Just Accidental?

[stevevw]

Do you think that making the "picture" in one go as you outlined is in the least bit realistic? Do you think people who study these things are too stupid understand that it's unrealistic?

Did you bother to even try to find out how these kinds of markings evolved?

Spoiler: How about you do before looking here?

The answer to your question is: gradually. Have you not heard of an of an evolutionary arms race or co-evolution?

I don't know details about this particular case, but the general mechanism is well understood:-

If you consider a predator with a very simple way of identifying moths, then even a slight smudge on the wing might confuse it and be an advantage for the moth - and such a change would spread through the population due to natural selection. That would mean that a slightly better way of detecting moths in the predator would then become an advantage to it and would spread through that population. That would mean that another slight change in the moth wing would be an advantage and the whole process repeats. Eventually you get predators that are very good at spotting moths and moths that look very much like something that predators will not want to approach.

As far as I understand the mural on the moth wings evolved through random mutations and natural selection. Just like the lighter coloured pepper moth became darker and more dominant because this camouflaged it against the darker polluted trees in industrial England which gave it a survival advantage. Though this is different as the steps to go from a light colour to a dark colour are not as complicated as not only changing colour but painting a specific picture with the colour and parts in the right place as well as the right shapes being put together to create a specific image. I can understand and accept that changing a colour can happen a lot easier as with skin or hair and the genetic info or instructions are already there. But to create the mural takes a lot more attempts in getting everything right as there are a lot more variables and some that need to happen at the same time.

If we have a blank slate then there are hundreds if not thousands of combinations that can be thrown up through random mutations. I doubt that a mutation could even fluke getting a fraction of that picture in one go in its correct form. I understand that for evolution to work it can produce a small step in a process that may be functional and used as part of the process in building something bigger or more complex. But I often find when the certain well used examples are given they fall short in detail on how this can happen and don't really apply across the board. The point is the certain smaller piece of the jigsaw has to be usable and beneficial and not cause a fitness loss overall otherwise it is not selected. Though many slight mutational changes may occur they are not selected because they have no use and most are slightly deleterious anyway. When added together they won't amount to much and most accumulate into a cost to fitness.

The point is from my understanding a blotch or mark is exactly that almost like a birth mark you could say. Some people may try and read a particular shape into it but generally, it means nothing more than a mark that has no use and will never be selected as something os benefit. For a moth to produce even a specific part of the fly in one mutation, for example, would seem like it was planned as nothing in natural can do this without previous genetic instructions. So we are left with a hit and miss blind attempt at trying to create a specific picture with random bits that may or may not fit the picture or be something that contributes to the end result but is useful on its own as well. I would liken that to throwing paint at a canvas blindfolded and trying to paint a specific picture only in according to evolution any paint that lands on the canvas that gives no benefit would be erased. Even if it stays the chances of the next bit of paint even connecting into anything is very slim.

 

[Deeje]

True, but in my experience we usually think of duplication events as a type of mutation (mutation being simply a permanent change in DNA). Of course the duplication of an entire genome has its own term, polyploidy, but even that is technically a type of mutation.

I looked up that term (polyploidy) and found some interesting information in Scientific American.....you guys made it sound like something that commonly happens among species.....rather than something that is detrimental to most other species...unless you are a plant.

"For animals, inheriting more than the usual two copies of DNA is usually a very bad thing. It can happen when two sperm fertilize one egg, or when sexual cell division errs, leaving a sperm or an egg with double the approved payload. But for animal embryos, the result is usually the same: death...

Only two cases of successful polyploidy are known among birds, and only one among mammals: the South American red viscacha rat (which is much cuter than it sounds). It has four copies of its genome, which makes it tetraploid.

Though polyploidy is not common in animals, it is suspected that it might have played a role in the evolution, eons ago, of vertebrates, ray-finned fish, and the salmon family (of which trout are members). But on the whole, polyploidy is a dicey and often dangerous affair for animals.

The fact these plants seem to be capable of producing viable polyploid offspring suggests polyploidy can be an instrument of evolution in mosses, as it is for many other plants, suggested the authors of the paper that I wrote about."

For Plants, Polyploidy Is Not a Four-Letter Word

Interesting....particularly the wording of the last two paragraphs....."it is suspected that it might have played a role" in evolution eons ago...."these plants seem to be capable of producing" viable offspring....or so the authors of the paper he wrote about, "suggested".

Gotta love the language of proven science eh? .....looks to me like it's all based on the power of suggestion. Scientists apparently rely on the suggestion and speculation of other scientists.

