science can't figure out exactly how species change, it must be God who causes it to happen." (See, for example, Intelligent Design)"
why this need?
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2006 - 01:19pm PT
|
Poor Blight. We argued this for months in the days of Jody. feel free to reread. What was it, over 700 posts in three topics by the end?
What is it you are afraid of, Blight? Death, monkeys, or images of your rotting corpse getting eaten by bugs? Or maybe you are secretly afraid you have no soul? You do live in California (probably) afterall.
xoxo
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2006 - 01:30pm PT
|
Blight is correct in stating that the modern scientific processes is defective.
THEY DO NOT KNOW ULTIMATELY!
ALL mental speculators and theorists.
It's not a popular platform to say this, they (modern science will try to kill this consciousness). To bad.
It will never die .........
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2006 - 03:40pm PT
|
I see this more like when you once posted, "there is a place for the mechanic" or similar, Werner, a while back. Still don't see the need for conflict in this.
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Salt Lake
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2006 - 02:15am PT
|
This is what I love most about evolution, friends: My dad's ice ax had a steel
head, over 2 lbs.--my ice ax is "aircraft aluminum" about 8 ounces--If, someday,
I'm lucky enough to have children, their ice axes will surely be titanium.
But hey, Rokjox, what's this about women prefering men with less simian
hair? Most of my heroes were hairy guys!
It's terrible to feel out of sync with the sacred tenets of Darwin.
I guess that means no children, and no titanium ice-axes!
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2006 - 11:46am PT
|
Richard Dawkins...on the Colbert Report? No way! I'm going to wait for my girlfriend to get up for this one. Other good Dawkins books; The Blind Watchmaker, the Selfish Gene, and River of Eden (or something like that).
On one hand, it's too bad that Dawkins is such a vocal anti-religious guy, in that he undoubtedly turns off science-embracing religious types. His insights and explanations of how evolution works are just top-notch. Personally, I'm interested in the science.
On the other hand, his arguments against religion are so cogent. In that link provided by raymond, he states how incredulous it is to him that a scientist could reject all of his training and the evidence he sees with his own eyes and instead take the leap of faith that some old texts (the old testament) documenting the local creation myths of a camel-herding people, are correct. I copied a paragraph from this below.
Whatever the underlying explanation, this example suggests a fascinating, if pessimistic, conclusion about human psychology. It implies that there is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing, against any amount of contrary evidence. Depending upon how many Kurt Wises are out there, it could mean that we are completely wasting our time arguing the case and presenting the evidence for evolution. We have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationism’s most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference.
To Aya's contention that nobody ever persuades the other side in debates like this, sadly, he's probably correct. But this is not just about flexing intellectual muscles. We can't just give in, here. The magical thinking that is so prevalent in the world today IS something to be afraid about.
Werner, that absolute truth stuff that you're always talking about - let me tell you, it scares me right to the bone. Not your's in particular, of course. But, that's the same kind of thinking that the suicide terrorist has. They've just read a different book (written by ancient people who had all sorts of misguided ideas on how the world works).
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2006 - 11:52am PT
|
This month's WIRED magazine's cover story is about "the crusade" against religion. Pretty weird choice of term, but a good read. Dawkins and a few other rational naturalist atheists are profiled and interviewed.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2006 - 12:23pm PT
|
How can absolute truth be ancient, misguided? Impossible!
Absolute truth has to be true eternally, past, present, and future.
Always true, free from imperfection; complete; perfect!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2006 - 12:28pm PT
|
I think that the issue is to remove the "supernatural," which is a different aspect of the debate that religion vs. science. To some this is an even more controversial issue, as it leaves little room for what is assumed to be "common" parts of human experience; now if only we knew what that was...
I'll read the Wired article at some point to see what their spin is...
|
|
Rick A
climber
Boulder, Colorado
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2006 - 12:50pm PT
|
Greg and RP-I had not heard of Dawkins until this thread. Thanks for the recomendation. I noticed his recent book, "The God Delusion" is the subject of a long and mildly critical review on the first page of the NY times book review today.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2006 - 01:39pm PT
|
remove the "supernatural,"
Yes this is the root of modern science, no soul.
All material, just duality. Dry and lifeless.
|
|
creetur
climber
CA
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2006 - 01:40pm PT
|
i don't see anything wrong with magical thinking if it is secularized. call it mythopoesis or fascination--curiosity, maybe--and you have one of the foundational creative forces in human culture. interesting to think that the idea of "enchantment" is itself a result of human evolution.
the frightening thing is the need some people, many people, seem to have to savagely root out all scientific thinking and *replace* it with sacred beliefs. that tension is the one worth addressing--neither seems to me essentially dangerous when it stays within its epistemological sphere.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2006 - 02:20pm PT
|
Absolute truth is absolute truth. The problem is in the perception and then description of same. A lot of magical thinking is poetry, metaphors to help grasp the seemingly unknowable.
I don't think there was a historic Jesus as presented in the bible. There was propably someone with similar enough name with some of the classic 'facts' more or less true to start something around. 'He' became the glue around which to plaster a lot of well meaning and often worthwhile stories, notions, and 'laws'. that he did not exist as presented, in no ways diminshes 'his' importance. There are worse role models.
It ain't science, though.
I don't think the writers of the various conflicting gospels (only a few of which fit the mold 'they' selected for the agenda peice known as the bible) had any idea that they would be taken as literal history, that is so beside the point.
Science is an attempt to get the facts more or less in order and figure out the mechanisms, it is ideally with out 'shoulds' except in a predictive sense.
It stumbles along, correcting it's mistakes; "o yeah that inheritnece of acquirred characteristics, and spontaneous generation stuff? forget that, we were wrong, blame Lamarck and Cuvier(?), though using that helped us think in a way that helped us come up with some other stuff, that we are further refining."
Religon (and philosphy's) realm is more, what is good? what is the right thing to do? Why do it? I know that was simplistic but purpusly so, to indicate the boundaries of the arenas.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2006 - 03:14pm PT
|
Rick. Our NY Times finally arrived. "Mildly critical" or maybe a touch more than mildly is an apt description. I was a little disappointed, but what can you expect. Dawkins will always be better at describing evolutionary science than debunking religion...I'm definitely going to read it, though.
creetur, I suppose I'm being a little provocative with the being scared by people who absolutely believe in things that cannot be known bit. I'm naturally pretty much a live and let live kind of guy. But you have to make a stand when, people in positions of power vocally espouse certain beliefs. Regardless of how much somebody might want to "save my soul" I don't want a person in a position of authority in America who thinks that I'm going to hell because I don't believe the same thing that he/she believes in. I would contend that that, possibly well-meaning individual, is a nutball. And this is the view of most fundamentalist Christians. Obviously, it's all an order of magnitude worse in theocratic states like Iran.
Jaybro. I think religion should be underneath the larger umbrella of ethics...not above it or on equal ground with it. If the tenets of the religion are not compatible with helping out the human condition, then throw 'em out!
Awright, I've monopolized this thread more than I should have. I've had my say. Let me just end with how I began, Darwin should be the hero of every rationale human being. It'll be reason and rationale thinking, not adherence to this or that religious belief, that will ultimately allow humans to survive and make for a better world.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
boulder, co.
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2006 - 03:34pm PT
|
Blight kept insisting to be shown visual proof of a new gene creation or a spontaneous generation of a new appendage. That is not what "evolution" is really about. Where as there have been deformaties that could be interpreted as spontaneous limb growth. Evolution is really just successfull adaptations over the long haul to attempt on going survival.
Thus I would contend that every thing "evolves". From consciousness to the cosmos all is a state of on going changing and rearranging. The planet we live on is always in change. Even to the subatomic level evolution is occuring. There is no absolute truths because there are no absolutes. Truth is transitory and lasts only as long as the conditions that fostered it. That could be a generation or a millenium or a great deal longer. The very material of matter is never the same. When you plant 'Granny' in the back yard in a box built of wood fertilized by the remains of 'Great Grand Dad' rest assured, while quaffing an essence of Attila that your own mortal remains will probably end up in the core of a Star some day. The difficulty for observers like us who are conditioned to 60mph travel and 15sec sound bites is that it just goes sooo slow. By comparision glaciers move with super charged dragster speed. We are also inherently arrogant enough to think we should know the answers to questions that will inevitably be irrelevant. But the search is what counts. The process of observation and investigation and the dissmissal of falsehoods. They are important as a journey because we can answer questions along the way that do enhance our own continued survival. Answers that while transitory do increase our awareness and understanding. The 'scientific process' does not prove "truths" it diss-proves "truths". Theories are models to explain observations and as such Darwin's has stood the test of time better than most. Even under the skeptical spot light of the 'scientific process'.
|
|
no_one
Social climber
Hurricane, Utah
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2006 - 06:47pm PT
|
I can't believe I just read that whole thing!
Some well thought out opinions!
My opinion however is based on a life of brain washing and constant indocternalization. So for what it's worth, here it is......
Science is awsome! I love the Discovery channel! But, using science to disprove God! Come on! Science is just the persuit to understand God.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 04:37am PT
|
Blight kept insisting to be shown visual proof of a new gene creation or a spontaneous generation of a new appendage. That is not what "evolution" is really about. Where as there have been deformaties that could be interpreted as spontaneous limb growth. Evolution is really just successfull adaptations over the long haul to attempt on going survival.
If you believe evolution caused species with no legs to turn into species with legs, you believe that at some point, new limbs must have spontaneously appeared.
All I'm saying is, why not demonstrate this process? Or replicate it in a lab?
And if you can't, then why are you believing in a theory which has no experimental evidence to support it?
It's a simple request guys. Instead of getting all angry amd upset and shouting and calling names, just show us all the rock-solid, cast-iron, totally convincing evidece which leads you to believe unconditionally that species with no legs can turn into species with legs, or something analogous.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 08:30am PT
|
I meant that last post was my second-to-last...
I just want to say READ that link to Wired Magazine in cintune's last post. That's a much better (less biased in my opinion) treatment of what Dawkins is all about. OK, I'll admit it...I'm a Dawkinsphile. And mothers, don't let your babies read Darwin...it may inevitably lead them down the path of no return.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 09:26am PT
|
Cintune, your first article comes in two parts:
A part about deliberately modifying the genes of existing animals to make them look like other animals.
And a part about how some animals already look a bit like other animals.
Neither of these is anything even close to evidence of a new limb or organ evolving spontaneously.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 09:28am PT
|
"mothers, don't let your babies read Darwin...it may inevitably lead them down the path of no return"
Ha! Ha! Ha!
Almost everyone knows the basics of darwin's theory. Yet less than half a percent of the world's population is atheist.
You'll have to excuse me if I don't get too overwhelmed by the power of his work to convince and motivate.
AHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 09:43am PT
|
Settle down there, Blighty. Limbs don't evolve spontaneously, but they do evolve. Or, as in the case of marine mammals, devolve. But if the science is really beyond your comprehension, feel free to stick with whatever meets your emotional needs.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 09:58am PT
|
Blight, you know Darwin wasn't an atheist either, he was an angelican. (I know, he's on some of the lists)
ps I know, that can't be proven because it happened before our time, like the forams, that are still around today in everchanging forms, new species in the course of my own lifetime.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 10:01am PT
|
Yes, that's right Raymond, the first link you posted says:
"Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: This is a highly disparate group and not a single religion. Although atheists are a small subset of this grouping, this category is not synonymous with atheism. People who specify atheism as their religious preference actually make up less than one-half of one percent of the population in many countries where much large numbers claim no religious preference"
Yawn all you like.
That or actually read your own cources.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 10:06am PT
|
Blight, why dont you read my third source? To many numbers maybe?
Blight, I understand that this is difficult for you but this is taken from my first source.
"who specify atheism as their religious preference actually make up less than one-half of one percent of the population in many countries where much large numbers claim no religious preference, such as the United States (13.2% nonreligious according to ARIS study of 2001) and Australia (15% nonreligious)."
This is not the same as saying that the numbers of atheist is less than 0.5 % in the world.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 10:10am PT
|
Limbs don't evolve spontaneously, but they do evolve.
Really?
Then why don't you just show experimental evidence of it happening?
And if you don't have experimental evidence, then how do you know that "they do evolve"?
Do you feel that asking you to back up your claims with evidence is unreasonable in some way?
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 10:12am PT
|
This is not the same as saying that the numbers of atheist is less than 0.5 % in the world.
Um, yes it is actually.
If the proportion of actual atheists is 0.5% in countries where a lot of people express no religious preference, then that number will be even smaller in countries where a lot of people do express religious preference.
Therefore the world total will logically be below 0.5%.
Oh, and I did read your third link. In common with many sources they combine "Persons professing atheism, skepticism, disbelief, or irreligion, including antireligious (opposed to all religion)" under the general heading "atheist".
The reason for this is simple: there are so atheists that they're very hard to find let alone count. This is why your first source has that special note about them.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 10:17am PT
|
"then that number will be even smaller in countries where a lot of people do express religious preference."
How do you know that?
Most europeian countries are more secularised than the US. More than 5 % is atheist in europe according to my third reference.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 10:23am PT
|
"How do you know that? "
Well, because atheism is non-religious.
So if a country with a lot of non-religious people has 0.5% atheists, then a country with fewer non-religious people will have fewer atheists.
Obviously.
More than 5 % is atheist in europe according to my third reference.
Again, read the note from your first reference. What they group as "atheists" is a collection of various beliefs, not just atheists. Only the first source actually gives a figure for atheists as opposed to "atheists plus a bunch of others to bulk up the numbers to measurable levels".
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 10:34am PT
|
"Well, because atheism is non-religious.
So if a country with a lot of non-religious people has 0.5% atheists, then a country with fewer non-religious people will have fewer atheists."
Are you seriously saying that The two most non religous countries are USA and Australia?
Your sentence also implies that the percentage of atheist to non religous people are the same in all countries. That is definitely not true.
But I remember that you have a big problem with logic.
I dont know the clear definition of atheist that you use and I dont care either. The important number is the people that dont belive in a God. You might be correct that less than 0.5 % is atheists according to you definition but you haven't give any reference for that claim.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 10:41am PT
|
"You might be correct that less than 0.5 % is atheists according to you definition but you haven't give any reference for that claim"
Raymond, it's in YOUR first source, in the notes below the figures.
"I dont know the clear definition of atheist that you use and I dont care either"
It's not my definition, it's the definition provide the source YOU posted.
This page: http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
"Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: This is a highly disparate group and not a single religion. Although atheists are a small subset of this grouping, this category is not synonymous with atheism. People who specify atheism as their religious preference actually make up less than one-half of one percent of the population in many countries where much large numbers claim no religious preference, such as the United States (13.2% nonreligious according to ARIS study of 2001) and Australia (15% nonreligious)".
Please read your own source before going any further, Raymond.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 10:49am PT
|
Blight, the sentence you showed from my first reference. Doesn't imply 0. 5% without you making incorrect assumptions.
My third reference also doesn't show your 0.5 %
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 10:59am PT
|
Blight, the sentence you showed from my first reference. Doesn't imply 0. 5% without you making incorrect assumptions.
There's nothing unsafe about the assumption that countries with more religious people will have fewer atheists, in fact it follows logically.
You don't know that the assumption is incorrect because you've provided exactly ZERO evidence to the countrary; in fact your own source supports the 0.5% figure.
Your third reference doesn't have a figure for atheists alone.
It only has a combined figure for nonreligious groups (atheism, skepticism, disbelief, or irreligion, including antireligious (opposed to all religion))
Again, please read your own source to confirm this before posting more, the definition is immmediately below the figures in bold type.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 11:08am PT
|
"There's nothing unsafe about the assumption that countries with more religious people will have fewer atheists, in fact it follows logically."
In what logic? The logic of blight? Does it follows in the same way as the percent of protestant of all cristians is the same in all countries? O that might not be true.
Those countries would have less non religous people. You say that atheist and non reliogous is not the same.
"You don't know that the assumption is incorrect because you've provided exactly ZERO evidence to the countrary; in fact your own source supports the 0.5% figure."
No, it doesn't as explained above.
also from the reference
"For the year 2000, David B. Barrett (Encyclopedia Britannica and World Christian Encyclopedia, 2001) classified 150,089,508 (2.5% of world's population) as atheists"
"Your third reference doesn't have a figure for atheists alone.
It only has a combined figure for nonreligious groups (atheism, skepticism, disbelief, or irreligion, including antireligious (opposed to all religion))
Again, please read your own source to confirm this before posting more, the definition is immmediately below the figures in bold type. "
Correct, so we dont know.
You make a claim without backing it up. I tried to disprove your claim and may have done a bad job with that as my references was not clear cut. The problem is still that you haven't backed up anyting at all.
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 11:10am PT
|
The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb
Neil H. Shubin1, Edward B. Daeschler2 and Farish A. Jenkins, Jr3
Top of page
Abstract
Wrists, ankles and digits distinguish tetrapod limbs from fins, but direct evidence on the origin of these features has been unavailable. Here we describe the pectoral appendage of a member of the sister group of tetrapods, Tiktaalik roseae, which is morphologically and functionally transitional between a fin and a limb. The expanded array of distal endochondral bones and synovial joints in the fin of Tiktaalik is similar to the distal limb pattern of basal tetrapods. The fin of Tiktaalik was capable of a range of postures, including a limb-like substrate-supported stance in which the shoulder and elbow were flexed and the distal skeleton extended. The origin of limbs probably involved the elaboration and proliferation of features already present in the fins of fish such as Tiktaalik.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/abs/nature04637.html
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 11:13am PT
|
Laurie Anderson, "Langue d'Amour"
Let's see. Uh, it was on an island. And there was a snake.
