Enough Time for Evolution?

[Ouroboros]

"Falling" has nothing to do with gravity. Throwing things or blowing things a different way than gravity is not making it "fall." Airplanes don't fall up in the air. Baseballs don't fall forward when hit. Keyboard keys do not "fall" into the keyboard when pressed.

 

[Shermana]

And yet you and every other creationist in history has failed to propose a specific mechanism that would limit the amount of change a species could experience over a vast amount of time.

You're saying "I believe I can walk from here to the mailbox, but it would be completely impossible to walk all the way to the next town!"

You have to explain why the same process that gets you to the mailbox can not take you any further. If not, obviously everybody is bound to assume you can just keep walking to get to wherever you're going.

Incidentally, this exactly why you guys lose every debate. You say "nobody can ever walk further than the mailbox" but refuse to explain why not.

Not even close. Walking to the next town would be like a Great Cat becoming a Jaguar, whereas walking to the mailbox merely a tiger.

Your example would be scaling Mt. Everest, and without gear, not even just some small hill. Or heck, swimming to China, and eventually growing the ability to not have to come up for air.

Can we keep our comparisons remotely on cue please?

Apparently the ones claiming that it's possible don't need a burden of proof, but those claiming there is a limit, they need a burden of proof beyond just what they've already demonstrated with the problems of the utter rarity of beneficial mutations and the lack of demonstration of actual incremental changes. How about some burden of proof of your own case before just dismissing and handwaving the basics of the counter-arguments as "It's still possible!!!!"

 

[Shermana]

So how far can you walk in 3.6 BILLION years?

You guys aren't showing your math, so your arguments are not at all compelling. WHY isn't 3.6 BILLION years - hundreds of thousands of millions of generations - long enough for gradual, incremental change to produce our present level of biological diversity? Because you say so? Not good enough. Sorry.

Meanwhile, it's good enough to say "Well who cares about the problem of the rarity of Beneficial mutations and the problem of the counterbalance of deleterious mutations, and the lack of evidence of incremental changes resulting in what we see, as Dr Stewart Newman (PHD of Cell Biology, NYU Medical School) clearly demonstrates."

Basically, you're arguing that it's acceptable to make an assertion that it's a guaranteed matter of fact, when the available data is clearly against the possibility of it happening on its own forces. Science of the gaps is apparently acceptable logic when it comes to Naturalism.

 

[Sculelos]

Such as...?

Aside from the fact that it is scientists who discovered global warming.

Or, you could provide the evidence yourself as you have been asked to do.

I just am not really sure what evidence I'm supposed to provide. What am I exactly trying to show?

Meanwhile, it's good enough to say "Well who cares about the problem of the rarity of Beneficial mutations and the problem of the counterbalance of deleterious mutations, and the lack of evidence of incremental changes resulting in what we see, as Dr Stewart Newman (PHD of Cell Biology, NYU Medical School) clearly demonstrates."

Basically, you're arguing that it's acceptable to make an assertion that it's a guaranteed matter of fact, when the available data is clearly against the possibility of it happening on its own forces. Science of the gaps is apparently acceptable logic when it comes to Naturalism.

Evolution as a theory is actually a pretty weak argument but the alternative is simply "Unthinkable" to people such as Einstein and Darwin who I'd call philosophers and not scientist.

 

[Alceste]

Not even close. Walking to the next town would be like a Great Cat becoming a Jaguar, whereas walking to the mailbox merely a tiger.

Your example would be scaling Mt. Everest, and without gear, not even just some small hill. Or heck, swimming to China, and eventually growing the ability to not have to come up for air.

Can we keep our comparisons remotely on cue please?

Apparently the ones claiming that it's possible don't need a burden of proof, but those claiming there is a limit, they need a burden of proof beyond just what they've already demonstrated with the problems of the utter rarity of beneficial mutations and the lack of demonstration of actual incremental changes. How about some burden of proof of your own case before just dismissing and handwaving the basics of the counter-arguments as "It's still possible!!!!"