 

[Sapiens]

I looked up that term (polyploidy) and found some interesting information in Scientific American.....you guys pppõe. made it sound like something that commonly happens among species.....rather than something that is detrimental to most other species...unless you are a plant.

So ... you are now prepared to agree that Macroevolution of plants and a few species of animals, through the mechanism of polyploidy is a reality. Well ... that, at least, is progress on your part.

 

[Deeje]

So ... you are now prepared to agree that Macroevolution of plants and a few species of animals, through the mechanism of polyploidy is a reality. Well ... that, at least, is progress on your part.

This is the scientist's own admissions. I love the way you gloss over the fact that it is only a remote "suggestion" of what "might have" happened eons ago, and is based almost solely on what happens with some plants. It does not demonstrate macro-evolution in any way...but perhaps the mechanism is designed to be part of its adaptive programming.

Since I do not see plants as being remotely related to animals or humans except for food, admiration and decoration.....you have got to be kidding.

Here is some more of the article that the readers here might like to peruse.....

"Lotus seems to be the first plant to have split off from the rest of the eudicots, even prior to the early genome triplication I alluded to above. But it separately doubled its own genome sometime after. Suspiciously, the authors of the paper revealing its sequence report, the doubling seems to have taken place about 65 million years ago.

That is notable, of course, because it's right around the time our planet got the snot knocked out of it by the asteroid that bid sayonara to the dinosaurs -- but also to about 60% of plant species. During times of environmental stress, the authors note, plants that have duplicated their genomes seem to adapt and survive better. One might speculate that is thanks to the raw material that a second, superfluous set of genes provides natural selection for creating proteins with new functions."

Where is the proof that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs? That is pure speculation as well.

Read the article....and I mean REALLY read it.
For Plants, Polyploidy Is Not a Four-Letter Word

Is this form of blindness among scientists contagious, I wonder?

 

[Olinda]

Gotta love the language of proven science eh?

Deeje, you know quite well that many posters on this thread have pointed out that nothing in science is proven, except in mathematics. You have even used this point to try to establish that evolution is not fact but theory.
It seems you are not prepared to learn anything from other posters, but just preach your chosen beliefs. If so, why would the 'undecided' (if there are any ) be prepared to learn anything from you?

 

[Sapiens]

This is the scientist's own admissions. I love the way you gloss over the fact that it is only a remote "suggestion" of what "might have" happened eons ago, and is based almost solely on what happens with some plants. It does not demonstrate macro-evolution in any way...but perhaps the mechanism is designed to be part of its adaptive programming.

Since I do not see plants as being remotely related to animals or humans except for food, admiration and decoration.....you have got to be kidding.

Here is some more of the article that the readers here might like to peruse.....

"Lotus seems to be the first plant to have split off from the rest of the eudicots, even prior to the early genome triplication I alluded to above. But it separately doubled its own genome sometime after. Suspiciously, the authors of the paper revealing its sequence report, the doubling seems to have taken place about 65 million years ago.

That is notable, of course, because it's right around the time our planet got the snot knocked out of it by the asteroid that bid sayonara to the dinosaurs -- but also to about 60% of plant species. During times of environmental stress, the authors note, plants that have duplicated their genomes seem to adapt and survive better. One might speculate that is thanks to the raw material that a second, superfluous set of genes provides natural selection for creating proteins with new functions."

As has been noted many times, you are playing semantic games with the somewhat stylized passive voice writting that is traditionally part of polite scientific discourse.

Where is the proof that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs? That is pure speculation as well.

I happen to disagree that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs, though it does appear to have assisted in their demise. The evidence lies in the Iridium layer and the impact crater and the tektites that are contemporaneous with the dinosaurs' departure.

 

[Deeje]

Deeje, you know quite well that many posters on this thread have pointed out that nothing in science is proven, except in mathematics. You have even used this point to try to establish that evolution is not fact but theory.

Exactly....nothing in evolutionary science is proven, so why treat it like it is? Why all the huffing and puffing when its validity is questioned? Their own literature admits that they operate on suggestion and speculation....and those suggestions are made to fit with interpretation of their evidence. It is very plain in the article I cited. It's all guesswork. Read what it actually says.....its a joke.

It seems you are not prepared to learn anything from other posters, but just preach your chosen beliefs. If so, why would the 'undecided' (if there are any ) be prepared to learn anything from you?

I can learn from anyone who has something valid to teach me.....evolutionary science is not valid IMO because it has no hard evidence to prove that it is true. It is as much a 'belief system' as mine is.