And this snake had legs. And he could walk all around the island.
Yes. That's true. A snake with legs.
And the man and the woman were on the island too.
And they were not very smart.
But they were happy as clams. Yes.
Let's see. Uh... then one evening the snake was walking about
in the garden and he was talking to himself and he saw the woman
and they started to talk. And they became friends.
Very good friends.
And the woman liked the snake very much. Because when he
talked, he made little noises with his tongue, and his long tongue
was lightly licking about his lips.
Like there was a little fire inside his mouth and the flame
would come dancing out of his mouth.
And the woman liked this very much.
And after that, she was bored with the man.
Because no matter what happened,
he was always as happy as a clam.
What did the snake say? Yes! What was he saying?
OK. I will tell you.
The snake told her things about the world. He told her about
the time there was a big typhoon on the island
and all the sharks came out of the water. Yes.
They came out of the water and they walked right into your house
with their big white teeth.
And the woman heard these things. And she was in love.
And the man came out and said: We have to go now!
And the woman did not want to go. Because she was a hothead.
Because she was a woman in love.
Anyway, we got into their boat and left the island.
But they never stayed anywhere very long.
Because the woman was restless. She was a hothead.
She was a woman in love.
And this is not a story my people tell.
It is something I know myself.
And when I do my job, I am thinking about these things.
Because when I do my job, that is what I think about.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 11:28am PT
|
the theory of evolution requires that the changes to organisms take place over a very long time.
In Darwin's summary (I take the latest, 6th edition, see link in the intial post of this thread) he explores the objections to his theory of evolution. It is a good read and addresses most of the reasonable objections, Blight is being obtuse to demand to see a camel evolve from a hare, it is not what Darwin claims is happening, e.g.:
"With respect to existing forms, we should remember that we have no right to expect (excepting in rare cases) to discover directly connecting links between them, but only between each and some extinct and supplanted form. Even on a wide area, which has during a long period remained continuous, and of which the climatic and other conditions of life change insensibly in proceeding from a district occupied by one species into another district occupied by a closely allied species, we have no just right to expect often to find intermediate varieties in the intermediate zones. For we have reason to believe that only a few species of a genus ever undergo change; the other species becoming utterly extinct and leaving no modified progeny."
On page 408, Darwin realizes that his theory requires that the history of the earth, as known in his time, was incompatable with the time scales required for evolution to take place:
"With respect to the absence of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian formation, I can recur only to the hypothesis given in the tenth chapter; namely, that though our continents and oceans have endured for an enormous period in nearly their present relative positions, we have no reason to assume that this has always been the case; consequently formations much older than any now known may lie buried beneath the great oceans. With respect to the lapse of time not having been sufficient since our planet was consolidated for the assumed amount of organic change, and this objection, as urged by Sir William Thompson , is probably one of the gravest as yet advanced, I can only say, firstly, that we do not know at what rate species change as measured by years, and secondly, that many philosophers are not as yet willing to admit that we know enough of the constitution of the universe and of the interior of our globe to speculate with safety on its past duration."
I take this to be one of the great predictions of his theory, that the earth was much older than thought at the time. He was right! And he also predicted that the geography of the earth was not static... he was right.
On the issue of human breeding vs. natural variation, he has a long discussion:
"There is no reason why the principles which have acted so efficiently under domestication should not have acted under nature."
Blight should study the Summary... in it Darwin discusses much, e.g. :"But the chief cause of our natural unwillingness to admit that one species has given birth to other and distinct species, is that we are always slow in admitting great changes of which we do not see the steps."
on rapid and spontaneous variation:
"He who believes that some ancient form was transformed suddenly through an internal force or tendency into, for instance, one furnished with wings, will be almost compelled to assume, in opposition to all analogy, that many individuals varied simultaneously. It cannot be denied that such abrupt and great changes of structure are widely different from those which most species apparently have undergone. He will further be compelled to believe that many structures beautifully adapted to all the other parts of the same creature and to the surrounding conditions, have been suddenly produced; and of such complex and wonderful co-adaptations, he will not be able to assign a shadow of an explanation. He will be forced to admit that these great and sudden transformations have left no trace of their action on the embryo. To admit all this is, as it seems to me, to enter into the realms of miracle, and to leave those of Science."
Another great prediction is the need for some mechanism of heredity... Darwin's theory correctly predicts the existence of genes, which exist in all organisms and which function in an identical manner. While we have not yet untangled how this genetic information controls the exact "construction" of an organism, we have the stunning basis for the theory of evolution.
Blight, you may believe what you will, but do not confuse your thoughts for anything vaguely scientific. You are not interested in learning, you are only interested in forwarding a peculiar agenda which is anti-scientific and intentionally ignorant.
You have not shown the slightest evidence of a careful study of Darwin, much less of any of the subsequent scientific work in evolution. Yet you would profess that evolution is an absurd theory with nothing to say about the world around you.
You are the harbinger of a new dark ages... though likely more terrible than the last.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 11:58am PT
|
Blight is being obtuse to demand to see a camel evolve from a hare
It would be obtuse, but I didn't ask for that, or anything like it. Classic strawman tactic there.
I didn't claim that rapid or instant variation occurred either. that's another strawman.
It amuses me that you get so angry and frustrated when your dogma is questioned. It amuses me further that despite my having already said that I don't doubt darwin at all, you continue to construct more bizarre strawmen, based on the idea that I do.
I'm just asking for observations. Evidence. Scientific data.
You have provided none of those to support the theory you espouse. If this was almost any other theory - one which has a total absence of direct evidence, only a complex self-referential web of circusmtance, inference and induction coupled to a rigorous insistence by proponents that this theory needs no support - any sane scientist would laugh it out of the journals, and I bet you would too.
But instead, anyone questioning the dogma and asking for evidence is subjected to a barrage of abuse.
The mechanism of evolution as currently described is plain, flat out WRONG. It is unsupported, unscientific and unbelievable. But until you accept that there is a possibility that what you believe is incorrect, it is you, not I who holds back the development of alternative ideas.
Who holds back science:
The man who questions what he suspects is incorrect?
Or the man who says that it cannot and must not be questioned?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 12:05pm PT
|
If everything existing developed by accident or chaos and can be reduced to chemistry, physics, mathematics, etc, where is the independence or the freedom of choice of the living entity?
If life is merely a combination of chemicals, why can't we bring a dead body back to life by simply injecting the missing chemical?
Even the structures of the most simple micro-organisms are so complex that their cause is completely unexplainable either by mutation or by gradual evolution. (The brain, consists of billions of neurons which are linked in a highly complex network.)
Materialistic science tries to control, manipulate, and exploit nature with the help of their scientific discoveries. This is a fundamental mistake because the way nature is designed is to bring the living entity to the point of understanding that the plan to "lord over material nature" is a futile attempt.
Matter in itself is lifeless and moves only due to the presence of spiritual energy.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 12:23pm PT
|
If life is merely a combination of chemicals, why can't we bring a dead body back to life by simply injecting the missing chemical?
Or indeed start new life the same way?
So many "answers" we are commanded to accept by the scientific community just have no evidence to support them. So why does questioning them draw such abuse and bitterness?
|
|
pc
climber
East of Seattle
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 12:53pm PT
|
Actually it's not the questioning part that's bothersome. That's what science is all about, right? The more questioning and angles looked from, the better the understanding, right?
Devil's advocacy aside...What do you "believe" Blight? State your position. or are you just a critic? (sorry if it's buried somewhere in the thread above. Couldn't bring myself to read all of your "ponging")
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 01:57pm PT
|
If you're not a creationist, yet don't acknolwedge evolution, what is your take on this, Blight?
-back to work
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 01:59pm PT
|
I think I know how to resolve this. Blight, how hard can you climb? Oh wait, this isn't gonna work with Werner. Um, never mind. Back to retirement from this thread.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 02:26pm PT
|
oh,yeah, if you're still here gru-nkee. I agree with the heirarchical palcement sthe other day. I think I was bending over to far to be 'fair.'
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 03:18pm PT
|
I'm too young for retirement.
Blight seems to be making a challenge to science itself, not just Darwinism when he says banal things like So many "answers" we are commanded to accept by the scientific community just have no evidence to support them.
You know Blight, there's this little thing called peer review in scientific circles. Briefly, there exist journals in every scientific field where scientists publish their works which then become open for critical review. Scientists don't treat each other with kid gloves. There is, of course, a preliminary review just to make it into the journal in the first place. If there are inconsistencies in the data or flawed logic, you can bet that the reviewers and scientific community are all over it. This is what prevents bad science from ever making it into the mainstream.
Too bad theology doesn't have something similar, then perhaps some of the wackiest ideas would be weeded out for what they are.
By the way, still waiting on some viable alternative to evolution.
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 03:29pm PT
|
"If life is merely a combination of chemicals, why can't we bring a dead body back to life by simply injecting the missing chemical?"
"Or indeed start new life the same way?"
This is rolling right back to the god-of-the-gaps idea referenced above. Just because scientific method has not yet produced all of the answers is no reason to revert to magical thinking. A thousand years ago virtually all natural phenomena were ascribed to god's will. Reason and science have changed a lot of that, but until they provide the same level of psychological comfort as myth-making, there will always be True Believers peddling their pies in the sky. So comfy it's a pity.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 03:38pm PT
|
Blight, who are you? are you a practicing scientist? do you know anything at all about science except what you read in USA Today?
The fact is that scienticist who actually allow themselves to be named and refered to, in fact most scientists, would agree that the theory of evolution is the fundamental description of biology.
This is not dogma, but based on the many tests of theory of evolution, much of which was laid out by Darwin in the Origin, and developed by biologists for over a century. You can state it is "dogma" because it does not agree with you own beliefs, but the scientific basis of evolution is not based on belief, but on scientific tests. As we have stated before, tests of theories are not positive, they are negative... and so far evolution has been shown to be consistent with observation.
You don't have to accept that definition of the scientific method, but it is a method highly successful in increasing our understanding of the world.
You have not shown that evolution is inconsistent with observation, that would disprove the theory. Many such tests exist, and evolution is consistent with them all. It is not a conspiracy of scientists to suppress the truth, but a campaign of people who will not accept the theory that are the source of the controversy.
There is no controversy, evolution is a full fledged scientific theory and accepted as such.
The pathway to understanding the theory is open to all, it is not revelatory, but investigative, and the investigation is open to all. If you want to make the statement that evolution is wrong, then you have to back it up...
...so far, you want evidence that it could have happened from me, I want evidence that it couldn't have happened from you. That is actually the way we work in science. Until you can disprove it, we continue to work as if it were correct... because it has not been shown to be incorrect.
Have at it... and lay off the usual anti-evolution sites, they don't understand science either.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 03:50pm PT
|
Good, constructive criticism, Sketch.
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 07:28pm PT
|
More from Dawkins, to illuminate or inflame, your choice:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20061023/cm_huffpost/032164
"Not only is the god hypothesis unnecessary. It is spectacularly unparsimonious. Not only do we need no God to explain the universe and life. God stands out in the universe as the most glaring of all superfluous sore thumbs. We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable."
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 08:03pm PT
|
Wbraun writes, " Evolution is accepted, but not Darwin's theory.It is confirmed in Padma Purana that the species of life evolved from aquatics to plants, vegetables, trees; thereafter insects, reptiles, flies, birds, then beasts, and then human kind. This is the gradual process of evolution of species of life."
This is a cut and paste from http://science.krishna.org/Articles/2000/10/00182.html
"Darwin has no clear conception how the evolution is taking place, neither does he have any idea about whose evolution. He simply takes account of the body. A body never evolves. It is the soul within the body, that evolves, transmigrates from one body to another."
This is a cut and paste from
http://science.krishna.org/Articles/2000/10/00183.html
"If everything existing developed by accident or chaos and can be reduced to chemistry, physics, mathematics, etc, where is the independence or the freedom of choice of the living entity?
If life is merely a combination of chemicals, why can't we bring a dead body back to life by simply injecting the missing hemical? Even the structures of the most simple micro-organisms are so complex that their cause is completely unexplainable either by mutation or by gradual evolution. (The brain, consists of billions of neurons which are linked in a highly complex network.) Materialistic science tries to control, manipulate, and exploit nature with the help of their scientific discoveries. This is a fundamental mistake because the way nature is designed is to bring the living entity to the point of understanding that the plan to "lord over material nature" is a futile attempt.
Matter in itself is lifeless and moves only due to the presence of spiritual energy."
This is a cute and paste from
http://www.harekrishnatemple.com/bhakta/chapter22.html
Wbraun, how can you be sure that these Hare Krishna web sites are correct?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 08:12pm PT
|
Evolution is established science. Those claiming otherwise have a lot in common with radical Islamic fundamentalists and clerics. Many of the comments here share the same arguments and tactics used in many Islamic nations in the attempt to keep their cultures static and their populations uneducated. Always a shame to see. And folks wonder why the U.S.'s ranking in the world is slipping when we foster ignorance over education under the guise of religion...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 10:12pm PT
|
"Blight and others are right to question. Openness to scrutiny and questioning is a big part of how science should work. We should strive to respond by answering the questions rather then with personal attacks."
You are right to question, but there is a constructive way of questioning and a destructive way of questioning.
Science works on openness, criticism, scrutiny and questioning. There are stupid questions that are asked based on misunderstanding, I've asked lots of those myself in a long career as a scientist. If my colleagues would politely humor me, listen respectfully to my arguements and felt they had to be nice and find some ground for consensus I would be shocked and hurt. I depend on them to tell me when I'm wrong, and their desire to be "pleasant" would ultimately waste my time, which would disturb me if I thought they didn't feel my time was worth it.
Criticism can appear to be a personal attack. Grow up, you want to learn something, you say something stupid, you can't expect someone to be nice to you if you insist you are correct when you are not.
The scientific method is relatively explicit about how to handle tests of hypothesis (which derive from theory). To continue to insist on a demonstration that your theory is "correct" falls under the catagory of prediction. Aside from organizing everything we know about biology, the theory of evolution forwarded by Darwin made a number predictions. They were found to be consistent with observation.
The theory of evolution is consitent with the physical world.
That is what a theory needs to be in order to be deemed correct. If you want to question that you are having a discussion about the scientific method, not about evolution.
If Blight would show where the theory of evolution was inconsistent with the physical world, then we could have a scientific discussion. He, and others like him, would say that I am being a dogmatic scientist. The dogma is not the theory of evolution, but the scientific method.
We can question the scientific method, that would be an interesting discussion. It's success is quite broad and probably the thing that is taken to be validating as there may be no "absolute" proof that it should be true. Perhaps it is about belief even.
So if you can invalidate the scientific method, perhaps you can invalidate all of science, and evolution along with it. That is the agenda.
Science has come under attack from all quarters, religious fundamentalists to neo-modernists to deconstructionists. I believe that it has survived the philosophical assaults largely because it does actually produce new, albeit provisional, knowledge about the physical world. It is objective, not subjective. It has a mechanism which is universal, you can do it as well as I. It limits its domain to the physically measurable. It requires rigorous logic to relate the quantitative discussions.
I am offended that someone like Blight, who is unidentified, would question what I know about science. You can all look me up on the web, you can read my papers, you can decide for yourself or you can ask someone you know about my bonifides. But that is all irrelevant. If you understand how to do science, then you can have an intelligent discussion regarding the theory of evolution.
What Blight offers is just some very poorly thought through challenges that creationists have come up with to confuse the public. My strong words are putoffish to our polite, democratic society, but science is not democratic,it is not built on consensus,its authority is nature. I have no problem stating that the theory of evolution is fact, it has not been proven to be otherwise. When it is, I will adopt the new theory.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
boulder, co.
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 11:29pm PT
|
Mr. Hartouni
I do not know you but I surely wish I did. I very much appreciate the quality of your posts, your clarity and veracity.
Please keep the good words comming. Particularly in light of the apparent under-current of dark ages thinking.
Peace. phil broscovak
P.S. I bet you would be fascinating in disscussion.
|
|
Zander
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 11:29pm PT
|
Hi all,
In case you're wondering... I'm with Ed on this one.
Book Report
I read Voyage of the Beagle about a year ago. It's a very good read. It moves along at a good clip and Darwin is thinking out loud quite a bit. You need to read between the lines to realize what an outdoorsman he was.
Then, I took another run at The Origin of Species, which had thrown me for a loss before. This book is a more difficult read. Not because it’s not interesting but because he spends a lot of time defending and building a foundation for things we now take for granted. These have been mentioned and quoted up thread. More of a good read for those of us armchair scholars of evolution.
Recently, I picked up a biography at Moe’s, the local used bookstore, of Darwin by Cyril Aydon, a good and easy read.
If you are just starting out on this subject, start with the Beagle, then Aydon and then alternate Dawkins and Gould for a few books. This should get you kickstarted.