You're off base - change is already proven. Even you accept it. But you are claiming there is a limit to how much change can happen, and you have no evidence that this is true. It's a new factual claim that you have introduced, so the burden of proof is on you. You have no hypothesis as to what might cause the limit. You don't even bother trying to explain what you think happens when a species hits that limit (do they just stop changing and start breeding clones, for example?)

You just don't seem to have thought this through.

 

[Falvlun]

Your example would be scaling Mt. Everest, and without gear, not even just some small hill.

Haha. Analogy completely predicted:

Climbing Mt. Improbable

 

[savagewind]

You're off base - change is already proven. Even you accept it. You are claiming there is a limit to how much change can happen, but you have no evidence that this is true. You have no hypothesis as to what might cause the limit. You don't even bother trying to explain what you think happens when a species hits that limit (do they just stop changing and start breeding clones, for example?)

You just don't seem to have thought this through.

Time time time time time time time. Not enough time is his hypothesis.
I think it is a good hypothesis.

 

[Sculelos]

I ask what evidence do we have that the Universe is older then 5801 years for starters?

 

[Falvlun]

Time time time time time time time. Not enough time is his hypothesis.
I think it is a good hypothesis.

It's about as good as me claiming that you can't possibly eat more than 3 Big Macs in one sitting. There's no way there's enough room! I don't need to provide my measurements... it doesn't matter that doctors have ascertained that your stomach does indeed have room for 3 Big Macs... it just doesn't make sense that there's enough room and that's what I'm sticking with!

 

[Alceste]

Meanwhile, it's good enough to say "Well who cares about the problem of the rarity of Beneficial mutations and the problem of the counterbalance of deleterious mutations, and the lack of evidence of incremental changes resulting in what we see, as Dr Stewart Newman (PHD of Cell Biology, NYU Medical School) clearly demonstrates."

Basically, you're arguing that it's acceptable to make an assertion that it's a guaranteed matter of fact, when the available data is clearly against the possibility of it happening on its own forces. Science of the gaps is apparently acceptable logic when it comes to Naturalism.

No, I'm basically arguing that the limit to adaptation you have proposed does not exist.

 

[Alceste]

I ask what evidence do we have that the Universe is older then 5801 years for starters?

How about all the evidence on earth history that has ever been collected and all the research that has ever been performed? Is that enough for you, or do you want more?

 

[Shermana]

No, I'm basically arguing that the limit to adaptation you have proposed does not exist.

That's fine, and I'm arguing that the evidence thus far regarding what is observed about mutations indicates that there is a clear limit to this kind of adaptation through the problem of deleterious mutations and the utter rarity of beneficial ones and the evidence against incremental changes as stated by Dr Newman, that nothing of the sort being proposed has been remotely observed (but hey, who needs observations when it comes to assertions and theories in science!) and no evidence that it can possibly happen before the highly likely chance of such radical departures resulting in elimination through such deleterious effects, and nothing but evidence of tiny micro changes within the interior structure, not dramatic structural-changes themselves.

At the very least, if you're going to make assertions, it would be nice if you based them on what's actually observed, you would think that'd be the scientific approach and all, but I guess not. And what's been observed is that drastic non-incremental mutations and changes will likely result in death and malfunction.

 

[secret2]

That's fine, and I'm arguing that the evidence thus far regarding what is observed about mutations indicates that there is a clear limit to this kind of adaptation through the problem of deleterious mutations and the utter rarity of beneficial ones and the evidence against incremental changes as stated by Dr Newman, that nothing of the sort being proposed has been remotely observed (but hey, who needs observations when it comes to assertions and theories in science!) and no evidence that it can possibly happen before the highly likely chance of such radical departures resulting in elimination through such deleterious effects, and nothing but evidence of tiny micro changes within the interior structure, not dramatic structural-changes themselves.

At the very least, if you're going to make assertions, it would be nice if you based them on what's actually observed, you would think that'd be the scientific approach and all, but I guess not. And what's been observed is that drastic non-incremental mutations and changes will likely result in death and malfunction.

To be honest, those have been addressed and explained to you over and over again. See, your misunderstanding on the topic is so much that people had to start from the basics. Which resulted in you covering your ears yelling "off topic!"

Please re-read the whole thread for your own benefit.