I think we can allow the 'undecided' to make up their own minds......unless of course you are trying to steer them in the direction of evolution by implying that my beliefs are invalid....when I have as much, if not more evidence in nature to back up what the Bible says....so how are your arguments more valid than mine?

You can put evolutionary science on a pedestal if you like.....I don't think it qualifies to be there personally.

Others are beginning to see the cracks.... I think that's terrific.

 

[Deeje]

As has been noted many times, you are playing semantic games with the somewhat stylized passive voice writting that is traditionally part of polite scientific discourse.

Just read what is written and stop making excuses for what science is actually saying. Guesses are not science......supposition is not evidence....interpretation of said evidence could be way off. How would you know?

I happen to disagree that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs, though it does appear to have assisted in their demise. The evidence lies in the Iridium layer and the impact crater and the tektites that are contemporaneous with the dinosaurs' departure.

Which proves what? As far as I can tell through searches online, circumstantial evidence is all scientists have to base their conclusions on. Why do you not demand more than that? Based on those searches, I can reaffirm that you have nothing more than a belief system.....just like me.

I looked up "tektites" and found the information interesting in view of what you said.....

"Because the chemical composition of most tektites is so similar to that of the earth's crustal rocks, early theories that they may be true meteorites can almost certainly be rejected....
One of the more durable theories about the origin of tektites is that they were formed from molten blobs that were splashed away from the site of impact when a meteorite struck the earth. Unfortunately for this theory, appropriate impact craters cannot be found to account for all the earth's tektite fields....

In the last few years, it has been learned that some of the meteorites found on earth are almost certainly fragments of Mars, but where tektites come from is still an unresolved question."

tektites

Is there anything in science upon which there is agreement? The more I research, the more I realize how much disagreement there is. How do you know that what you believe is even true?

 

[Jose Fly]

I looked up that term (polyploidy) and found some interesting information in Scientific American.....you guys made it sound like something that commonly happens among species.

I don't remember saying anything like that at all. Can you show where I did, or were you just relying on your imagination?

rather than something that is detrimental to most other species...unless you are a plant.

Like most other genetic events, it can be good, bad, benign, or some combination. The (non-plant) species I work with is an octoploid (it has 8 sets of chromosomes), and it's doing quite well.

Interesting....particularly the wording of the last two paragraphs....."it is suspected that it might have played a role" in evolution eons ago...."these plants seem to be capable of producing" viable offspring....or so the authors of the paper he wrote about, "suggested".

Gotta love the language of proven science eh? .....looks to me like it's all based on the power of suggestion. Scientists apparently rely on the suggestion and speculation of other scientists.

And again we see your dishonest double standard. When scientists describe their conclusions with certainty, you complain that they're unjustifiably presenting them as factual. But when they use less certain language, you complain that "it's all suggestion". IOW, no matter what they do you complain.

But then that's to be expected from someone whose position is entirely motivated by their religion. If you were honest with yourself, you'd recognize that it's not their choice of language that bothers you, but rather their conclusions. As long as their conclusions are supportive of evolution, you'll object regardless of what language they use to describe them. You have to.

 

[Darkstorn]

Exactly....nothing in evolutionary science is proven, so why treat it like it is? Why all the huffing and puffing when it validity is questioned?

Deeje, you need to understand that you're missing the point WAY hard. Proof is a concept of logic: It has NOTHING to do with evidence. You are using your own misunderstanding of the situation as confirmation for your bias... And you are imagining this will not be picked up on, or that it somehow strengthens your argument?

Playing thick isn't very effective you know. You've been explained what proof means. You misunderstanding its meaning this hard can only be intentional.

Their own literature admits that they operate on suggestion and speculation....

No it doesn't. And you you have never shown, with evidence, that it does. You just make empty claims, and when others respond to your empty non-evidence based argument, you demand evidence.

But your argument is NEVER evidence based in the first place: You just demand evidence, never to actually care about such details in your own posts for YOUR claims. Your argument is logic-based and you are not even understanding it yourself. A logic based argument needs no evidence to counter it... If the logic is shaky, then calling that to light is enough.

And by my account your logic is extremely shaky and based on assumption.

and those suggestions are made to fit with interpretation of their evidence.

A bit like you changed your misunderstanding of the situation into evidence for your claims inside your head? So yes, you have not actually established the premise you are claiming to exist. You need evidence.

This is PROOF that your argument is weak.

It is very plain in the article I cited. It's all guesswork. Read what it actually says.....its a joke.