See ya,
Zander
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2006 - 11:34pm PT
|
I've been out climbing and I don't think I can read tihs whole thread. I will say, however, that 1. I am a she (someone called me a he) and 2. if and when Blight posts how he understands evolution to work, I'd be more than happy to fill in any gaps in the understanding and try to explain it.
And I didn't click the links under the muskipper, so maybe that's why I'm confused, but what was the picture supposed to show?
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 12:26am PT
|
Oh. I think the mudskipper was supposed to be an example of something without limbs evolving them or something?
Unfortunately it's not really a good example. Mudskippers are actinopterygians, or ray finned fished. They don't have quite the bone structure to be adapted for use as a limb the way the lobe finned fish (sarcopterygians) do (someone posted a picture of the homologies between fish and tetrapod limbs up there I think) - like coelocanths or whatever. They come from a different lineage, and only superficially look like an good example. There are also other issues, like the fact that as teleosts, they do not have lungs as other, more "primitive" fish (such as the sarcopterygian, the lungfish) do, so they can't co-opt those to allow them to travel further out of the water.
I like this guy.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 04:31am PT
|
Well, well.
Aren't you all angry and upset? Demanding to know who I am, what I believe and whether I'm a scientist instead of just answering the criticisms of the theories you hold so dear.
Who I am is not relevant because we're not talking about me.
What I do for a living is not relevant because we're not talking about my job.
Whether I believe in creationism is not relevant because we're not discussing creationism.
How amusing and ironic though that in answer to criticisms of your objectivity you refuse to take the points presented on their own merits, looking instead to attack me personally!
Still, to those who have remained civil, I'd like to present 3 key criticisms of science's current view of evolution:
1. Nobody has ever observed evolution by process of mutation and natural selction in action.
2. Nobody has ever replicated it in the lab.
3. No direct evidence whatsoever exists to support the idea that new, sustainable genetic material can spontaneously emerge in an existing species.
If you would like to answer these points, please be clear: I'm not looking for vague, reductionist nonsense about individual genes or morphology, weak excuses about timescales or snapshots of experiments which resulted in sterility or reversion. As an additional note, I think we can all agree that anyone descending to personal abuse or querying irrelevant personal details can be generally agreed to be tacitly admitting defeat.
To sum this up succinctly: the theory of evolution states that simple unicellular organisms evolved into multicellular ones with complex organs, limbs and apparatuses.
Please provide direct supporting evidence, from observations and lab work, for the emergence of a new sustainable organ or apparatus in an existing species.
If the theory is correct, there should be ample evidence to support it. If not, then how could it be held to be correct?
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 06:39am PT
|
Blight,
"As an additional note, I think we can all agree that anyone descending to personal abuse or querying irrelevant personal details can be generally agreed to be tacitly admitting defeat.
It really is funny to hear you lecturing on civility. Keep reading.
"Please provide direct supporting evidence, from observations and lab work, for the emergence of a new sustainable organ or apparatus in an existing species."
This isn't a courtroom. It's a discussion forum. You want evidence? There are loads of places you can get it - if you're actually looking, which you're not, or you would've found plenty already.
I'm not looking for evidence, you are. So go find it if you really want it.
[I am calling you an idiot]- the guy who says he's looking for evidence but hasn't even bothered to go to a library or a bookshop, or even just to google for it.
Google it you thick f*#k.
Sound familiar, Blight? No, I'm not responding to your post, that's just a cut and paste of your own words (posted as "Blight"), with the exception of some paraphrasing in brackets, at http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=260413&msg=261437#msg261437
So there you are. You answered your own question. Google it. You'll see that all three of your points are incorrect, as has been explained to you multiple times previously.
For those of you asking about Blight, he has made his position clear: "That God clearly doesn't fall within the narrow set of cirumstances that the arbitrary set of rules we made up and called "logic" can explain is certainly inconvenient. But to argue that he doesn't or can't exist because we don't understand and can't explain him is patently absurd and childish." http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=73603&msg=73897#msg73897
It could be argued that this statement is itself "absurd and childish," but then we'd be "descending to the level of personal abuse" which would evidently place right about on us on Blight's level.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 06:48am PT
|
I've spent the last 10 years looking for evidence. I have consulted scientists, researchers, professors, journals and papers by the thousand. I have found none.
Some people here say that this evidence exists. I say, produce it then.
If you don't want to help out, fine, I won't ask you to. Quit posting. I'm not going to use your refusal to help as evidence that I'm right.
If you do want to post again, please stay on topic instead of quoting irrelevant posts from unconnected threads. As I said, if you're not able to address the actual question asked, then just don't, I won't hold it against you.
By the way, that makes you 0 for 1 on answering the questions.
|
|
TradIsGood
Fun-loving climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 08:01am PT
|
Perhaps this would all make more sense if one could succinctly write down exactly what the theory is that is being discussed. Darwin did not talk about genetics in the book mentioned. That knowledge came later.
So what is the theory, precisely, that we are debating? Are we only discussion Darwin, who gave no mechanism for special variation, but rather described only what could happen if it occured?
Are we debating whether the mechanisms that cause the genetic variations are well understood and complete enough to explain the observations?
There does seem to be agreement that genetic lines can be followed (post hoc), but is there truly agreement about what events and mechanisms caused simultaneous and genetically compatible variation? Were the variations caused by cosmic alterations of genetic material? Were they caused by infiltration of viruses, that were well matched to naturally occurring random deviations of genetic material and well understood tRNA mechanisms? Have changes been caused by infections passed in utero?
To say that a species with a competitive advantage to reproduce survives and one lacking sufficient advantages becomes extinct is a fairly tautological argument. It is of course completely true, therefore. But, of course, tautologies are not theories, but simply logically true statements devoid of any predictive power.
Perhaps, ala Euclid, or Occam, we could distill all of this down to its simplest statement. State the theory, in as simple a form as possible, but no simpler.
It should only take another 137 posts or so to agree on the statement of the theory before resuming a rational discussion of its merits. :-)
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 08:43am PT
|
Aya. This is your field of expertise. I was wondering what you, and perhaps (your take on) the field as a whole feels about Dawkin's selfish gene hypothesis. For the group, Darwin and most everyone after him considered the individual organism to be the primary subject of natural selection. Dawkins thinks that individuals, instead, should be viewed as survival machines, and it's really the genes themselves that are in evolutionary competition.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 08:43am PT
|
It should only take another 137 posts or so to agree on the statement of the theory before resuming a rational discussion of its merits. :-)
Ha! Ha! Ha!
You've got a point there.
I've said what I'm looking for - simple straightforward evidence - but perhaps other posters may have more sophisticated tastes!
|
|
TradIsGood
Fun-loving climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 08:49am PT
|
Blight, evidence for what? Perhaps you could start by stating the theory as you understand it? After all, you can't ask for evidence in support of a theory, if you do not know what you are asking for. :-)
I have found that the longest running disagreements always stem from a lack of agreement on a precise definition of the problem. I.e. everyone has a different answer, because of a lack of a formal statement of the problem.
|
|
Maysho
climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 08:54am PT
|
Lets help this thread evolve with some "facilitated variation" ignore the "Blight" a stuck loop, doomed to extinction, and work with some new knowledge. As a biology beginner, still studying for my visit with evo-devo step-daughter next week, I am really getting into this new book, "the plausibility of life" the authors theory seems to hold promise to explain some of this.
"Facilitated variation: an explanation of the organism's generation of complex phenotypic change form a small number of random changes of the genotype. We posit that the conserved components greatly facilitate evolutionary change by reducing the amount of genetic change required to generate phenotypic novelty, principally through their reuse in new combinations and in different parts of their adaptive range of performance. " from the authors (Kirchner and Gerhart).
I am a long way from grasping all this, but it seems that new genomic info is showing specifically how variation and novelty is not random, or from cosmic alterations or viruses. I appreciate the reading suggestions and diagrams from Aya and Jaybro upthread, so much to learn...
Peter
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 09:04am PT
|
Blight, I absolutely agree with you that what you do and what you believe as an alternative to evolution matter to the issue at hand (something I tried to point out before). However, an explanation of how you believe evolution to work does matter, as to those of us who do understand the theory of evolution, your question/questions do not make sense and demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of the theory.
You write that "To sum this up succinctly: the theory of evolution states that simple unicellular organisms evolved into multicellular ones with complex organs, limbs and apparatuses," but the point is that this is false. Therefore, the question, "Please provide direct supporting evidence, from observations and lab work, for the emergence of a new sustainable organ or apparatus in an existing species," is generally irrelevant, as far as supporting or disproving evolution goes.
Like I said, I'd love to continue the discussion, but only after I know that you understand what the theory of evolution actually is. However, if you're just trolling, as I still believe you are, you will likely not answer the question ("but I asked you first!") which is also fine by me. What do I care?
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 09:20am PT
|
eeyonkee, first I wanted to clarify that this is hardly my area of expertise. I did my graduate work in an ecology and evolutionary biology department, but I was definitely much more heavily involved in the ecology side - my PhD work was on community dynamics in the hudson river. I actually really don't like the evolution side because it's like all math... and I hate numbers.
Anyhow, I'm not sure that I exactly understand your question. Darwin considered the individual to be the subject of natural selection because he did not know about genes. In a sense, the individual still is, because the individual is the expression of the genes collected within.
If you're asking about something more along the lines of group selection, well... there's still plenty of debate going on about that in the evolutionary biology community!
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 09:21am PT
|
Blight is just a troll or a very stubborn fundamentalist.
Discussing with him is completely meaningsless because he is never going to admitt that he might be wrong.
|
|
TradIsGood
Fun-loving climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 09:24am PT
|
Peter, your question relates to the faithful reproduction of genetic information, which is necessary for special reproduction (and probably necessary for evolution), but is not sufficient to explain evolution. It probably is deserving of its own thread.
In fact, it would seem that some "unfaithful reproduction" of genetic material is necessary to explain evolution. This is probably what Blight is looking for. Examples of "unfaithful reproduction", but still a formal statement of the theory is necessary to make for rational analysis.
This is Aya's point, if I understood - that Blight's concept is inconsistent with the generally agreed statement of the theory. If that it true, it would explain the failure to resolve the issues.
Of course, Aya could offer her version of the theory. It should not require more than about 10 sentences or so, I think.
Raymond edit:
I think the statement asking for a demonstration is evidence that he admits that he could be wrong. I do not see evidence for the assertion of fundamentalism. Maybe you could offer a scientific statement, instead of a character assessment. :-)
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 09:27am PT
|
Ok, I can try to do it in less than ten sentences. Three words?
Descent with modification.
I'm not sure if that's enough....
|
|
TradIsGood
Fun-loving climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 09:30am PT
|
A good start...
Definitely not enough. :-)
I descended from my parents, modified, but not a new species.
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 09:44am PT
|
Well now you're asking about speciation, for which evolution is simply one potential mechanism - not evolution itself!
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 09:46am PT
|
You write that "To sum this up succinctly: the theory of evolution states that simple unicellular organisms evolved into multicellular ones with complex organs, limbs and apparatuses," but the point is that this is false
Well...wow.
I'm intrigued - in fact my head is buzzing with the possibilities of what you might believe!
Do you disagree that life began with simple organisms? (perhaps you think that abiogenesis yielded complex multicellular organisms in one step? Surely not.)
Perhaps you disagree that simple organisms developed by process of modification into more complex ones? (Goodness knows, Raymond could hardly be simpler! ;)
Or perhaps you disagree that organisms now have complex limbs, organs and apparatuses? (er....okay)
Please be specific: which part of my statement do you disagree with and why?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 09:48am PT
|
"Raymond edit:
I think the statement asking for a demonstration is evidence that he admits that he could be wrong. I do not see evidence for the assertion of fundamentalism. Maybe you could offer a scientific statement, instead of a character assessment. :-)"
I have "discussed" with Blight on this and another thread. I came to the above conclusion and stand for it.
If a person cant admitt that the section "The Design" in the following article is con evolution and pro inteligent design.
http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Mansproof.html
Then is it very easy to came to my above conclusion.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 09:58am PT
|
Descent with Modification.
Darwin's own words. In fact, he never even mentions the word evolution until the last paragraph of the Origin Of Species.
Aya, perhaps you are not familiar with "The Selfish Gene". What Dawkins proposes is more or less the other side of the coin from Group Selection (which he pretty much poo-poohs). It's kind of a difficult concept to get your head around, and I probably can't do justice to it in a paragraph or two.
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 10:00am PT
|
Blight -
I agree that life began with simple organisms. I agree that complex organisms developed from less complex ones. I agree that organisms have complex limbs and structures.
I disagree that these points are what the theory of evolution states. It states no such thing. I wasn't being facetious when I used three words to describe evolution.
Descent with modification.
That is a mechanism by which complex, multicellular organisms with limbs might appear. It does not say that they WILL evolve. It just explains how they can. Which, again, is why it is important for you to express exactly what you understand evolution to be.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 10:04am PT
|
Hmmm.
Perhaps I've been misuing some terminology.
Could you please tell me:
What does evolution state?
And what name is given to the process we have agreed is supposed to have occurred?
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 10:11am PT
|
"I descended from my parents, modified, but not a new species."
Would your mom agree? ha-ha
I'm a custom job myself.
If any ony can scan or link to todays' Bizarro comic it is surprisingly relevent.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 11:18am PT
|
Blight, the evidence that you seek, the "evolution" of an organism right before your eyes, cannot be done. That is not what the theory of evolution is about and so from a scientific viewpoint it is irrelevant to the discussion regarding the validity of the theory.
In fact this is true of all theories of science. You could just as well ask "show me a wave function or I won't believe quantum mechanics" or "show me an atom," or "make a 'big bang' in the lab," you could require any number of evidences that fit your own way of sensing...
...you could state that instrumental enhancements of our ability to sense only falsify what is being sensed, thus no conclusion inferred from these instruments are real. That is exactly what happened to Gallileo, the church ruled that looking through a telescope alters the light rays, and thus the result, a magnified image, did not contain "truth".
If you eliminate all inference and demand direct experience as your only accepted manner of learning about the world then you must reject almost all of science itself. Science reveals a world very much beyond what we would initially think was 'common sense.' The methods used to reveal this are objective and reproducable and predictive. You can, of course, reject this entirely and demand any 'proof' you wish and then claim, erroneously, that the theory cannot be true as it cannot satisfy your own test. Your test is irrelevant to the veracity of the theory.
You are barking up the wrong tree; I will defend your right to bark, but you make yourself out to be the fool on this one.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 11:22am PT
|
"I've spent the last 10 years looking for evidence. I have consulted scientists, researchers, professors, journals and papers by the thousand. I have found none."
Then you are looking in the wrong places or not able to comprehend the material.
"If you don't want to help out, fine, I won't ask you to. Quit posting. I'm not going to use your refusal to help as evidence that I'm right.
If you do want to post again, please stay on topic instead of quoting irrelevant posts from unconnected threads..."
That's not how the Internet works. :-) When I defended Blight above, I naively believed he was genuinely interested in an honest intellectual discussion. However, after stumbling across Blight's numerous posts on this subject in the past, it became clear to me that he is not interested in an honest discussion at all but rather is pushing a extremist fundamentalist position. He engages in arguments that are in my opinion intellectually dishonest and put-downs when convenient.
As I've stated above in a post that Blight did not respond to, the whole cornerstone of his Blight's position is that no new genetic material appears. Blight correctly asserts that new genetic material (i.e. mutations) are essential for evolution to occur.
However this is easily proven wrong, as mutations are routinely observed in laboratories. The predictable response from Blight (this has all been discussed ad nauseum in past threads) is along the lines that he doesn't want to see trivial changes in fruit flies, but something on the order of a cat or dog growing a new organ.
That might be what Blight wants to see, but it's not necessary for disproving his assertion that no new genetic material appears as being factually inaccurate. New material is new material. All that is needed to disprove is observing one mutation, and this has been done, more then once.
Also, anyone with a basic understanding of the theory of evolution knows that the appearance of an entirely new organ is not something that you would expect to appear in a laboratory. That is like requesting the Grand Canyon to be replicated in full scale in a laboratory--its a ridiculous request. And I expect that Blight knows this.
Before spending very much time putting together detailed, thoughtful responses to Blight's demands, look at the previous postings on evolution here on Supertopo and form your own conclusion as to whether Blight is genuinely interested in learning more about evolution or if he is only seeking to confound.
|
|
TradIsGood
Fun-loving climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 11:41am PT
|
Well we were making a little progress for a moment, in deciding what the theory says, but now we have people jumping ahead and discussing it relative to what it means to them and making assertions.
Ed asserts that the theory does not say that changes of an organism are observable (which may be true), but do we have to add to "descent with modification" to get that?
Are we agreed on "descent with modification" as a full statement, or does it need more?
And granite is into genetics and post darwin developments. Are they a part of this theory? Is DNA a part of evolution, or is it complementary?
Without rigor, how can we evaluate the veracity of a statement? Do we say that an electron is a wave function? Or do we say that modelling it mathematically as a wave function, or superpositions of wave functions, that are solutions to a partial differential equation, explains more fully its dual wave-particle nature?
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 11:56am PT
|
There seem to be conflicting opinions:
Ed insists that the evidence I seek is non-observable.