 

[Shermana]

To be honest, those have been addressed and explained to you over and over again. See, your misunderstanding on the topic is so much that people had to start from the basics. Which resulted in you covering your ears yelling "off topic!"

Please re-read the whole thread for your own benefit.

By all means, please link to a post where this has been "Explained over and over again" in a way which actually substantiates itself and doesn't rely on total speculation and circular reasoning, thanks. For your own benefit!

 

[Shermana]

It's about as good as me claiming that you can't possibly eat more than 3 Big Macs in one sitting. There's no way there's enough room! I don't need to provide my measurements... it doesn't matter that doctors have ascertained that your stomach does indeed have room for 3 Big Macs... it just doesn't make sense that there's enough room and that's what I'm sticking with!

More like claiming that you can't eat more than 300. We're talking about extremely rare, EXTREMELY rare beneficial mutations, which almost always have a compensatory deleterious component, and far more deleterious mutations which have compensating beneficial ones that barely actually compensate in terms of adapting to the same conditions.

 

[savagewind]

A person can't eat more than 300 Big Macs, even in a week, I suppose.

 

[secret2]

More like claiming that you can't eat more than 300. We're talking about extremely rare, EXTREMELY rare beneficial mutations, which almost always have a compensatory deleterious component, and far more deleterious mutations which have compensating beneficial ones that barely actually compensate in terms of adapting to the same conditions.

Once again, most freaking mutations are freaking neutral (i.e. they are neither freaking beneficial or freaking harmful). And, please take freaking note, changes are freaking cumulative. Neutral freaking mutations that don't freaking kill the host can take effects later on.

 

[savagewind]

Once again, most.... mutations are....neutral (i.e. they are neither.... beneficial or....harmful). And, please take....note, changes are.....cumulative. Neutral....mutations that don't...kill the host can take effects later on.

How can a neutral mutation cause any change at all? It is an argument for Shermana, not against.

 

[Falvlun]

More like claiming that you can't eat more than 300. We're talking about extremely rare, EXTREMELY rare beneficial mutations, which almost always have a compensatory deleterious component, and far more deleterious mutations which have compensating beneficial ones that barely actually compensate in terms of adapting to the same conditions.

I googled "beneficial and deleterious mutations" and this was the very first hit:

This study presents a mathematical model in which a single beneficial mutation arises in a very large population that is subject to frequent deleterious mutations. The results suggest that, if the population is sexual, then the deleterious mutations will have little effect on the ultimate fate of the beneficial mutation. However, if most offspring are produced asexually, then the probability that the beneficial mutation will be lost from the population may be greatly enhanced by the deleterious mutations. Thus, sexual populations may adapt much more quickly than populations where most reproduction is asexual. Some of the results were produced using computer simulation methods, and a technique was developed that allows treatment of arbitrarily large numbers of individuals in a reasonable amount of computer time. This technique may be of prove useful for the analysis of a wide variety of models, though there are some constraints on its applicability. For example, the technique requires that reproduction can be described by Poisson processes.

The abstract to "A Ruby in the Rubbish"

1. I'm sure you aren't the only person who has thought of this objection. I'm sure that this has been rigorously studied by the experts. And, seeing as the theory has not been overturned, apparently they were satisfied. Why do you think that you know better?

2. In the absence of any solid evidence that your hypothesis has merit, your argument appears to be simply one from incredulity: "I can't believe that such a thing could happen, therefore, such a thing couldn't happen."

 

[sonofdad]

That's fine, and I'm arguing that the evidence thus far regarding what is observed about mutations indicates that there is a clear limit to this kind of adaptation through the problem of deleterious mutations and the utter rarity of beneficial ones and the evidence against incremental changes as stated by Dr Newman, that nothing of the sort being proposed has been remotely observed (but hey, who needs observations when it comes to assertions and theories in science!) and no evidence that it can possibly happen before the highly likely chance of such radical departures resulting in elimination through such deleterious effects, and nothing but evidence of tiny micro changes within the interior structure, not dramatic structural-changes themselves.

So do you accept macro-evolution, but you only accept it as long as it is causing decrease in fitness, not increase?
Makes sense.