It's not very plain at all. You haven't shown that it is. You haven't shown how it's guesswork, except maybe by guessing a bit yourself.

Your assessment of the text, AND the situation overall, is a joke.

I can learn from anyone who has something valid to teach me.....

You've already shown this, with logical proof, to not be true.

evolutionary science is not valid IMO because it has no hard evidence to prove that it is true.

Evidence doesn't prove anything. But this statement DOES prove that you don't really know what you're talking about. For example: You don't know what the term "proof" means. Look it up.

You make the claim that there is no hard evidence. I make the claim that you need evidence to make claims like that. You haven't shown your premise to be true, to be anything except wishful thinking on your part.

It is as much a 'belief system' as mine is.

Have you anything to show for this claim? It'll remain your guess until you have something. I mean, you haven't even logically shown that it is a belief system, or that belief is involved in any way.

You have no evidence OR proof.

unless of course you are trying to steer them in the direction of evolution by implying that my beliefs are invalid...

You are both implying that evolution is a belief system, and that its beliefs are invalid. So, only you have the right?

When I have as much, if not more evidence in nature to back up what the Bible says....

You have NO evidence unless you can show it... It's really this simple. You still imagine that your empty claims are good as is, at face value. But OTHERS need a paper to back them up, only for you to make fun of the paper in the next reply with some stupid smiley, wasting everyone's time and treating your opposition in an argument as LESSER than yourself.

so how are your arguments more valid than mine?

How are your arguments more valid than ANYONE else's?

You can put evolutionary science on a pedestal if you like.....I don't think it qualifies to be there personally.

You could just add "personally" to all your scientific claims: Then they'd make more sense. As uninformed opinions... Now you're trying to peddle them as facts when it's clearly a case of you giving out opinions the whole time... You just need to understand the lack of worth in the content of your messages. They're mostly empty rhetoric filled with biased agenda and furnished with hilarious oversimplification of events.

Others are beginning to see the cracks.... I think that's terrific.

If they are, i don't think it's because of you. Your arguments... Are not convincing. On logical terms alone.

 

[Olinda]

Exactly....nothing in evolutionary science is proven, so why treat it like it is? It's all guesswork. Read what it actually says.....its a joke.

This seems to be a dodge. What you said was
"Gotta love the language of proven science eh?"
So, since you claim to understand that while evolutionary science has overwhelming evidence, this is not proof. . . why did you mention "proven science"?

I can learn from anyone who has something valid to teach me.....evolutionary science is not valid IMO because it has no hard evidence to prove that it is true. It is as much a 'belief system' as mine is.

So how do you define 'hard evidence", as opposed to a great deal of evidence?

I think we can allow the 'undecided' to make up their own minds......unless of course you are trying to steer them in the direction of evolution by implying that my beliefs are invalid....when I have as much, if not more evidence in nature to back up what the Bible says....so how are your arguments more valid than mine?

Nope, I have no need to convince anyone. I was only trying to point out inconsistencies in your arguments; perhaps if you could reduce them you could be more convincing.

You can put evolutionary science on a pedestal if you like.....I don't think it qualifies to be there personally.

This tired old retort again. . how does disagreeing with you equate to this pedestal thing? My position is that when there is evidence for something, and no evidence against it, it is perfectly reasonable to accept it as a given while that is the case.

I don't believe you have ever addressed the lack of any evidence against evolution.
If I believed in God as you do, it would be like a parent who lets his children believe in Santa and offers no alternative....and then threatens them with annihilation for not believing that he provided all the presents.

Others are beginning to see the cracks.... I think that's terrific.

Who, exactly? Apart from the videos and quotemines, I mean.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Interesting....particularly the wording of the last two paragraphs....."it is suspected that it might have played a role" in evolution eons ago...."these plants seem to be capable of producing" viable offspring....or so the authors of the paper he wrote about, "suggested".

Gotta love the language of proven science eh? .....looks to me like it's all based on the power of suggestion. Scientists apparently rely on the suggestion and speculation of other scientists.

You have it backward. That manner of thinking is one of the strengths of science.

Tentative belief commensurate to the quality and quantity of available evidence and amenable to revision based on new evidence is a virtue.

Unjustified certainty that is indifferent to evidence if a logical error. If the scientists were faith based thinkers, they would be using the language of certitude, and it would be unjustified. Would you prefer that they did that? If they did, their enterprise would be as sterile as religion has been elucidating the truths of nature.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Exactly....nothing in evolutionary science is proven, so why treat it like it is? Why all the huffing and puffing when its validity is questioned? Their own literature admits that they operate on suggestion and speculation....and those suggestions are made to fit with interpretation of their evidence. It is very plain in the article I cited. It's all guesswork. Read what it actually says.....its a joke.