However, graniteclimber insists that the evidence is not only observable, it has already been observed.
They do however share a common flaw: the evidence I'm asking for is neither of an impossibly large or an impossibly small scale, nor is it abstract. I'm not asking you to use a blue whale or an atom, something simple like a fruit fly will do.
All that is needed to disprove is observing one mutation, and this has been done, more then once.
1. Mutations are not new genetic material. They are replications of existing material. As an example, you can create a fly with 3 eyes. But that's not a new organ; flies already have eyes.
2. Changes need to be sustainable. In all cases to date, mutations either lead to sterility or they simply disappear.]
3. Changes must be net positive, and possible without interference.
I've never seen or read of a case which fitted all 3 of these criteria, which are critical to the development of species as presently understood.
|
|
TradIsGood
Fun-loving climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 12:04pm PT
|
Whoa - now Blight is jumping ahead to conclusions, without a formal statement of the theory.
The conclusions that 1, 2, and 3 follow from the theory is not clear, since you have yet to state the theory.
Sorry, try again.
160-137 = 23 and counting. My new prediction is that by post 274, there will still be no agreement on what the theory is, but there will still be an argument about whether people are right or wrong!
Prove me wrong, please!
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 12:05pm PT
|
"Descent with modification."
Good post, Aya. So much attention is paid to the "monkeys to man" scenario that the basic process is often overlooked and poorly understood.
Genetic mutations produce variation in a population's phenotypes (in other words, physical differences between individuals of the population.
Some of these differences confer an advantage on the individuals which possess these differences. This advantage allows these individuals, on average, to survive and reproduce at a higher rate then the rest of the population.
Because the advantageous mutations are genetic, they are passed down to offspring. Because the individuals holding the mutation are reproducing at a higher rate, on average, we can expect the percentage of the population having the mutation to increase over time - this is often referred to as "survival of the fittest."
I'm sure others can articulate if far better then me, but that is the process of evolution in a nutshell.
Most people intuitively "get" the survival of the fittest part. Where they stumble is in understanding the process of mutations.
From what has been observed, most mutations either do not effect an organism's phenotype at all or they have a negative effect. But the "bad" mutations are self-limiting because they limit the their hosting organism's ability to survive and reproduce. The changes that spread through populations over time all arise from the "good mutations."
The ongoing process of evolution is distinguishable from the theories regarding the origin of animals and peoples (although they are closely related.) The process of evolution is provable in laboratories. Although there is a great deal of compelling evidence regarding the role of the process of evolution in the origins of animals and people, these are past events, this is not provable by laboratory experiment or direct observation (unless you invent a time machine.)
Fundamentalists (such as Blight) often sieze on this to ridicule the application of the process of evolution to our orgins. The conveniently overlook the fact that no historical events are observable by us, and this includes all Biblical events.
|
|
TradIsGood
Fun-loving climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 12:22pm PT
|
Nice Granite...
Genetic mutations produce variation in a population's phenotypes (in other words, physical differences between individuals of the population.
Some of these differences confer an advantage on the individuals which possess these differences. This advantage allows these individuals, on average, to survive and reproduce at a higher rate then the rest of the population.
Because the advantageous mutations are genetic, they are passed down to offspring. Because the individuals holding the mutation are reproducing at a higher rate, on average, we can expect the percentage of the population having the mutation to increase over time - this is often referred to as "survival of the fittest."
Is this enough?
Can we agree on at least this?
It definitely does not say the speciation does or does not occur. It could say only that a species will change physically and that the percentage of a population of a species will change?
Do we need to add geography to this?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 12:23pm PT
|
"Ed asserts that the theory does not say that changes of an organism are observable (which may be true), but do we have to add to "descent with modification" to get that? "
I didn't say that, I said that you couldn't do it in a lab while you are watching (at least not in a way you would accept, bacteria can be observed to evolve, but you would say "not good enough, I want to see wings!")
The observables are all around you, they are the stuff of all biology... the fossil record... geology.... yet you assert that this is only "inferential" and therefore not acceptable as evidence. Blight is from Missouri, the "show me" state, he wants to see it happen "with his own eyes" yet his eyes are closed to the evidence around him.
He willfully blinds himself to the evidence so that he can maintain a smug viewpoint, that evolution is absurd... well sometimes nature is absurd, but as scientists, we take it as it is...
Blight, do you have anything more to add to this discussion, you will not change your viewpoint, and you cannot change my viewpoint.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 12:23pm PT
|
"Mutations are not new genetic material. They are replications of existing material. As an example, you can create a fly with 3 eyes. But that's not a new organ; flies already have eyes"
This statement has so many false statements in it, I don't even know where to start. And, just as I predicted, Blight is repeating his call for observation of a completely new organ, which is absolutely ridiculous. What Blight is asking for, the spontantous development of a completely new organ overnight, is soemthing that would not be expected to follow form the process of evolution.
It's not surprising the ten years of research has gotten Blight nowhere.
Any change in the genetic code is a mutation by definition.
Edit: Type "mutation" into Google and hit the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button. Then read the first sentence.
|
|
TradIsGood
Fun-loving climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 12:46pm PT
|
Some of these differences confer an advantage on the individuals which possess these differences. This advantage allows these individuals, on average, to survive and reproduce at a higher rate then the rest of the population.
Because the advantageous mutations are genetic, they are passed down to offspring. Because the individuals holding the mutation are reproducing at a higher rate, on average, we can expect the percentage of the population having the mutation to increase over time - this is often referred to as "survival of the fittest."
Suppose:
 variants Va and Vb of a virus reproduce such that the reproductive rate R follows Ra >> Rb.
each variant can reproduce only in one host species.
Va causes its host to die, in general, too rapidly for it to be spread widely to other instance of the host species.
So it has a "local" reproductive advantage, but a "global" disadvantage.
Or Ra is low enough that it infects an entire regional population of its host which has insufficient mobility, so that the reproductive advantage is "regional", but is limited by the mobility of the host.
The net effect in either case being that the temporarily advantaged Va drives out Vb, followed by its own extinction, despite the fact that Vb might have been sufficiently communicable to infect and live indefinitely in a population.
Or a single instance of the host regionally infected by Vb, escapes the region, prior to the local extermination of the host and infection of Va.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 01:14pm PT
|
There's a good treatment of how the eye might have evolved (and apparently, it has evolved separately more than once) in Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker". I would suggest that Blight read it. Actually, I would suggest that anybody who's interested in this stuff readit.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 01:22pm PT
|
Tradisgood,
"Is DNA a part of evolution, or is it complementary?
DNA was not part of Darwin's theory at all, as it hadn't been discovered yet. But it is intrinsic to the Modern Synthesis as it is explains exactly how the process occurs. Darwin could identify what was happening but he (and others of his time) lacked the knowledge to explain how it happened. There were some notions as to how heredity occurred based on animal breeding, but heredity was poorly understood. Mendel presented his first paper on heredity a few years later, but its implications weren't understood until later.
Mendelian genetics was enough to have a good understanding of evolution, kind of like how you can have a theory of gravity without knowing about gravitational waves. But know that we can sequence DNA, we can observe mutations firsthand. It's like being able to look directly into a box as opposed to looking at a closed box and postulating about what is happening inside based on the input and output.
"Do we need to add geography to this?"
You ARE sharp. I was trying to keep it simple and just focus on the basic process!
You can see geography as being incorporated within the notion of "population" or rather "breeding population." The constraints on breeding populations are usually geographical, but will vary depending on the species. For example, contrast the Arctic Tern (which flies from polar region to polar region and has such a wide range that there is effectively only one breeding population) to tortoises which are distributed into many, many breeding populations throughout the world.
Having more then one breeding population is considered the key factor in a species forking into subspecies and then ultimately into different species. But even in a single breeding population, the process of evolution is ongoing. In other words, species differentiation is a consequence of the process of evolution proceeding in two (or more) different breeding populations, but is not required to explain the basic process.
|
|
billygoatkid
climber
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 01:23pm PT
|
Well I don't know a thing about Biology but I certainly know a thing about logic and evolution is far from it. These are some of the basic questions that I have about it.
It doesn't matter how much you break it down even if you go to the big bang, you still have something from nothing.
If evolution is survival of the fittest how come we evolved from something that still exists? If we evolved from Apes, how come there are still Apes?
If man did evolve through a series of minor changes, would we not find many fossils from the later stages and none from the earliest?
Why is it that shortly after the theory developed we suddenly have an example from almost every stage of transformation but we havn't discovered any early forms since?
For the past 20 years, there hasn't been a significant discovery regarding human evolution but during its controversial period from the 70's to the 90's there were skulls popping up everywhere.
How is it that the fossils dating back 2.5 mya are in much better condition than the ones from 50,000 years ago?
How is the only skeleton (Lucy) from 3.2 million years ago? Did the preservation process suddenly change in the past million years?
How come many of the skulls had plaster work done to reconstruct the majority of the skull?
How come people today with strange attributes, more rounded skull, pronounced eye brows, different tooth structure aren't considered the same as the discoveries from 2 mya?
With the unique human forms that are out there, is it not possible that over the past 20,000 years or so, there were mutations that appeared more ape like?
How come we can't have changed in appearances but not mutated from an ape?
It's not an argument of what is more realistic, evolution or creation, its simply an argument of whether evolution is truly plausible.
|
|
TradIsGood
Fun-loving climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 01:44pm PT
|
Just trying to distill it down to basics and some scientific rigor.
Sure I knew that the developments in genetics were post Darwin. But the question is do we want to include them in our version of the theory.
And the virus example is intended to get at basic definitional concepts such as reproductive rates if they play a role, the refinement or elimination of the "advantage" concept.
One could argue that the virus example, if it occured as described might violate your current version. So I offer it in case we must refine the theory, or if not, as something that would violate and force refinement of the theory were it to occur. The flu virus of 1918 comes to mind (or ebola-like vs AIDS like viruses). Avian flu may have infected a large human population of southeast asia and perhaps all of the waterfowl of the region (?).
Finally, are we going to eliminate or include speciation. This seems key to at least ruling the so-called fundamentalist arguments as in play or not in play with respect to the theory - Right?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 01:45pm PT
|
Billygoatkid,
Why is it incumbent on us to partake in your exercises in intellectual masturbation? Do a little bit of googling on the subject yourself. Many of the answers to your questions can be found on legitimate scientific websites in a matter of minutes. The fact you are posing such basic questions in such a pointed way rather than doing your own research suggests that you really aren't interested in those answers anyway.
Here's a challenge for all the evolution skeptics: explain how inconsistencies in all the evidence--such as changes observed in fossils, genes, anatomy, ontology, etc.--disprove evolution or more precisely, natural selection. Scientists have had a hard time doing that.
Good luck.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 02:39pm PT
|
Sounds like billyGoatKid thinks there's an actual conspiracy among scientists to delude the public about this... Unbelieveable.
I suppose this same type of thing took place during the coupla' centuries? that it took the general public to accept that the world was round or that the sun did not revolve around the earth.
My exasperation with the anti-evolution crowd isn't so much that they don't understand the theory - let's face it, some of it IS hard to understand, and it's hard to really get one's head around the 100's of thousands to millions of years that evolution works its magic across. My exasperation comes from this - where else is the supernatural called upon to explain natural phenomenon? A few centuries ago, the answer would be quite different, of course. But, get real, this is the 21st century! If you don't understand exactly how it works, fine. Most people don't understand relativity or quantum mechanics either. It scares me that America (ranked 24th out of 25 countries, just above Turkey in a recent poll on belief in evolution) is headed towards a new dark ages.
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 03:11pm PT
|
Sorry - what do geography and speciation have to do with evolution?
Blight - you asked me what evolution states directly after the post where I wrote what it stated. Please go back and reread.
You said that Ed and graniteclimber disagree. They do not. Ed is saying that the evidence YOU want - the appearance of a new limb - is non-observable. That is true. graniteclimber says that the evidence for the mechanism of evolution is observable. That is true as well. If you accept that evolution does not state that simple unicellular organisms evolved into multicellular ones with complex organs, limbs and apparatuses (apparati?), then you should understand this. Of course, if you do not accept that that is what evolution states, then again, the conversation is moot.
edit: had a thought - the sudden appearance of an entire new limb on an organism would probably be evidence for creationism, really...
Re: mutations
If you google mutation, you will quickly find that mutations are simply a change in genetic material. They can be an addition, a subtraction, or simply a rearrangement. I don't know what you mean by "replication". Certainly, one type of mutation may be when a portion of the genetic code is replicated and incorporated.
There are certainly mutations that are "sustainable". Obviously, the answer "look around you, the diversity of life is the evidence" is not going to suffice. However, you say that simple organisms will suffice; there are plenty of laboratory experiments which demonstrate the emergence of beneficial mutations. As an example: there were some folks who took a single E. coli cell. A single cell, therefore by definition lacking genetic variation. They allowed this cell to replicate through 2000 generations, which, since bacteria reproduce by binary fission, should have yielded a whole bunch of E. coli that was identical assuming that there were no mutations. Of course this was not the case; mutations did happen. One of these mutations was called "Ara"; essentially, Ara+ bacteria are white and Ara-bacteria are red. The Ara mutation does not affect fitness: they tested this by growing the + and - types together. Their relative representations in the overall population did not change. Basically, the Ara+ and Ara- bacteria were the same (they came from the same, original, single cell). They then took portions of these cells and grew them at different temperatures, freezing them periodically (you can freeze E. coli and later thaw it out and it will just go back to doing what it does). After a long time, they took samples of the cells - from the original ones up to the ones that had been grown for many generations at a a different temperature, and then, because they had samples that were both Ara+ and Ara-, they were able to grow them together and let them compete. They were able to see which were doing better by observing the relative proportions of colors. The upshot of it all was that all of the E. coli were originally derived from a SINGLE CELL. By the end, there were different populations that had adapted to living at different temperatures. Since they were all originally derived from the same genotype, the adaptations to the new temperatures must have been based on new mutations - adaptive mutations. (I know this was kind of oversimplified, but check Bennett, A., R. Lenski and J. Mittler. 1992. Evolutionary adaptation to temperature. I. Fitness responses of Escherischia coli to changes in its thermal environment. Evolution 46: 16-30 and the subsequent studies those guys did for more in depth info on that particular example).
I'm not going to get very in depth with this because I'm totally biochemistried out and besides, it isn't really my thing, but for evidence for the evolution of novel biochemical pathways in E. coli, check out for example the work of Barry Hall. Basically, he demonstrated the evolution of an entire lactose metabolization pathway, starting with a mutation causing a change in enzyme structure allowing hydrolysis of lactose (in bacteria which previously could not use lactose), a mutation in the regulatory gene such that it this new enzyme would be produced when lactose was present, and a subsequent third mutation causing the production of an enzyme which would break down latose into something that would cause the production of permease, which is needed to allow lactose to enter the cell and be utilized for energy. Okay, so this is not the evolution of an arm, but it's the evolution of a pretty complex biochemical pathway and a pretty good example of mutation and selection working to give rise to a complex, novel adaptation.
I don't know what changes must be possible without interference means; perhaps you mean that any experiments done in a laboratory are unacceptable as evidence?
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 03:50pm PT
|
Tradisgood,
"The net effect in either case being that the temporarily advantaged Va drives out Vb, followed by its own extinction, despite the fact that Vb might have been sufficiently communicable to infect and live indefinitely in a population."
The spread of pathogens is a sub-field in its own right as the evolution of viruses, etc. is different in many ways from that of complex organisms, but of course the same basic rules apply. This is probably a good example as any because understanding pathogens is of much greater relevance to us in our everyday lives then "ivory tower" speculation about our ancestors.
Will Va drive out Vb as a practical matter? Depends on the organism and the population.
Let's assume that the host organism reproduces via sexual reproduction (and if not that species may not be long for this earth!). A convincing case has been made that the major advantage of sexual reproduction is to ensure variation from generation to generation to increase survivability with regard to pathogen attacks.
Thanks to the variation we would expect in a sexually reproducing host, we can also expect (most of the time) a certain number of the population to survive or be immune to Va and/or Vb infections. Or some may be susceptible to Va but not Vb, or vice versa.
Also if the population is divided into sub-populations (think: different villages, different wolf packs, etc.) as is usually the case. Va might wipe out an infected sub-population quickly enough that it doesn't spread to other sub-populations. To the extent that Vb has infected hosts that are not killed by Va (and in a viable population, you'd expect this), Vb would have the advantage by not killing of its hosts to quickly.
Viruses don't think or have intentions of course, but we can think of them each as individuals, each just wanting to survive and reproduce, without intending the host to die. Are you familiar with Garret Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons?" Think of the viruses as the cows and the host as the commons.
If you are a virus killing of your host before you can spread to other hosts is not a desirable attribute. If the virulence is a result of a mutation, this was not a desirable mutation long-term and will be self-limiting. And to the extent that Va eliminates or reduces Vb's hosts, Vb will be impacted.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 04:05pm PT
|
"Finally, are we going to eliminate or include speciation. This seems key to at least ruling the so-called fundamentalist arguments as in play or not in play with respect to the theory - Right?"
Its not needed for a discussion of the basic process of evolution or what is sometimes referred to as "micro-evolution" but it is important in discussing "macro-evolution."
