Is evolution as reliable as gravity?

[tumbleweed41]

If Newhope actually understood what a Scientific Theory was he would realize how juvenile and nonsensical his posts really are.

 

[painted wolf]

Misquote again Wolf.....No.. what would make a person cognitively challenged is to even entertain the idea that evolutionary theory is anything like the real sciences!

there was no misquote you misanthrope.

Nepenthe Quote: How is referencing a controversial book on the origins of bipedalism an example of how evolution is not a science? Even if bipedalism is definitively traced to 21 mya how would that affect evolutionary biology? Can you explain? <hint: it would have no relevance on how alterations in alleles within a population have an impact on one generation to the next which is essentially raw material for natural selection to work with>. Bipedalism's origins have nothing to do with the change in the frequency of genes in a population.

Orly? nothing to do with changes in alleles? I guess it must be magic then.

1. Too bad natural selection is long gone as the only method for speciation.

Why?

2. Mutations in VLDLR affect brain development and influence gait in humans.

I thought you just said that genes had nothing to do with it?

Why are you disproving your own point by giving evidence that the frequency of functional vs. nonfunctional alleles of this gene influences our bipedalism?

3. Early hominins such as Ardipithecus kadabba could have become facultatively bipedal (as is Ar. kaddaba) by a one-off genomic change such as the Robertsonian-type fusion of the Hox D gene to chromosome 2, that has a strong influence on the human position of the pelvis along the spine.

Which one? There are nine HoxD genes on Chromosome 2.
And why don't you post the source of this information?
I can only find it here at Richard Dawkins Net... and the poster later retracts as he found a flaw in his idea.
Instant bipedalism? - DavidMcC - RichardDawkins.net

The book "The Upright Ape", and accompanying research puts your precious homo erectus, heidelbegensis, florensiensis and all the rest of your dear homo ancestors back into SHARED ancestors with non human primates and not the ancestors of homo sapiens alone.

No it doesn't... it states that the earliest of the hominiforms (the shared ancestors of all the apes) were bipedal.
He specifically mentions non-Homo genus apes as the shared ancestor... such as Sahelanthropus tchadensis (note: not Homo.. Sahelanthropus)

Or are you another one that is going to say this is the way it's always been. However the theories around gravity do not change every year or so.

The theory of evolution changed not one inch... a particular idea about human evolution changed... but that has no impact on evolution as a whole.

You are not educated if you dismiss or are not aware of the standing controversies within the field of evoluionary science. Many well credentialed scientists acknowledge them. Too bad none of you are real scientists.

No one dismisses that there are some areas of disagreement...about details... There is no controversy about the fact of evolution.

You wouldn't a know a real scientist...:slap:

wa:do

 

[Nepenthe]

Orly? nothing to do with changes in alleles? I guess it must be magic then.
wa:do

Wait a sec’, that was my quote but it’s kinda garbled in the quote function and context. It should read “Bipedalism’s origins have no relevance as to the reliability of the change in the frequency of genes in a population evolution.”
My point being that whatever the controversies over the origins of bipedalism it does not diminish the fact of evolution. Bipedalism may or may not have made some Goldschmitt like appearance as long as 20+ mya but ultimately evolution is a fact however bipedalism originated.

 

[Nepenthe]

1. Too bad natural selection is long gone as the only method for speciation.

Why? How does this affect genetic drift, migration, mutations, and sexual selection too? Why would you even mention this?

2. Mutations in VLDLR affect brain development and influence gait in humans.

Yes, more specifically the mutation in the VLDLR is a receptor that affects the cerebellum’s development, but not the necessary physiological requirements for quadruped locomotion (that is it has no affect on the skeletal structure or muscles or necessary neurological configurations in a quadruped). It’s a leap to definitively link it to bipedalism as lack of access to medical care in addition to an affected cerebellum may have also been a factor and a group of Hutterites in the U.S. have a similar VLDLR deficiency yet "most of the affected individuals cannot walk at all."
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/11/4232.full

Anyway, I ask again, how does this have any bearing on your argument?