Macro-evolution is what is controversial and what everyone wants to discuss, but I believe that at least some understanding of micro-evolution is needed as foundation to understand macro-evolution. Many of the attempts to find fault with macro-evolution involve a misunderstanding of concepts on the micro-evolution level.
If you don't understand arithmetic, you don't have a chance to understand algebra. OK, that's not a very good analogy but I think it makes my point.
Aya, Rokjox & Tradisgood, thanks for starting a stimulating discussion! Good work.
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 04:13pm PT
|
Given that natural selection is a purely statistical process, the arithmetic/algebra analogy may have been more apt than you thought.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 04:17pm PT
|
"edit: had a thought - the sudden appearance of an entire new limb on an organism would probably be evidence for creationism, really..."
Yes, that was my thought as well. If a new organ appeared overnight, that would be the best possible evidence that I know of for the "intelligent design" theory. While it wouldn't by itself disprove evolution, it would require us to thoroughly re-examine our assumptions about how it works.
Aya, I am glad you are part of this discussion. If you think I've unduly mutilated (pun intented) anything in my posts, please feel free to jump in and correct it.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 05:02pm PT
|
Billygoatkid,
Good questions. I'll answer a few. You can easily google the rest
"It doesn't matter how much you break it down even if you go to the big bang, you still have something from nothing."
The Big Bang theory is in the field of Astrophysics, not evolution.
"If evolution is survival of the fittest how come we evolved from something that still exists? If we evolved from Apes, how come there are still Apes?"
First, we didn't involve from apes, we are a species of ape. Second, you're thinking of speciation as a ladder. This is a common misconception. Think of it as a tree, with each species being a branch.
Assume you take two pairs of hamsters and put them on isolated islands. Further assume that hamsters thrive and populate the island. Given enough years(as in tens of thousands and millions of years)and if they don't go extinct, these populations will fork first into sub-species and then into species.
"If man did evolve through a series of minor changes, would we not find many fossils from the later stages and none from the earliest?"
I understand that there are more fossils found from the later stages then the earliest. But the early fossils get much more attention in the press.
"Why is it that shortly after the theory developed we suddenly have an example from almost every stage of transformation but we haven't discovered any early forms since?"
No, discoveries are still being made. Look no further then the latest front cover of National Geographic. However, it's my observation that these discoveries get less attention then they did in the past. Some palaeontologists might disagree, but the real breakthroughs in more recent times have been though applying molecular biology. While still very relevant, the hominid fossil record is simply less important to understanding human evolution then it was in the past. IMO,
When you look at fossils, you are limited to the fossils at hand. There are often gaps. And there is always a subjective element in comparing fossils. Molecular biology is less subjective. In the 1960's, the application of molecular biology to human evolution almost literally turned the field upside down.
Most of your remaining questions have to do with the hominid fossil record, not evolution per se. You could throw away every hominid fossil that has ever been discovered and there would still be sufficient compelling evidence to prove evolution.
|
|
TradIsGood
Fun-loving climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 05:28pm PT
|
granite - you got it. But the question of viruses was posed specifically to get at your definition of reproductive rates. How does one measure the rate? In the example given, one might try for a classical instantaneous rate and a differential equation, but sooner or later, that equation stops being a linear d.e. (population saturation or elimination...)
In other words, trying to get out of the really loosy, goosy definitions like "advantageous" and define what it means to be higher rate. For example, when Va(t0) starts out say in a population equal to Vb(t0), it soon outnumbers Vb(t1). But if it wipes out the village, except for the Vb escapees, (or eliminates all of the susceptible, then Ra(at that time, t2) = 0, and Rb >> Ra. So we have a problem.
At one time Ra >> Rb, and at another Rb >> Ra. Trying to fit that back into your original statement a few posts back is awkward, at best. I hope you see where I am going here - rigor.
Aya, in the title, after all, is "origin of the species". Darwin really does not pose a mechanism for the "origin" to my thinking, but merely a mechanism (selection) for controlling the count of the species.
So that is why I ask whether we include speciation (perhaps opening up the monkey business) or rule it out of the theory (making it of little interest to the monkey maniacs, but ceding all of the fun stuff to another theory).
I think granite addressed "geographic" issues pretty well. Most reproduction requires at least temporary, contemporaneous, physical co-location. Populations are affected by their location getting feedback from it.
:-)
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 05:33pm PT
|
I'm clearly still not understanding. Evolution is one mechanism by which speciation can occur. Speciation has no bearing on the theory of evolution, i.e., it does not need to "be included" in it?
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 05:43pm PT
|
Rokjok, Good post on fossilisation. You ever notice that in magazines and museums you see paintings and mobiles of swamps and volcanoes? You'd think that in prehistoric times the earth was one big swamp, broken up by volcanoes here and there! They show that because the vast majority of fossils are found in areas of sedimentation, either in swamp or lowlands or due to volcanic ash.
You don't see very many fossils from animals and mountainous areas because you don't have much sedimentation there and therefore very few (if any) fossils.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 06:12pm PT
|
I must be missing something here about the speciation issue. As TradIsGood mentioned, the introduction of the theory to the world was in a book called the 'Origin of Species'. Of course the theory of evolution is concerned with speciation. Darwin thought that there was more or less a continuum between "varieties" within a species and characteristics between species. But it was the genesis of new species that clearly interested Darwin and required explanation.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 06:25pm PT
|
"granite - you got it. But the question of viruses was posed specifically to get at your definition of reproductive rates. How does one measure the rate? In the example given, one might try for a classical instantaneous rate and a differential equation, but sooner or later, that equation stops being a linear d.e. (population saturation or elimination...)
"In other words, trying to get out of the really loosy, goosy definitions like "advantageous" and define what it means to be higher rate. For example, when Va(t0) starts out say in a population equal to Vb(t0), it soon outnumbers Vb(t1). But if it wipes out the village, except for the Vb escapees, (or eliminates all of the susceptible, then Ra(at that time, t2) = 0, and Rb >> Ra. So we have a problem.
"At one time Ra >> Rb, and at another Rb >> Ra. Trying to fit that back into your original statement a few posts back is awkward, at best. I hope you see where I am going here - rigor."
If you were doing an experiment in a lab, you'd need to have to better define "advantageous," probably by units of time or number of generations. As in measuring almost anything, the precise increments you use are largely arbitrary.
As you can see, in the "real world" things get complicated very fast. Whether a specific mutation (or set of mutations) is good or bad depends on the circumstances so outside the lab, you're stuck with loosy, goosy, unless you chose one method of measurement and stick with that.
Human intelligence is often thought of as one of the most successful adaptations ever. But it has been pointed out that if this intelligence is used to foment a nuclear or bio-chem war that exterminates the human species, it can be seen as a maladaptation. Again, you'd have Ra >> Rb at one time, and Rb >> Ra at another. (You don't even have to go that far--any time a person uses his or her intelligence to commit suicide, you can consider the intelligence necessary to do so a maladopation.)
Or how about the KT extinction? I understand that most species that survived hade relatively small bodies. Most of the species with larger bodies went extinct. Larger bodies, in that particular situation, turned out to be a maladoptation. Oops.
But we should think of the process of evolution working on the level of the individual, with individuals competing against other individuals. Some say, that even looking at the level of the individual is too high a level and that it really operates at a genetic level. See Richard Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" for example. (If only read one of Dawkin's books, this is the one to read.)
Evolution is just an unguided process-- a process that operates in the moment. It does not look forward (or backwards), it just happens. Most definitions of fitness (fitness being the measure of "success" in evolution) that I've seen do not try to take into account long-term consequences, because that gets very speculative, very fast.
I would expect that epidemiologists are very interested in the effect on the host (with the host being us!), but I suspect that is because saving lives (of us hosts) is the ultimate goal.
|
|
TradIsGood
Fun-loving climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 06:28pm PT
|
No, I am confused. Looking for a rigorous definition of the theory. Does evolution explain the development of (new) species or not? We know today about chromosomes, that both plant and animal genetic material is all made from the same few building blocks, that those blocks can be very accurately, but not perfectly replicated by well understood chemical processes, but that they are organized differently.
We even know that a specific gene can me manufactured - not that this is relevant.
So does the concept of species belong in the theory or not. And if in, what is the definition of species, and what is its role in the theory?
Maybe it is time to restate? Include modifications to granites original? Getting close to 50 posts trying to get a statement of the theory that we can agree on... :-)
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 06:49pm PT
|
I don't know how many more ways I can express what I'm trying to say.
Evolution is a mechanism by which speciation can occur.
I wish I could come up with an analogy, but I can't.
It's exactly as eeyonkee says, however: Darwin was concerned with the development of new species and was looking for an explanation. The explanation he came up with was natural selection.
Natural selection is an example of one evolutionary process. It is essentially the non-random difference in the rate of survival/reproduction of organisms. Certainly there are other evolutionary processes, and these processes can contribute to speciation as well.
I guess I'm not really helping or clarifying. I'm trying to say that evolution is one way to explain speciation, but speciation is not necessary to explain evolution.
|
|
Maysho
climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 07:15pm PT
|
Hey you all,
I just want to thank you for the stimulating conversation, I am learning a lot, I know it takes time and effort to stay in this game, just letting you know that I am appreciating this as an always-trying-to-learn scientific neophyte, sideline observer.
Peter
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2006 - 07:29pm PT
|
"...evolution is one way to explain speciation, but speciation is not necessary to explain evolution."
Exactly, assuming that my evolution we are referring to only the "mechanism" (micro-evolution, or what I have been referring to as the "process" of evolution) as opposed to also looking at what the mechanism has produced over time (macro-evolution--really nothing less then trying to reconstruct the history of life, including speciation).
Regarding the effect of intelligent life (us, tinkering with things), that does not suspend the process of evolution, it only changes the environment in which it operates.
The symbiotic relationship of people and dogs is not unlike many other symbiotic relationships in the animal world involving less intelligent creatures.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 04:57am PT
|
Aya, interesting posts.
Re: the Ara experiments: I can find nothing in any of the studies whih conclusively states that it was the new mutations which enabled the e.coli to adapt to temperature changes - that no e.coli was able to do this before. In fact, you said yourself that e.coli already have adaptaions which allow them to survive large temperature variations. Nor is there anything to indicate that the less able population didn't just progressively lose the ability.
In fact, all the studies I read (9) openly admitted that they didn't bother sequencing the end populations, nor did they examine the sustainability of the mutations.
This is a little unfair to the scientists in question though, since they weren't testing these hypotheses. Fascinating work though and remarkably rigorous, thanks so much for pointing me to it.
As for Barry Hall's work, I'm familiar with it. While it's controversial for a number of reasons, in the converstaion we're having it's just not very relevant: the hydrolysis of lactose is not a new function. It already exists.
As I've said before, any type of evolution depends on the idea that completely new functions, organs and limbs can spontaneously develop. Neither of the experiments you cited demonstrates this.
Thanks for your efforts though!
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 05:28am PT
|
"As I've said before, any type of evolution depends on the idea that completely new functions, organs and limbs can spontaneously develop."
I am not sure what you mean with your sentence. Is your meaning the same as in the sentence below?
As I've said before, any type of evolution depends on the idea that completely new functions, organs (like liver) and limbs (like wings) can spontaneously develop by a single mutation for an animal that didn't even have something similar before.
Have I understood you correctly?
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 05:52am PT
|
"As I've said before, any type of evolution depends on the idea that completely new functions, organs (like liver) and limbs (like wings) can spontaneously develop by a single mutation for an animal that didn't even have something similar before"
That's not how evolution works, Raymond.
Single mutations don't produce new organs and limbs for the simple reason that complex structures require large numbers of genes.
So such a structure would require many mutations to produce new genetic material, and would only appear after at least that number of generations.
This is pretty basic stuff, I'm sure you could find a web site to learn these fundamentals from if you're still confused.
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 06:48am PT
|
Hush, Blight, let the grownups talk.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 07:11am PT
|
You really are deeply uncomfortable with anyone asking qeustions about science, aren't you cintune?
I'd have thought that if you were really sure about your beliefs, you'd be a little less insecure about them.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 08:35am PT
|
Blight, isn't this the experiment you have been looking for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luria-Delbruck_experiment
Seems to agree with all your 3 points below.
"1. Mutations are not new genetic material. They are replications of existing material. As an example, you can create a fly with 3 eyes. But that's not a new organ; flies already have eyes.
2. Changes need to be sustainable. In all cases to date, mutations either lead to sterility or they simply disappear.]
3. Changes must be net positive, and possible without interference."
|
|
TradIsGood
Fun-loving climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 08:47am PT
|
"It's exactly as eeyonkee says, however: Darwin was concerned with the development of new species and was looking for an explanation. The explanation he came up with was natural selection."
Whether or not he was looking for an explanation, it seems to me that he did not really find one. See below
"Natural selection is an example of one evolutionary process. It is essentially the non-random difference in the rate of survival/reproduction of organisms. Certainly there are other evolutionary processes, and these processes can contribute to speciation as well."
My problem is that the theory seems at best to attempt to explain changes in phenotype populations. Unfortunately the explanation ends up seeming a bit circular. It basically boils down to an argument that the phenotypes that compete most effectively in the environment are those that procreate the most prolifically. So phenotype populations vary over time and that is caused by a differential in the rate of reproduction. Sure, there are examples, that are individually cataloged where advantages with respect to capturing food, avioding becoming food, and higher fertility offer the "competitive advantages". But in the end the theory basically really is a circular or tautological proposition.
Beyond that, however, we need to decide whether Darwin actually proposed a method relating to changes in the number of species in particular and not just phenotype population changes. I would hold that he has no prescription for the development of new species at all. The nice part of that is that it is not in conflict with any fundamentalist issues. In particular, since no mechanism for changes in species is advanced, there really is no support for the thesis that man ever existed in any other form (from Darwin's results - not paleontological records.)
To be sure, more modern work has examined extensively the chemistry and role of genes. But if we exclude this from the Darwin Evolutionary Model (it came significantly later), the model remains a conundrum. It leaves one making hand-waving post hoc arguments about populations in a chaotic ecological universe. See, for example, the discussion of viruses above.
Allowing in modern developments in understanding of genetics is key. Suppose we do that. And further, let us suppose that the genetic trees mentioned above do imply special change, i.e. that modern species did in fact evolve over time from entirely different species. Geneticists can very readily make statistical inferences about the development based on the "distance" (size of the differences) between one species and another. They can even show the evolution of "races" or phenotypical changes of a species in many cases.
Now the problem facing us is to demonstrate that such changes are plausible in the time frames suggested by the data. Doing this is the really and truly interesting science. And it is the one key test of the theory. It is one thing to speculate that species A evolved from species B based on the same number of chromosomes but different DNA sequences. It is another thing entirely to propose a mechanism that allows for the change in the required amount of time allowing for the stochastic processes involved. In other words, there needs to be an explanation for the development of a new genetic sequence (mutations, and other mechanisms) that is biologically and chemically supportable and physically probable enough to occur in the time required.
In short, I think the theory is a nice start, but the mechanisms of change are not well understood even today. To me, The Selfish Gene just does not cut the mustard, but is simply a fancy way of saying the same thing that Darwin said - which is not to say that he was wrong - but simply saying again, that he did not find anything that explains the "origin of species".
This book has been around awhile, though not as long as the Selfish Gene. It does attempt to explain research into how species evolved and suggests that biologists today may be too specialized to find the answers!
Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan, 2002, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species, Perseus Books Group, ISBN 0-465-04391-7
Are they right? Don't ask me. But it is more thought provoking IMO than Darwin or Dawkins. And it seems to address the question that everybody really is trying to understand, i.e. whether and how these evolutionary trees occured. :-)
60 posts or so...
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 10:04am PT
|
"Blight, isn't this the experiment you have been looking for"
No, but thanks for looking it up.
This experiment fails to meet the first criterion: that mutations should create new traits or structures. Viral resistance is not a new trait.
It is however an excellent illustration of how natural selection works on mutations, which is why they won the prize for it.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 10:06am PT
|
The Selfish Gene just does not cut the mustard, but is simply a fancy way of saying the same thing that Darwin said..
I would heartily disagree with this statement. The focus on the fitness of the gene as compared to the fitness of the organism is a big one and has lots of rather subtle ramifications. Also, I think that speciation is well-enough understood. One way in which you could undoubtedly create two species out of one is to suddenly transport some members of a parent population to another part of the world, completely cut off from the first. After some tens of thousands of years, those (now) two populations will have changed sufficiently that they will not be able to interbreed and they will be two separate species. This exact thing has happened several times in the past because - the most obvious following the break-up of large continental masses such as the breakup of Pangea and Laurasia/Gondwanaland etc. This is not the only was to form new species, but some sort of geographic isolation in addition to a bottleneck in the total genome of the soon-to-be new species will almost always play a part.
Here's a great snippet from Dawkin's "River Out of Eden"
(Starts off with a quote from a physicist) Peit Hein captures the classically pristine world of physics. But when the ricochets of atomic billiard balls chance to put together an object that has a certain, seemingly innocent property, something momentous happens in the universe. That property is the ability to self-replicate; that is, the object is able to use the surrounding materials to make exact copies of itself, including replicas of such minor flaws in copying as usually arise. What will follow from this singular occurrence, anywhere in the universe, is Darwinian selection and hence the baroque extravaganza that, on this planet we call life. Never were so many facts explained by so few assumptions. Not only does the Darwinian theory command superabundant power to explain, its economy in doing so has a sinewy elegance, a poetic beauty that outclasses even the most haunting of the world's origin myths.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 10:09am PT
|
One thing that is clear from this thread is that no expert on evolution participate in the discussion.