3. Early hominins such as Ardipithecus kadabba could have become facultatively bipedal (as is Ar. kaddaba) by a one-off genomic change such as the Robertsonian-type fusion of the Hox D gene to chromosome 2, that has a strong influence on the human position of the pelvis along the spine.

LOL! PW beat me to it: http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/531571-instant-bipedalism
... unless you're DavidMCC that is. In either case it’s usually best if you acknowledge the source. Here’s the original study btw: http://www.springerlink.com/content/a1551p74t67641l2/

The book "The Upright Ape", and accompanying research puts your precious homo erectus, heidelbegensis, florensiensis and all the rest of your dear homo ancestors back into SHARED ancestors with non human primates and not the ancestors of homo sapiens alone. Or are you another one that is going to say this is the way it's always been. However the theories around gravity do not change every year or so.

Have you even read Filler????


Filler’s book is interesting, very well researched and he has published extensively. I have a bit of hesitancy over his proposals as there’s the whiff of Goldschmitt about them and Filler places a bit too much relevance on documented instances of short bursts of siamang bipedalism. The idea that upright walking was around 20 million years ago and that all the great apes lost the adaptation while the homo line retained it is plausible yet is going to take a bit more evidence. Filler’s works is fascinating.

Again, how does this have any bearing on the theory of evolution changing and not being reliable?

What about your species problem, what about the debate on the classification of many fossils, what about proving there is a LUCA and then proving there isn't one, what about the evidence that supports multiple genesis as opposed to the current model. There are many questions yet to be answered in evolutionary science, unlike the theory of gravity that at least works in our part of the universe every time without a 'maybe'.


You are not educated if you dismiss or are not aware of the standing controversies within the field of evoluionary science. Many well credentialed scientists acknowledge them. Too bad none of you are real scientists.

Of course there are controversies about the mechanisms and details, but there’s no controversy over evolution itself.

Hint:..Your opinion is no more important than mine.

You can have your own opinion but not your own facts.

 

[painted wolf]

Wait a sec’, that was my quote but it’s kinda garbled in the quote function and context. It should read “Bipedalism’s origins have no relevance as to the reliability of the change in the frequency of genes in a population evolution.”
My point being that whatever the controversies over the origins of bipedalism it does not diminish the fact of evolution. Bipedalism may or may not have made some Goldschmitt like appearance as long as 20+ mya but ultimately evolution is a fact however bipedalism originated.

Ah... so Newhope misquoted you? :cover:

It makes much more sense now, thank you.

wa:do

 

[Nepenthe]

Ah... so Newhope misquoted you? :cover:

It makes much more sense now, thank you.

wa:do

Nah, I have to take the blame for being too wordy and obtuse.

I should've just said that while the origins of bipedalism may be contentious evolution is incontrovertible. Of course I didn't mean to imply that bipedalism has no link to the change of alleles...

...when everyone knows it's all done by magic anyway.

No, no, no... thank you.

 

[newhope101]

Just Me Mike. I have given you an opinion. No ..evolution is not as reliable as Gravity.

These loosers that have nothing better to do all day than pick battles with others over nothing. It's a real loosers game.

I'm sure you understand what I mean when I say evolution is full of controversy. Regardless of these boofheads banter.

I did not realise how seriously these evolutionits take their evolutionary mess. It truly is akin to faith. Look at 'em all tied in knots sqarking. . Like I've got time to point out all their fallacies and inconsistencies. They should know them as I am sure you do Mike. Real sciences like physics and maths, including the theory of gravity is much more solid and new controversial data does not rock true science.

The fact that some evolutionists are unable to face, acknowledge or speak to inconsistencies shows the lack of true scientific minds that are responding to me.

Those educated sufficiently to be aware of the controversies could never say evolutionary science is akin to physics. That's the bottom line Mike.

 

[Father Heathen]

These loosers that have nothing better to do all day than pick battles with others over nothing. It's a real loosers game.

How did they get so loose?