It makes it on some what the same level as mountain mans global warming threads. The opinion of someone with no knoweledge on the subject is not very interesting. Many people here know much more than MM but the idea is the same.
It can be fun to discuss a theory but that a couple of laymen should decide if a theory is correct or not is kind of ridiculous.
I dont even think that hardcore IE people from the discovery institut like Behe agree with Blight's criticism. They try to convience people by going even further into microbiology where very few people have any knoweledge. The propaganda method seems to be that the people they want to convience dont understand the arguments. Then is it just word against word about who is right and it doesn't seem to be that difficult to make people belive in lies if both sides say that they are correct. Look at the current US admininstration for an example.
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 10:09am PT
|
"You really are deeply uncomfortable with anyone asking qeustions about science, aren't you cintune?
I'd have thought that if you were really sure about your beliefs, you'd be a little less insecure about them."
Settle down, laddie. Go play with your imaginary friend.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 10:14am PT
|
"Viral resistance is not a new trait."
Ok, what is a trait for a bacteria?
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 10:33am PT
|
Blight, if you've actually read the studies and looked at the data in the Bennett et al studies, you'll see that it is very evident that the ability to survive at novel temperatures increased over generations (rather than being progressively lost).
E. coli are able to survive at wide temperatures, yes. However, with each successive generation, they were able to survive better than the previous ones. How do you explain this, if you dismiss the idea that mutations arose in the bacteria's genome that allowed it to live better at these new temperature regimes? Please keep in mind that the bacteria were originally all identical.
Also, if you want to say that the old populations progressively lost the ability to live at higher temperatures (you'll need to explain how this would work a little better, since the original populations were frozen, so did not change, while the other populations were growing in the new environments).
Finally, and most to the point, they most certainly did sequence the genomes of these bacteria, and found multiple mutation events - so I'm not sure which studies you read? Here is a link to one of their studies which is available online. Several of these gene duplication events were coincident with statistically significant increases in fitness. Again, how would you explain this result?
I suppose that you might dismiss these results because the mutation events they found were replications and deletions, rather than the spontaneous appearance of completely new DNA sequences - which is the "proof" (please recall that there is no such thing as absolute proof in science) you requested. Yes or no?
Re: Barry Hall. The point in that case is that the E. coli he started with could not hydrolyze lactose. "It already exists" is true - but not of the cells he was studying.
The lactose matabolism pathway that these cells evolved was completely novel - i.e. it did not exist in the original cells, nor does it exist in other E. coli that are able to metabolize lactose (via a different pathway).
There are plenty of other examples, of course, such as the mutations in certain Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas strains which allow the production of enzymes which degrade nylon. Nylon is a manmade substance, the bacteria are not normally able to digest it. The mutation (it's been sequenced) that arose allowed them to utilize nylon as a food source. This was a new gene sequence that coded for a new protein that allowed the digestion of a new food source. Here is a link to one of the papers showing the results of sequencing the mutation.
There are lots of other examples of bacteria with mutations that allow the digestion of new, manmade compounds. Quick google searches will yield these.
Please explain how these studies don't show the development of new processes via mutations?
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 10:44am PT
|
I'm curious, Raymond, what's your background?
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 10:48am PT
|
Now, regarding Lynn Margulis: she first states that Darwin's theory is essentially a tautology - google is great because you don't have to write stuff yourself! I found this page talking about that statement.
The rest of it basically seems to suggest that what Darwin proposed is useless as a mechanism for speciation because he did not know about genes, mutation, etc. That's a rather silly statement, really - and I suppose she mostly makes it because the rest of that book probably goes on to try to support her endosymbiosis theory?
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 11:13am PT
|
Aya, what you've posted certainly looks more convincing. I appreciate your hard work, I guess this is using up almost as much of your time as mine!
However, I still have the same problem with what you've posted: if completely new traits and structures can emerge, why do all the experiments referenced just deal with existing ones?
The ability to survive temperature variations, metabolize lactose, or to produce enzymes, is not new. It's been seen before. Even the abstract of the nylon-eating bugs paper states that it's a preexisting sequence.
This goes all the way back to what I first asked for: evidence of the development of a new trait or structure in an existing species. I don't think any of what you've posted demonstrates that, and without that process, there can be no evolution.
And one more time: I'm not saying evolution is wrong. I'm saying that I think our understanding of it is wrong. I'm not a creationist, or an ID proponent. I'm just someone who doesn't swallow what I don't properly understand without questioning it.
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 11:21am PT
|
What you're essentially saying, then, is that cats were to suddenly evolve horns, that would not be evolution because cows have horns?
The mutations were new.
The nylon mutation was created by a frameshift mutation. The previous sequence was moved over, and suddenly encoded for new proteins. How the new sequence emerges (insertion, replication, deletion, frameshift, etc.) is irrelevant: the fact of the matter is that it is now a new sequence that codes for new proteins.
If you cannot see this, then once again, your dismissal of evolution is essentially irrelevant because you aren't undserstanding its underlying mechanisms .
As for time: it's time I would have spent this morning having a leisurely breakfast and watching Charmed and ER on TNT. My guilty pleasure shows. Instead, I watched Charmed and ER, had a leisurely breakfast, and got to root around my brain for all the crap I shoved in there when I took prelims... of course, now, I should probably go to the library to see if I can't cram some organic chemistry in there.
You still have not answered my questions.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 11:32am PT
|
"I'm curious, Raymond, what's your background?"
I am PhD student in engineering. I have read a couple of Dawkings books and a couple of other "popular" science books.
I have very limited knowledge about biology though.
I consider the way people think about creation/evolution, religion, global warming, politics etc interesting. The use of propaganda and how it effect people. There are no problem to found people on both sides with some kind of PhD saying that the other side is incorrect.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 11:34am PT
|
"What you're essentially saying, then, is that cats were to suddenly evolve horns, that would not be evolution because cows have horns?"
Er, I think that would bring problems of its own.
The nylon mutation was created by a frameshift mutation. The previous sequence was moved over, and suddenly encoded for new proteins. How the new sequence emerges (insertion, replication, deletion, frameshift, etc.) is irrelevant: the fact of the matter is that it is now a new sequence that codes for new proteins.
It's very relevant, and I think that dismissing any part of the process as "irrelevant" smacks of not wanting it looked at too closely.
The ability of that sequence to encode for different proteins already existed, in fact that's what it does (and always did). It was not new.
If you cannot see this, then once again, your dismissal of evolution is essentially irrelevant because you aren't undserstanding its underlying mechanisms
So unless i agree with you I must be wrong? Oh well, I can live with you thinking that. Please don't waste any more time on me.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 11:38am PT
|
Raymond. I guess I didn't quite get what you meant with One thing that is clear from this thread is that no expert on evolution participate in the discussion. It makes it on some what the same level as mountain mans global warming threads. The opinion of someone with no knoweledge on the subject is not very interesting. Many people here know much more than MM but the idea is the same.. It's my opinion that this thread has some very interesting things to say.
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 11:54am PT
|
I don't think you're understanding, Blight.
The ability to code the protein was NOT there. It did not "always do it", except in the trivial sense that once a mutation caused it to be read differently, it did. A mutation occurred that allowed the protein to be encoded.
I found this website. In addition to explaining far better than I ever could about how a frameshift mutation indeed creates new information (rather than just somehow "unlocking" pre-existing information), it has much more in depth information about the nylon digesting bacteria than I provided, including multiple links to if not full papers, then at least their abstracts (you could get the full papers at most libraries as they will have access to jstor, etc.). Hopefully they will explain it in a way such that you understand how a frameshift mutation indeed creates new genetic material.
Where did I say that if you didn't agree with me, you were wrong? What I'm saying is that you're demonstrating that you don't understand certain processes that are fundamental to the theory, and that based on those misunderstandings, you're dismissing the theory.
Again, please answer my questions, if only to demonstrate how much you do understand.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 11:56am PT
|
"Now the problem facing us is to demonstrate that such changes are plausible in the time frames suggested by the data. Doing this is the really and truly interesting science. And it is the one key test of the theory. It is one thing to speculate that species A evolved from species B based on the same number of chromosomes but different DNA sequences. It is another thing entirely to propose a mechanism that allows for the change in the required amount of time allowing for the stochastic processes involved. In other words, there needs to be an explanation for the development of a new genetic sequence (mutations, and other mechanisms) that is biologically and chemically supportable and physically probable enough to occur in the time required."
TradisGood, You were seeking rigor yesterday. Can you articulate the hypothesis you are testing and what kind of proof you are seeking.
The mechanism is pretty well understood. Of course, since this is science, there is always room for improvement and future discoveries. Obviously, you're not going to be able to prove timing in in a laboratory experiment, nor by direct observation (unless you invent a time machine).
Your best hope is to look at the "molecular clock" hypothesis. This is based on the assumption (not completely provable) that mutations happen at a constant rate. But it does appear to correlate with the fossil record.
So again, what type of proof are you looking for?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 11:58am PT
|
I agree that some stuff is interesting and I am curious about same stuff myself.
But I have a feeling that people like Blight and TIG wants to prove the truthness of evolution. The people on the forum have not enough knowledge to decide this...
I dont think that blight's claim that it doesn't exist proof is more important than MM's claim that global warming is a hoax.
Why are the forum so incredibly slow today?
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 12:04pm PT
|
I would contend that if the world's best expert on evolution participated on this thread, he/she still could not prove its truthfulness - not to a layman anyway.
|
|
TradIsGood
Fun-loving climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 12:08pm PT
|
Aya, I read the book about 3 years ago. I should not presume to be able to summarize it for you, since it is certainly not my field.
OK, I will try, placing far too much trust in my aging memory. I believe the gist of it is:
Darwin did not identify a mechanism for the origination of a new species, but rather described that the environment can impose "preferences" for a phenotype which will be exhibited over time.
That existing explanations for the creation of new genetic sequences that would explain the evolution of the species were inadequate because there probabilities were not high enough to occur in the time frames that they needed to. That is, random mutations from radiation, breaks, resequencing, etc. and possibly some other mechanisms (?) were insufficient.
To fill in the gap, she and her colleagues were seeking new mechanisms which included changes resulting from symbiotic relationships, e.g. fungus in guts of termites that were able to "digest" cellulose on behalf of the host.
I am thinking that the role of viruses and their ability to act on proteins played a part (if it was not here, I do not know where I got that idea, because I sure do not read widely in this field :-) )
And to the Dawkins fan... I still think that he is being cute, not that there is not something to be learned from the approach. The organism is an expression of the genes, but only the most primitive life forms have only natural behavior (definition of primitive). The more advanced have a nurtural and community component that is not dependent solely on genes. This was alluded to as well by the poster discussing life that had the intelligence to alter its own environment. Having it, and actually expressing it seem a stretch for a pure nature position on selection -
see also the breeding argument - the gene has "control" entirely dependent on its "fitness" in the context of the desires of the "breeders".
80(?) My prediction is looking pretty good, so far.
Can we agree that it is hard to agree on what the theory is, so that it is nearly impossible to test it? :-)
Can we agree that there is still work being done in the field because it is not so firmly established as Newtons's law, quantum mechanics, and general relativity? :-)
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 12:16pm PT
|
Uhm, nobody can prove the "truthfulness" of evolution (although, I'm pretty sure that "evolution" isn't a liar).
Either way, it's a theory. You can't prove it. You can only support it. Such is science.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 12:25pm PT
|
Blight implores us, "Please don't waste any more time on me."
This is perhaps the most intelligent thing that Blight has said in this thread and a suggestion well worth taking.
As you can see, I entered this thread defending Blight--not his position, but requesting that we just answer his questions and refrain from impugning him personally.
However, after seeing his behavior on past threads on evolution and religion, I have lost respect for him and believe that he is just a troll whose main intention is to try to disrupt intelligent conversation, not try to engage in it. If you'll go back to the beginning of this thread, you'll seee that he began this dialogue with insults.
Blight is not here with an open mind. He has made it clear that the only evidence that he will accept is the spontaneous development of a completely new organ. And by new organ, he wants something entirely different. As he has stated, even the development of a third eye would not satisfy him. As has been pointed out to more then once, the "proof" that he is asking for would tend to disprove evolution (macro-evolution anyway), and be more in line with intelligent design.
So if you want to persuage Blight, good luck in that.
You think you can use prevail using logic? Blight has specifically disclaimed logic. He calls it "the narrow set of cirumstances that the arbitrary set of rules we made up and called 'logic'"
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 12:32pm PT
|
Raymond, writes, "It makes it on some what the same level as mountain mans global warming threads. The opinion of someone with no knoweledge on the subject is not very interesting."
Raymond, so why are you here?
Shouldn't you be studying? Or working on something?
If your answer is, yeah, but this is more fun, well, you've answered your own question!
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 12:44pm PT
|
Aya, let me clarify: I'm looking for evidence of a new trait. by that I mean one that the organism didn't have before.
In the nylon eating bug case, the ability to produce enzymes was not new. It already did it. The ability to experience mutations was not new. It already did that too. The ability to use food sources for energy was not new. That already existed too.
The nature of the food source itself is trivial to the point of irrlevant since the organism has an existing mechanism for adapting to new food sources.
As for your questions, I'm sorry but I must have missed them, could you repost them please?
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 12:45pm PT
|
"80(?) My prediction is looking pretty good, so far."
"Can we agree that it is hard to agree on what the theory is, so that it is nearly impossible to test it? :-) "
The articulation of a rigorous theory is your game. I don't think there is much interest or effort in trying to do that by anyone else here. You were making some progress yesterday with a statement of the meachanism, but now that you've jumped tracks and looking at macro-evolution, all bets are off. Macro-evolution is not just one unified theory, it is a whole bundle of theories.
|
|
TradIsGood
Fun-loving climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 01:07pm PT
|
I am happy to leave out macroevolution. I just think debating something that is not rigorously defined leaves everybody on uncommon ground, destined for ever to repeat the same stuff, or even failing that, simply have no way to agree that the theory is consistent with known observations or not.
We can't resolve the science by a vote, but we could resolve the issue of what the statement of the science is by a vote. When agreement on the statement is unanimous, then rigor is available to address the science. If not unanimous then those who agree on the statement can offer claims, tests, or refutations.
Right now, it seems we are at the stage where some think Newton's Law is
F = ma, and others are thinking
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 01:59pm PT
|
Aya, let me clarify: I'm looking for evidence of a new trait. by that I mean one that the organism didn't have before.
In the nylon eating bug case, the ability to produce enzymes was not new. It already did it. The ability to experience mutations was not new. It already did that too. The ability to use food sources for energy was not new. That already existed too.
There's no need to clarify; you were clear to begin with. Apparently I haven't been clear, so I'll try again:
The bacteria did not digest nylon previous to living in an environment where it was advantageous to do so. To be certain, as recently as about 100 years ago, the bacteria did not live in an environment where nylon existed, period. The bacteria did not produce those enzymes before. They did not digest nylon before. Other closely related bacteria who do not live in nylon-rich environments do not and can not digest nylon. They could not do something before, and now, do to a mutation, they can: isn't this the definition of new?
It seems to me that you're saying that this was not new because the mutation that allowed it to happen was a frameshift mutation: yes or no?
If a mutation occured that allowed the production of an enzyme that the bacteria previously did not produce is not acceptable as new to you, out of curiosity, what types of mutations WILL you accept as new?
The ability to experience mutations was obviously not new; the mere fact that the bacteria have DNA means that they are able to experience mutations: this is of course one of the central mechanisms of evolution. I don't understand why the ability to experience mutations (i.e. have DNA?) must now be new, as well? Please explain.
The ability to use food sources as energy is also obviously not new. Again, I don't see the relevance: the bacteria could not utilize nylon as food previously. A mutation allowed them to utilize it. Of course they can utilize food as energy? I am, after all, making the point that the bacteria developed the ability to digest nylon, not that they developed the ability to digest, period. How does this somehow negate the essential fact that the bacteria had a mutation that allowed them to do something (digest nylon) that they previously could not?
It almost seems that ultimately what you're saying is that since organisms have DNA already, any changes to that DNA are not new? Please clarify.
The nature of the food source itself is trivial to the point of irrlevant since the organism has an existing mechanism for adapting to new food sources.
So you concede that the organism has a mechanism for adapting to novel food sources. Can you please explain to me this mechanism?
As for your questions, I'm sorry but I must have missed them, could you repost them please?
They were the questions in the following post that I'll copy below.
----
Blight, if you've actually read the studies and looked at the data in the Bennett et al studies, you'll see that it is very evident that the ability to survive at novel temperatures increased over generations (rather than being progressively lost).
E. coli are able to survive at wide temperatures, yes. However, with each successive generation, they were able to survive better than the previous ones. How do you explain this, if you dismiss the idea that mutations arose in the bacteria's genome that allowed it to live better at these new temperature regimes? Please keep in mind that the bacteria were originally all identical.
Also, if you want to say that the old populations progressively lost the ability to live at higher temperatures (you'll need to explain how this would work a little better, since the original populations were frozen, so did not change, while the other populations were growing in the new environments).
Finally, and most to the point, they most certainly did sequence the genomes of these bacteria, and found multiple mutation events - so I'm not sure which studies you read? Here is a link to one of their studies which is available online. Several of these gene duplication events were coincident with statistically significant increases in fitness. Again, how would you explain this result?
I suppose that you might dismiss these results because the mutation events they found were replications and deletions, rather than the spontaneous appearance of completely new DNA sequences - which is the "proof" (please recall that there is no such thing as absolute proof in science) you requested. Yes or no?
Re: Barry Hall. The point in that case is that the E. coli he started with could not hydrolyze lactose. "It already exists" is true - but not of the cells he was studying.
The lactose matabolism pathway that these cells evolved was completely novel - i.e. it did not exist in the original cells, nor does it exist in other E. coli that are able to metabolize lactose (via a different pathway).
There are plenty of other examples, of course, such as the mutations in certain Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas strains which allow the production of enzymes which degrade nylon. Nylon is a manmade substance, the bacteria are not normally able to digest it. The mutation (it's been sequenced) that arose allowed them to utilize nylon as a food source. This was a new gene sequence that coded for a new protein that allowed the digestion of a new food source. Here is a link to one of the papers showing the results of sequencing the mutation.
There are lots of other examples of bacteria with mutations that allow the digestion of new, manmade compounds. Quick google searches will yield these.
Please explain how these studies don't show the development of new processes via mutations?
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 03:59pm PT
|
Seems to me, some folks have spent a lot of time bending over backwards to try to answer Blight's questions. A few of us have asked Blight to articulate a viable alternative to evolution. To make it easier I would frame it this way. The theory of evolution basically postulates that existing species are the result of descent with modification from earlier forms. This simple but powerful idea has great explanatory power. There is almost nothing about the nature and distribution of species on earth that cannot be explained, at least in a general way, by the theory. It was a viable and generally accepted theory for 100 years before the discovery of DNA. The discovery of DNA provided the mechanistic underpinnings that were missing (but more or less anticipated) in the original theory. With these new underpinnings, the theory had even more explanatory power.
My question to Blight. Do you believe that a supernatural being created all of the species as they are and that they are essentially immutable? If you do believe this, than how do you explain the fossil record which clearly indicates that billions to trillions of species have gone extinct. If you do not believe the first question, then what do you believe?
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2006 - 04:40pm PT
|
"I just think debating something that is not rigorously defined leaves everybody on uncommon ground, destined for ever to repeat the same stuff, or even failing that, simply have no way to agree that the theory is consistent with known observations or not."
Well yes, what did you expect? This is Usenet, um, I mean Supertopo after all.
Is it realistic to expect that a rigorous definition can be jointly reached in a discussion like this? I think it would be unlikely even if every person participating in this thread specialized in studying evolution. Maybe I'm just a cynic, but usually one or two people put things out there and others snipe and heckle and eventually (maybe) grudgingly agree, because they can't think of anything else to criticize or just out of laziness.
Let's go with the definition of "absolute fitness" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29 , using absolute numbers.
Anything else missing?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 04:13am PT
|
"Shouldn't you be studying? Or working on something?"
So true, I should be writing an article...
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 05:05am PT
|
They could not do something before, and now, do to a mutation, they can: isn't this the definition of new?
I understand what you're saying, I'm simply disagreeing with you.
Here's an analogy: our immune system contains cells which have the ability to adapt to combat foreign bodies they've never encountered before. Is this evolution? Of course not, these cells have a preexisting mechanism which allows them to make superficial changes in response to their environment.
So to return to the nylon-eating bugs: I don't accept the ability to eat nylon instead of carbohydrates as evidence of evolution for the same reason; it's just the superficial result of a preexisting mechanism, not a new mechanism itself.
what types of mutations WILL you accept as new?
Ones which are new. Not seen before. A new limb, a new organ, a new trait. Something novel, sustainable, net positive and possible without interference. Evolutionary theory says such things arise. So why is there no evidence of this happening?
Now to your questions:
How do you explain this, if you dismiss the idea that mutations arose in the bacteria's genome that allowed it to live better at these new temperature regimes?
I don't dismiss the idea that mutations arose in the bacteria's genome. I dismiss the idea that this is a new trait.
Several of these gene duplication events were coincident with statistically significant increases in fitness. Again, how would you explain this result?
A good example of natural selection. Of course the genes in surviving organisms were passed on looking for.
I suppose that you might dismiss these results because the mutation events they found were replications and deletions, rather than the spontaneous appearance of completely new DNA sequences - which is the "proof" (please recall that there is no such thing as absolute proof in science) you requested. Yes or no?
No. I have little interest in DNA sequences because you know as well as I do that they're not fixed, even within an organism. I'm looking for sustainable evidence of the results of new DNA: a new organ, limb or trait as described above.
Please explain how these studies don't show the development of new processes via mutations?
Eating is not a new process, as I've said before.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 05:07am PT
|
My question to Blight. Do you believe that a supernatural being created all of the species as they are and that they are essentially immutable? If you do believe this, than how do you explain the fossil record which clearly indicates that billions to trillions of species have gone extinct. If you do not believe the first question, then what do you believe?
No.
We're not discussing my beliefs, we're discussing the scientific evidence for evolution. If you want to discuss that, by all means take part.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 05:15am PT
|
Blight, you are not giving any references to your view as usual.
Could you give a reference to a crediable source that have a similar opinion as you or have you thought about this all by yourself?
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 05:28am PT
|
All my own work, Raymond, but I doubt that I'm the only person who's thought all this.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 05:33am PT
|
Many people in this thread have claimed that you don't seem to understand evolution and that is the reason that you cant find your evidence. Dont you even think for a second that those people might actually be right? That your problem with the theory exist because you doesn't understand it?
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 06:14am PT
|
Yes, of course!
However, since nobody has shown that I don't understand what's being dicussed, and my objections are not directed at complex scientific principles but at common sense, it seems unlikely.
No rational person ever considers themselves to absolutely 100% correct, you're right there.
Do you consider it possible that evolution as currently described is incorrect?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 07:30am PT
|
"However, since nobody has shown that I don't understand what's being dicussed"
Shown is relative, some people probably think that they have shown it to you. You can prove E=MC^2 in the best possible way to a two year but is not going to understand that you have proved it.
I dont belive that there are any real expert on evolution here on supertopo so theirs opinion is not that important according to me. Why dont you ask some scientist working on evolution? There are probably forums that discuss this.
"and my objections are not directed at complex scientific principles but at common sense, it seems unlikely."
You talk about mutations and seem to have a different understanding of what a mutation is and what evidence is necessary. Mutations and DNA is definitely not common sense.
"Do you consider it possible that evolution as currently described is incorrect?"
It depends on what you mean with that evolution is correct. In large I belive that it is correct but some mechanism could be missunderstod. I am not in a situation that I really could decide if it is correct or not in the same way as I cant look at the evidence for the relativity theory and decide for or against. I dont have the knowledge that is necessary right now. I have to belive the expertize in the field. All people that I have seen is opponents of evolution have had a religious agenda to show that it is incorrect. It hasn't been difficullt to decide who have belive most.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 07:59am PT
|
Why dont you ask some scientist working on evolution?
I have. Several of my friends are doc and post doc students who are working or have worked in the area. But you can never test your ideas thoroughly enough, so I ask again and again. This thread has shown me many new views and sources, it's been great.
In large I belive that it is correct but some mechanism could be missunderstod.
That's exactly what I believe. The broad sense of it looks pretty hard to dispute, but the details? I'm not convinced we've got it right yet, and as long as we keep assuming that we have, no new investigation can progress.
All people that I have seen is opponents of evolution have had a religious agenda to show that it is incorrect.
Really? I've seen plenty of scientists question it too. Personally, I don't have an alternative to offer. Creationism and Intelligent Design have just as many if not more problems than evolution, which kind of leaves me in limbo for now.
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 08:01am PT
|
Here's an analogy: our immune system contains cells which have the ability to adapt to combat foreign bodies they've never encountered before. Is this evolution? Of course not, these cells have a preexisting mechanism which allows them to make superficial changes in response to their environment.
So to return to the nylon-eating bugs: I don't accept the ability to eat nylon instead of carbohydrates as evidence of evolution for the same reason; it's just the superficial result of a preexisting mechanism, not a new mechanism itself.
This is not an apt analogy. The process by which immunoglobulins are able to rearrrange their antigen binding regions to recognize new antigens (VDJ recombination) is understood (and as a total and irrelevant aside, initially elucidated by my father!). This is not evolution and nobody is claiming it is, particularly, because as you state, it is a superficial change in response to the environment (although it is analagous in that the Igs which do not rearrange to recognize the novel antigen are not replicated, and it is the ones that do which are). It happens within the individual, rather than across generations - just because my mom is immune to chicken pox does not mean that I will be. This is of course the core of evolutionary theory: descent with modification.
In the case of the bacteria, the ability to digest nylon did not already exist. It doesn't exist in other bacteria. As in, you can take them and put them on nylon, and they can't digest it.
A mistake in DNA replication when an individual bacterium was reproducing happened to shift a bit of the parent bacterium's DNA such that its offspring suddenly had DNA that coded for a protein that digested nylon.
I'll repose a question you did not answer:
It seems to me that you're saying that this was not new because the mutation that allowed it to happen was a frameshift mutation: yes or no?
And if yes, then I guess that's what you need to further learn about, because that's where the problem lies.
If no: Please describe exactly and precisely what the "pre-existing mechanism" for digesting nylon in the parent bacterium was.
Please describe to me what, exactly, it was that allowed the offspring to do something that its parent could not.
Ones which are new. Not seen before. A new limb, a new organ, a new trait. Something novel, sustainable, net positive and possible without interference. Evolutionary theory says such things arise. So why is there no evidence of this happening?
I've been giving it to you, but you seem to be dismissing novel traits due to either a lack of desire to understand or a lack of ability understanding of the examples I'm giving you. I'm hoping it's the latter, which is why I've been spending the time to try to break things down for you and show you how your statements are flawed.
I don't dismiss the idea that mutations arose in the bacteria's genome. I dismiss the idea that this is a new trait.
If it is not a new trait, what is it?
Yes, the bacteria were able to originally survive at a range of temperatures. You agree that there were mutations that arose in the bacterial population, some of which allowed them to survive better at the new temperatures than the original bacteria.
We return to the crux of the problem, then, and why you will evidently never accept evolution: what you are asking for is not something that you can reasonably expect to witness within your lifetime: a new limb or organ is an incredibly complex thing, and you simply will not live long enough to see them all the necessary mutations accumulate. What I am offering you is an example that you can witness: sequenced, identified, new changes in DNA which confer upon their carriers the ability to survive in novel environments better than their parents. This is the fundamental definition of evolution: descent (the subsequent generations) with modification (a change in the genome).
A good example of natural selection. Of course the genes in surviving organisms were passed on looking for.
Looking for what? The genes in the surviving organisms were passed on, yes. Where did they come from?
No. I have little interest in DNA sequences because you know as well as I do that they're not fixed, even within an organism. I'm looking for sustainable evidence of the results of new DNA: a new organ, limb or trait as described above.
If you're genuinely interested in finding convincing examples of evolution, you should be interested in DNA, as it is the mechanism by which changes are transmitted from generation to generation. It is why we know that the pathway by which lactose was digested in Barry Hall's bacteria was new.
Eating is not a new process, as I've said before.
Eating nylon is new.
By extension then, you'd dismiss an example of a dog with wheels instead of legs, because locomotion is not new? You'd dismiss a cat which breathed nitrogen instead of oxygen, because breathing is not new? You'd dismiss a mammal which reproduced by getting wet (just be sure not to feed after midnight), because reproduction is not new?
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 08:09am PT
|
raymond - I am (was) a scientist and I did work at least peripherally, on evolution in a past life, such as the evolution of resistance (and its subsequent loss, which is also revolution) to heavy metals in worms in the Hudson. As I mentioned before, my personal research was more focused on the ecology side of the equation, but I think I do sort of fit your general criteria....
|
|
TradIsGood
Fun-loving climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 08:09am PT
|
Blight, 100 posts after I suggested it, perhaps it is time that you actually posted what you believe the theory says, rather than objection after objection.
What the theory says. Not your ideas of valid tests.
Show a little of that rigor to which so far, I claim, you only pretend to. Prove my claim wrong! :-)
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 09:09am PT
|
A mistake in DNA replication when an individual bacterium was reproducing happened to shift a bit of the parent bacterium's DNA such that its offspring suddenly had DNA that coded for a protein that digested nylon.
Also, the bacterium lost the ability to digest carbohydrate.
This is my point (or rather, an extension of it): just swapping traits around can't result in organisms becoming more complex. As such, it could hardly be evidence of the evolutionary development we're looking for.
you seem to be dismissing novel traits due to either a lack of desire to understand or a lack of ability understanding of the examples I'm giving you.
So again, if I disagree with you, I must be wrong? With respect, you have a remarkable degree of faith in your own brilliance. Do you consider it possible that you could be wrong?
If it is not a new trait, what is it?
A modification of an existing one. If all organisms have the same number of traits generation after generation, no increase in complexity can occur.
We return to the crux of the problem, then, and why you will evidently never accept evolution
I'll accept the mechanism you propose as soon as you show that it leads to the changes hypothesised. If you want to fall back on believing an untestable hypothesis, go ahead. That's your right and I won't judge you for it.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 09:16am PT
|
Blight, 100 posts after I suggested it, perhaps it is time that you actually posted what you believe the theory says, rather than objection after objection.
And as I said to Aya nearly 100 posts ago, perhaps I have some of my terminology wrong. Why don't you tell me what you believe the theory says and I'll see if I need any clarification?
After all, I'm not claiming to be an expert, and I happily admit that I could well be wrong.
|
|
TradIsGood
Fun-loving climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 09:27am PT
|
Put out your version of the theory in your terminology. You can even define the terms, to be clear.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 09:32am PT
|
Aya wrote: "By extension then, you'd dismiss an example of a dog with wheels instead of legs, because locomotion is not new? You'd dismiss a cat which breathed nitrogen instead of oxygen, because breathing is not new? You'd dismiss a mammal which reproduced by getting wet (just be sure not to feed after midnight), because reproduction is not new?"
Brilliant! But good luck in making any headway.
Aya, you are a very patient individual.
I like the image of dogs on wheels. Ok, a little google image searching and this pops up:
Proof positive of intelligent design! :-)
Edit:
Evolution in motion:
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 09:44am PT
|
Put out your version of the theory in your terminology. You can even define the terms, to be clear.
Okay then
I'll go for: "evolution is a process resulting in heritable changes in a population over time".
How does that look?
|
|
TradIsGood
Fun-loving climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 09:57am PT
|
Another good start! You have defined a process.
Now what is the theory?
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 10:01am PT
|
It looks like what I gave you an example of: heritable change (the bacteria can digest nylon/lactose/survive better at higher temperatures, in the exmples I've given you thusfar)in a population over time (eg, in the case of the nylon digesting flavobacteria, since the invention of nylon).
Yes or no?
|
|
philo
Trad climber
boulder, co.
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 10:10am PT
|
Blighty, the mechanism that you are waiting to see evidence of is not what evolutionary theory is about. We are talking about ongoing recombinations that yield greater survivability not "spontaneous" generation. Spontaneous generation would be mutation not evolution. And the experts in the field of evolution are not trying to cling to DOGMA, they are actively trying to disprove the theory. That is the scientific process. The evidence you seek you will never find because your premise is flawed.
To quote you..."what a lark"!
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 10:15am PT
|
*sigh*
I've already said - several times - that I have no problem with the basics of evolution.
What I do have a problem with is that the accompanying proposition - that the above process has produced simple organisms from complex ones - seems to have no direct evidence to support it, and is not in fact supported by what you've posted, excellent though it may be in its own right.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
boulder, co.
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 10:17am PT
|
I could just as easily, and endlessly, argue that the Earth is flat (and the center of the Universe) since noone will take ME into space to "PROVE" it to ME. And we all know those pictures looking back were just photo-shopped artwork. Troll on big guy troll on!
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 10:25am PT
|
This is my point (or rather, an extension of it): just swapping traits around can't result in organisms becoming more complex. As such, it could hardly be evidence of the evolutionary development we're looking for.
So now, rather than simply the emergence of a novel trait, you're seeking the emergence of a novel trait which increases "complexity"?
I am not certain that I understand why: the theory of evolution, as utilized by evolutionary biologists, makes no claim at increasing an organism's complexity. It certainly may do so, but its only claim is a heritable change which increases fitness.
So again, if I disagree with you, I must be wrong? With respect, you have a remarkable degree of faith in your own brilliance. Do you consider it possible that you could be wrong?
I am frequently wrong, but I'm hardly dismissing what you're saying simply because you disagree. I'm not even dismissing what you're saying: I'm trying to get you to explain your position better, because I think, from your responses, that there is a fundamental misunderstanding somewhere.
In the interest of elucidating this, I'll repose a question that you didn't answer last time around:
Please describe exactly and precisely what the "pre-existing mechanism" for digesting nylon in the parent bacterium was.