 

[painted wolf]

Anyone who knows anything about physics knows it's full of it's own controversies (just look at string theory)... like every science is.

Only a true boofhead would confuse those "controversies" with thinking the entire field is invalid.

Current controversies in magnetospheric physics

wa:do

 

[Revoltingest]

How did they get so loose?

Some of us aren't....I really need to stretch more.

Here's why I'm so certain of evolution:
We engineers use techniques which work to make money. The ToE & computers offer us the ability to simulate natural selection & mutation to design non-biological
things, eg, antennas, circuitry. (It's variously called "genetic algorithms" or "evolutionary algorithms") If evolution weren't very real, the predictions of simulations
wouldn't be so useful. Moreover, those of use who designed & analyzed stochastic systems view evolution as not just existing, but as an unavoidable consequence
of natural selection & mutation. As for inconsistencies & contradictions, I've never seen any which hold up under scrutiny. So it takes no more faith to believe in
evolution than it does to believe in gravity, thermodynamics, metallurgy, rheology, etc.

 

[Gunfingers]

Anyone who knows anything about physics knows it's full of it's own controversies (just look at string theory)... like every science is.

Only a true boofhead would confuse those "controversies" with thinking the entire field is invalid.

Current controversies in magnetospheric physics

wa:do

Speaking of which, have you ever noticed how there are a lot of controversies in theology? No one can seem to agree on the nature of God or what He/She/It wants from us. From this we must clearly infer that there is no God.

 

[Nepenthe]

Just Me Mike. I have given you an opinion. No ..evolution is not as reliable as Gravity.

These loosers that have nothing better to do all day than pick battles with others over nothing. It's a real loosers game.

I'm sure you understand what I mean when I say evolution is full of controversy. Regardless of these boofheads banter.

I did not realise how seriously these evolutionits take their evolutionary mess. It truly is akin to faith. Look at 'em all tied in knots sqarking. . Like I've got time to point out all their fallacies and inconsistencies.

Copying and pasting other people's posts as your own will help cut down on the time.

 

[newhope101]

I'll mark these pages for future reference. I see Paintedwolf finally acknowledges string theory in relation to the big bang singularity is a controversy. Physisc gets us to the moon every time, evolutionists can't even agree on how to classify some old bones, nor define a species with consistency. How does this even resemble a science?

Revoltingest....You should know your own dilemmas in the field and they most certainly are not resolved. Some examples for you to pick at just to jolt your memory and take up the rest of your day..... Tetrapod footprints were around when Tiktaalic was around. Archaeopteryx...well, now there is convincing research that suggests dinosaurs came from birds, the "the species problem", taxonomic controversies and vaguary and so much more. It is hard to believe that you can say all controversy has been settled. It truly sounds like you are less educated in this field than me...and that's a bad thing.....

Gunfingers..God has nothing to do with this. Just Me Mike requested opinions, not debates. However some of you just can't let someone have an opposing opinion without feeling the need to challenge and degrade. Just like any other dictator and egotist, everyone is entitiled to their opinion so long as it is the same as yours. Hint: This may be an indication of mental health issues.

I'm not going to debate. I have given Mike my opinion and really what you think has no bearing. You lot that are responding and whining to me now, need to go tell someone who cares.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'll mark these pages for future reference. I see Paintedwolf finally acknowledges string theory in relation to the big bang singularity is a controversy. Physisc gets us to the moon every time, evolutionists can't even agree on how to classify some old bones, nor define a species with consistency. How does this even resemble a science?

Ignorance, questions & controversy are fundamental to the scientific method.
If everyone agrees about something, then one of them is very likely wrong.

Revoltingest....You should know your own dilemmas in the field and they most certainly are not resolved.

I'm comfortable with the existence of controversies, & don't expect them to disappear.
The more we learn, the more we ask new & perplexing questions. I'm OK with this.
Beware those who would say that some field has complete & inerrant knowledge.
That sounds worse than wrong.....it would be boring.