Please describe to me what, exactly, it was that allowed the offspring to do something that its parent could not.
Although, apparently this question is less relevant now because apparently since when they gained this ability, they also lost the ability to digest carbohydrates, resulting in no net increase in complexity, you do not believe this to constitute evidence for one of the mechanisms (heritable change conferring fitness advantages)of evolution.
So, let me ask you to instead answer the same question for the lactose digesting bacteria from Barry Hall's work: what was the "pre-existing mechanism" for digesting lactose in the parent bacterium, and what exactly allowed its offspring to do something that it could not?
A modification of an existing one. If all organisms have the same number of traits generation after generation, no increase in complexity can occur.
This statement is necessarily true. That all organisms have the same number of "traits" generation after generation is not. Ignoring the fact that the development of complexity is not necessarily required by the theory of evolution, please explain to me exactly why the development of a new pathway (requiring multiple mutations) for digesting lactose in a population of bacteria that could not previously do so is not a new trait?
I'll accept the mechanism you propose as soon as you show that it leads to the changes hypothesised. If you want to fall back on believing an untestable hypothesis, go ahead. That's your right and I won't judge you for it.
At this moment, the hypothesis we're discussing is the one that I stated earlier: descent with modification. That is, it is possible to have heritable changes which confer fitness advantages (ergo, over time, these changes will become more prevalent in a population). We can test the individual facets: that there are heritable changes and that changes can confer fitness advantages (and therefore, by extention, that these fitness advantages lead to the heritable change becoming more prevalent in a population over time).
I've shown you heritable change (the various mutations), and I've shown you heritable change that confers fitness advantage (the ability to digest nylon and the ability to digest lactose, the ability to survive better at higher temperatures).
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 10:39am PT
|
So now, rather than simply the emergence of a novel trait, you're seeking the emergence of a novel trait which increases "complexity"?
Well, of course I am. Without increase in complexity, complex organisms can hardly have developed from simple ones.
That's what I've been getting at all along. I'm glad you're finally starting to understand.
Please describe exactly and precisely what the "pre-existing mechanism" for digesting nylon in the parent bacterium was.
I didn't say it had one. I said that it had a preexisting mechanism for adapting what it could digest.
please explain to me exactly why the development of a new pathway (requiring multiple mutations) for digesting lactose in a population of bacteria that could not previously do so is not a new trait?
They could previously do so. It's not new because it existed before. The development of complex organisms from simple ones can't happen by a process of removing then reinventing existing traits. That's not an increase in complexity.
At this moment, the hypothesis we're discussing is the one that I stated earlier: descent with modification.
And as I've now said at least four times, I don't have a problem with this part of evolution. What i have a problem with is that the changes observed and which you've reported don't seem to constitute evidence for the proposition that complex organisms can develop from simple ones. That's why i'm asking for evidence fo a new limb, organ or apparatus: that's increased complexity.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 10:51am PT
|
Blight previously posted:
"Still, to those who have remained civil, I'd like to present 3 key criticisms of science's current view of evolution:
1. Nobody has ever observed evolution by process of mutation and natural selction in action.
2. Nobody has ever replicated it in the lab.
3. No direct evidence whatsoever exists to support the idea that new, sustainable genetic material can spontaneously emerge in an existing species."
To clarify, do you now concede that you no longer stand by these assertions, at least in how they apply to "small" changes in bacteria and the like, but not to massive changes, such as the evolution of a new, complex organ (such as an eye on a creature that did not have an eye before)?
Edit: I'm just trying to clarify what your position is, not gloat over anything. We might be making a real breakthrough here.
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 10:51am PT
|
It's all in the fossil record. Every new fossil find has bolstered the case for increasing complexity through adaptation and mutation.
Philo, I was thinking the same thing. We might just as easily disbelieve that the earth is round, or that it revolves around the sun. Blight apparently doubts for doubt's sake. This could be a clever troll designed to spur on evolutionary research by maintaining a devil's advocacy in spite of the absurdity of having no clear position, but why he'd do it here of all places is very curious.
Also, somebody keep those bacteria away from my rope.
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 10:53am PT
|
Well, of course I am. Without increase in complexity, complex organisms can hardly have developed from simple ones.
That's what I've been getting at all along. I'm glad you're finally starting to understand.
It isn't what you asked for, earlier, to be fair:
I didn't say it had one. I said that it had a preexisting mechanism for adapting what it could digest.
Please describe this mechanism?
They could previously do so. It's not new because it existed before. The development of complex organisms from simple ones can't happen by a process of removing then reinventing existing traits. That's not an increase in complexity.
The bacteria that Barry Hall started with could not digest lactose. They simply did not have the genetic code to allow this to happen - whatever the reason for this was. The development of complex organisms can happen by the "invention" (though this isn't a particularly apt word) of new traits. The development of the lactose metabolic pathway in the bacteria (a new pathway - not just some reactivation of the old, pre-existing pathway) was genuinely new: they could not digest lactose to begin with.
And as I've now said at least four times, I don't have a problem with this part of evolution. What i have a problem with is that the changes observed and which you've reported don't seem to constitute evidence for the proposition that complex organisms can develop from simple ones. That's why i'm asking for evidence fo a new limb, organ or apparatus: that's increased complexity.
A novel metabolic pathway does not count?
Please provide an exact definition of increased complexity (a larger genome? new proteins? new legs?) and we'll go from there - otherwise, we return to the same problem: is a dog that develops wheels an example of evolution, given that dogs already posess locomotion?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 10:57am PT
|
Good job Blight, don't let all these mental speculators run amok. hehehe
And don't be making any freaking theories. The truth is always there. These guys harping on you are seriously lost.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
boulder, co.
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 11:17am PT
|
Werner I AM NOT completely lost. I know exactl... [psst hey man where are we again, thanks] ... yeah like I was saying I know exactly where I am, I am right here. he he
|
|
TradIsGood
Fun-loving climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 11:18am PT
|
Aya, why are you letting Blight trap you into arguing something that is not in violation of his process (evolution).
Force him to produce a theory. Until then both of you are wasting virtual ink.
edit;;;
And of course, philo, since Einstein, we know that the earth is every bit as much the center of the universe as any other place. That was the beauty of special relativity. There are no special reference frames.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 11:22am PT
|
The bacteria that Barry Hall started with could not digest lactose.
No they had the bacterial gene for the enzyme beta-galactosidase, but he deleted it for the purposes of the experiment.
It isn't what you asked for, earlier, to be fair
It's exactly what I asked for earlier. I've spent the last 100 or so posts trying to explain it to you while you insist that I don't understand.
A novel metabolic pathway does not count?
It was not novel. It existed previously. That's not going to change no matter how many times you pretend not to see my answer.
Please provide an exact definition of increased complexity (a larger genome? new proteins? new legs?) and we'll go from there
No.
To define what evidence I'm prepared and not prepared to accept before investigation begins would be prejudicial and completely pointless.
What kind of science is that? Establishing what the answer must be before you ask the question?
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 11:29am PT
|
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 11:35am PT
|
:D
Well, that's me convinced!
Ha! Ha!
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 12:05pm PT
|
Aya's been a trooper through all of this.
However, you don't need any experimental evidence to conclude that the (evolutionary) process has produced simple organisms from complex ones. You don't need any understanding of genetics at all. Darwin didn't have any of that. The combination of knowing the nature and distribution of animals and plants (and this is a really big one that has not been discussed much here) on the earth combined with a little knowledge of the fossil record (along with a bit of observation from the domestication of animals) is all you need. That was good enough for Darwin, it was good enough for most of the biological scientists following Darwin and its good enough for me.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 12:12pm PT
|
Darwin himself admitted there was no proof for his theory of one species gradually evolving into another species in the fossil record at the time of writing his thesis, but he was sure as time went on the "Missing Links" would be found. The subsequent fossil evidence has done nothing to support his theory. There are unlimited specimens which contradict the idea of natural selection altogether and no proof to support a continuous chain of slightly different species evolving from one form to another. It is just not there in the fossil record. So why have the supposedly intelligent scientific community not rejected the idea of evolution of the species?
According to the Vedic knowledge there is evolution but it is not evolution of the species as Darwin proposed, but evolution of consciousness. As the fossil record clearly shows there are no intermediate forms between one species and another. The Padma Purana describes there are 8,400,000 species of life within this universe. Every species is existing at all times but they may not all be present on any given planet. There are unlimited planets in this one universe and we have information that beyond this universe there are unlimited other universes also. This universe is one of the smallest. There are many universes much larger than this one. But everywhere in the material creation these 8,400,000 species of life exist. The forms already exist on the subtle platform even if they are not physically manifested. This universe is going through cycles. Sometimes it is manifested and sometimes it is unmanifested but even when there is no manifested material world all the forms of the 8,400,000 species of life are still there on the subtle platform.
Every species of life is one step on the ladder of the evolution of consciousness. The soul in every species of life is equal in quality and quantity with the others, it is only due to the consciousness of a particular living entity that he takes a higher or lower body.
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 12:58pm PT
|
No they had the bacterial gene for the enzyme beta-galactosidase, but he deleted it for the purposes of the experiment.
Right, it was deleted. Poof. Gone. They didn't have it.
Can I pay my phone bill with the money I paid my student loan bill with? After all, I used to have it...
Since it was missing when the experiment started: where did the new metabolic pathway (different from the previous one that was deleted) come from?
Let me resummarize the experiment and its results, just as a reference for those following this thread who may've forgotten:
1. Barry Hall took E. coli and knocked out a single gene which coded for the production of beta-galactosidase, an enzyme allowing the digestion of lactose.
2. A mutation arose and spread in the population which allowed the bacteria to produce beta-galactosidase. This was confirmed by sequencing to be a new gene, i.e. not merely a reconstitution of the original gene which had been deleted. This new gene, called ebg (evolved beta-galactosidase) is only somewhat (about 1/3 of its DNA sequence) similar to the knocked out gene it replaced. It is also in an entirely different region of the genome.
An analogy might be: I ride my bike to work every day. You take my bike away. I still need to get to work. So, I build a skateboard from the materials I have at home. Sure, they both have wheels and they both get me to work, but apart from that, they're entirely different. The skateboard is a new structure.
That I used to have a bike to get me to work is not relevant to the fact that when I built the skateboard, I did not have the bike.
Would you consider the skateboard to be a new structure?
3. Another mutation then arose (again, new: this was not present before) which allowed ebg to be activated in the presence of lactose.
This is somewhat confusingly named the lac-repressor, however the name makes sense if you consider it this way: the repressors, which prevent the production of beta-galactosidase by binding to a region of DNA (called an operon) which turns on its production, are constantly being produced. If there is lactose present, the lactose binds to the repressors, which consequently don't bind to the operon, which consequently means that beta-galactosidase is produced. Essentially, beta-galactosidase, which breaks down lactose, is only produced when lactose is present.
The new repressor which Barry Hall's E. coli acquired was different (from comparison of its DNA sequence) from the previous repressor that they had (and which Barry Hall did not remove).
4. The bacteria underwent another mutation such that the new ebg gene that they developed could stimulate the production of yet another enzyme called permease.
The original E. coli had permease, which allows the lactose to actually enter the cells. However, they could not produce permease in response to the ebg gene - their permease was produced in response to the product of the original gene, which had been deleted (the gene for beta-galactosidase, not the gene for permease). A new gene coding for the production of permease in response to the new ebg was developed.
Please provide an exact definition of increased complexity (a larger genome? new proteins? new legs?) and we'll go from there
No.
To define what evidence I'm prepared and not prepared to accept before investigation begins would be prejudicial and completely pointless.
What kind of science is that? Establishing what the answer must be before you ask the question?
I don't think it is any sort of science, really.
We're establishing what the question is (I think you're now asking: "Can evolution produce complexity?") so that we can attempt to provide support for an answer (mine is yes, yours is no).
It would be as if I said "I don't think that there is any evidence that gorillas are smarter than crows. Give me evidence that supports the assertion that they are."
How can we begin to answer this question if we don't know what "smarter" means?
|
|
TradIsGood
Fun-loving climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 01:23pm PT
|
So far, all of Aya's answers fit Blight's process (which loosely could be called a theory since it "predicts" only change).
None of Blight's tests are a test of his hypothesis.
And it looks like my first prediction will be proven correct by the end of the day!
:-)
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 02:35pm PT
|
Rokjox. What you just wrote is absolutely not how evolution works. There are no invisible forces at work (or required). Evolution isn't "trying" (your positive urge) to go in any direction. To call on this invisble force is equivalent to calling on a supernatural force.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 03:29pm PT
|
I agree with much of what you said in your last post...that's not how your previous post was framed.
Yeah, the emergence of consciousness in man is certainly changing the playing field. We will likely alter ourselves in the future through technology which will overwhelm any natural selection pressures. Unless of course, only a few, small populations are left after some nuclear armageddan or pandemic. Then, natural selection will undoubtedly again be the primary agent of change.
Your previous post seemed to suggest some unknown force is at work in living creatures that actively strives to evolve in some direction or towards some goal. That's what I was harping about.
Regardless of how great a role natural selection will play in the future, knowing how it works and not resorting to creation myths can only be a good thing.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006 - 04:32pm PT
|
ok. I'm back to completely disagreeing with you Rokjox.
This thread is becoming tiresome. I'm retirng for the second time.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2006 - 12:58pm PT
|
For those keeping score:
Aya: 3
Blight 0
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2006 - 06:40pm PT
|
Eeyonk, Aya, you guys are way more patient than I am.
Maybe sissyphus was an evolutionist, having to debunk the same nonsense arguments every time.
"No evidence,"
"here's some"
"Oh"
"No evidence,"
"here's some"
"Oh"
"No evidence,"
"here's some"
"Oh"
|
|
Rick A
climber
Boulder, Colorado
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2006 - 10:48pm PT
|
Interesting discussion everyone. Threads like this make you glad that ST is not limited to just climbing topics.
Everyone on the evolution side has been very patient in explaining the nuances of this complex subject to skeptics and non-skeptics alike. Bravo. As was said earlier, evolution theory should be challenged since this is the nature of scientific inquiry. This thread has featured scholarly responses to each challenge, as well as interesting digressions.
What bothers me about the creationist side is that many of its principal proponents are dishonest: they say they want “creation science” taught in the schools, but this is a stalking horse for teaching their own religious beliefs in the schools. For anyone who doubts this, read Judge Jones’ opinion in the Dover School Board case, where the judge, a conservative appointed by George Bush, exposed the national agenda of the creationists, which is to subvert science and substitute religious dogma in the public schools. The creationists operate under the guise of open minded inquiry, i.e., teach the “alternative view” to evolution, but this is just a smoke screen. Here is a link to the decision:
http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Dec20opinion.pdf
This is a nice topic for an internet discussion because it leads to entertaining, heated exchanges. In the end, we should not really care whether another person chooses to believe in his or her own religion’s creation story or chooses to believe in evolution science. But the Dover School decision shows that this discussion is more than academic, it is central to an important public policy issue: whether children will be taught science, or religious dogma disguised as science, in the pubic schools.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2006 - 11:04pm PT
|
jeez, I wish I'd a said that, Rick.
...And really, my apologies to anyone I may have offended in my too-passionate-maybe rantings. There's really not all that many things I'm passionate about. This just happens to be one of them.
|
|
TradIsGood
Fun-loving climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2006 - 11:29pm PT
|
Darwin and pubic schools - classic.
Hey, Blight. I think we have a reel mutation, wright befour our I's.
|
|
Aya
Uncategorizable climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2006 - 02:57pm PT
|
...except we haven't really been ignoring the giant squid. They're just too darn hard to actually see!
The Discovery channel specials on the squid hunters always make me feel a little sad... and glad that I got out of academia and research!
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2006 - 07:49pm PT
|
Here is a fun web site, the Tree of Life: http://tolweb.org/Life_on_Earth/1
Start at the root and work outwards. Note how the large majority of classifications are extinct, as designated by the cross symbol. :-)
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2006 - 08:24pm PT
|
Rock needs to hit the books but I liked
"The Peacock postulate suggests that, if a sufficient number of women decide that what they really want from a man is blue tailfeathers, within days you will find a guy close by, getting ready to shove a Peacock up his butt."
-I think that's what Bosch was trying to show us, the flowers were just a metaphor.
"I think we have a reel mutation, wright befour our I's." Har, har, maybe we are devo, if alleged teachers speak like this?
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2006 - 08:51pm PT
|
You know, I just started reading this book again...Really, if you have interest in understanding what the theory of evolution is all about, read The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins.
|
|
TradIsGood
Fun-loving climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2006 - 09:06pm PT
|
Perhaps, ala Euclid, or Occam, we could distill all of this down to its simplest statement. State the theory, in as simple a form as possible, but no simpler.
It should only take another 137 posts or so to agree on the statement of the theory before resuming a rational discussion of its merits. :-)
OK. I am going to claim that this prediction was true - but will allow for disagreement. I really expected no agreement before post 274, but could see that one might take it to mean that agreement on a statement of the theory would be reached.
|
|
426
Sport climber
Buzzard Point, TN
|
|
My favorite seadragon
|
|
| Messages 1 - 268 of total 268 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!