Some examples for you to pick at just to jolt your memory and take up the rest of your day..... Tetrapod footprints were around when Tiktaalic was around. Archaeopteryx...well, now there is convincing research that suggests dinosaurs came from birds, the "the species problem", taxonomic controversies and vaguary and so much more. It is hard to believe that you can say all controversy has been settled. It truly sounds like you are less educated in this field than me...and that's a bad thing.....

It's not so bad being ignorant of some things. After all, we must all cope with the inability to be expert in every field. I've never said that there is no controversy,
only that I've seen no controversies which would cast doubt on the existence of evolution. Btw, you might not be so highly educated relative to me as you wish to think.
Tis risky to dismissively speculate about another's credentials & vitae without asking first.

I'm not going to debate.

Good....neither am I. This is just a discussion....although a pretty prickly one for some.

 

[Nepenthe]

Some examples for you to pick at just to jolt your memory and take up the rest of your day..... Tetrapod footprints were around when Tiktaalic was around. Archaeopteryx...well, now there is convincing research that suggests dinosaurs came from birds...

Please elaborate as to why these are "dilemmas". I'm pretty sure I know where you're misinterpreting the Tiktaalik find as well as Archaeopteryx but it would be nice if you'd clarify.

Hint: This may be an indication of mental health issues.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'll mark these pages for future reference. I see Paintedwolf finally acknowledges string theory in relation to the big bang singularity is a controversy. Physisc gets us to the moon every time, evolutionists can't even agree on how to classify some old bones, nor define a species with consistency. How does this even resemble a science?

Evolutionary biology is put to work in medicine, agriculture, genetics and even engineering and social psychology.

Also, physics does not get us to the moon "every time".

Revoltingest....You should know your own dilemmas in the field and they most certainly are not resolved. Some examples for you to pick at just to jolt your memory and take up the rest of your day..... Tetrapod footprints were around when Tiktaalic was around.

Source?

Archaeopteryx...well, now there is convincing research that suggests dinosaurs came from birds, the "the species problem", taxonomic controversies and vaguary and so much more. It is hard to believe that you can say all controversy has been settled. It truly sounds like you are less educated in this field than me...and that's a bad thing.....

Yet you don't even know that evolutionary theory has been producing practical benefits for the last several decades?

Gunfingers..God has nothing to do with this. Just Me Mike requested opinions, not debates. However some of you just can't let someone have an opposing opinion without feeling the need to challenge and degrade. Just like any other dictator and egotist, everyone is entitiled to their opinion so long as it is the same as yours. Hint: This may be an indication of mental health issues.

Personal attacks and playing martyr won't get you anywhere, newhope.

I'm not going to debate. I have given Mike my opinion and really what you think has no bearing. You lot that are responding and whining to me now, need to go tell someone who cares.

Are you twelve years old?

 

[PolyHedral]

Arguably, evolution is more reliable than gravity. Voyager is not where we were expecting it to be according to gravitational theory.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Tetrapod footprints were around when Tiktaalic was around.

And?
What? You think tiktaalcs magically vanished when tetrapods came around?
That's as goofy as the typical Creationist argument of "if we came from apes, why are there still apes?"

 

[dust1n]

for those that like supporting mathematics... here is one principle in Evolution: Hardy-Weinburg

See, biologists can do math too! :jiggy:

wa:do

Hehe, that is just in the laboratory. In nature, there are crazy undefinable factors that would be in addition.

I remember learning about this, but I could definitely not really grasp the full picture.

 

[Sententia]

prove the fossils weren't 'place there'

Its placed there? And placed by whom?

as regards to big bang theory, prove to us that those 'gases' were there

What?

If evolutionist is true, why can't you recreate the earth,, and prove to my way cant you.

I'm not attacking the evidence but the foundation you build the evidence on. but let's start with carbon and aboslute dating.....

Absolute dating is false therefore Evolution is to.... comments?

Comments? You don't want my comments. My mommy taught me. Why don't you tell me what you think happened and we can contrast and compare.

Hows that sound?