I can learn from anyone who has something valid to teach me.....evolutionary science is not valid IMO because it has no hard evidence to prove that it is true. It is as much a 'belief system' as mine is.

I think we can allow the 'undecided' to make up their own minds......unless of course you are trying to steer them in the direction of evolution by implying that my beliefs are invalid....when I have as much, if not more evidence in nature to back up what the Bible says....so how are your arguments more valid than mine?

You can put evolutionary science on a pedestal if you like.....I don't think it qualifies to be there personally.

Others are beginning to see the cracks.... I think that's terrific.

How do you account for the fact that most Christians disagree with you about evolution? Creationists are a fringe group even among Christians.

What do you propose that we do differently? Just throw the theory out?

Regarding your claim about being able to learn, this post of yours contradicts you. You still don't seem to understand the relationship of proof to science, and continue asking for proof of that which you should already know cannot be proven even if correct.

And none of us behaves as if it is proven as you claimed. We're the ones telling you over and over that it is not proven and cannot be proven. We behave as if the theory is probably correct and definitely useful.

 

[Thumper]

You have it backward. That manner of thinking is one of the strengths of science.

Tentative belief commensurate to the quality and quantity of available evidence and amenable to revision based on new evidence is a virtue.

Unjustified certainty that is indifferent to evidence if a logical error. If the scientists were faith based thinkers, they would be using the language of certitude, and it would be unjustified. Would you prefer that they did that? If they did, their enterprise would be as sterile as religion has been elucidating the truths of nature.

"Scientists do not join hands every Sunday and sing "Yes gravity is real! I know gravity is real! I will have faith! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down, down. Amen!" If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about the concept.” ~ Dan Barker

 

[Deeje]

So how do you define 'hard evidence", as opposed to a great deal of evidence?

Ah, the "evidence". What is the "evidence" exactly? This is the crux of the whole argument. Science claims to have "overwhelming" evidence.....yet when you read what that evidence actually consists of, you begin to understand how much of it is actual evidence compared to what is a suggested interpretation of that evidence.Science usually finds what it is looking for, and then presents it to an adoring audience who hang off every word. Belief is a strange thing....isn't it? Convince someone of something and you have a devotee on your hands. Good marketing can make ice attractive to Eskimos.

I have never seen a single shred of solid evidence that science offers that did not consist of 10% fact supported by 90% suggestion. If that is sufficient for you to describe what they offer as "overwhelming", them I am baffled by the definition. I personally find their evidence completely underwhelming.

My position is that when there is evidence for something, and no evidence against it, it is perfectly reasonable to accept it as a given while that is the case.

There is no real evidence for evolution...its all smoke and mirrors. Science is in such a hurry to eliminate a Creator, that they will grasp at anything to prove that he isn't necessary to explain "nature". The fact that they cannot tell us how life began is interesting considering that they can almost state categorically that certain things took place 65 billion years ago. Who questions the science gods? Other scientists? Not really.....they might quibble about the details, but by and large, the majority accept evolution as a fact and teach it that way. Most students who attend any science related field of study are already 'brainwashed' to believe evolution before they even leave High School. The feeding of their trusting minds continues as they advance in their studies, totally committed to a very flawed first premise...that evolution ever took place.

I don't believe you have ever addressed the lack of any evidence against evolution.

O, I have addressed it many times.....go back and see. I love nothing better than to take the scientist's own words and demonstrate that there is nothing backing up what they say except conjecture and supposition masquerading as fact.

If I believed in God as you do, it would be like a parent who lets his children believe in Santa and offers no alternative....and then threatens them with annihilation for not believing that he provided all the presents.

If that is your understanding of the Creator, then no wonder you want nothing to do with him. The churches have a lot to answer for in creating the myths that have been fed to the masses. Creationism (6 literal day creation) is as big a fraud as is evolution. There is a reasonable explanation that excludes both scenarios.

Just because science can't quantify or test for the existence of the Creator, doesn't make him go away.

Who, exactly? Apart from the videos and quotemines, I mean.

If you check out the number of views this thread has received, I think that will explain the interest people have in this subject.
The undecided are probably a strong contingent in those numbers. They can make up their own minds as to whose argument resonates in their own heart.

 

[savagewind]

There is no real evidence for evolution..

Evolution: root word evolve. Definition of evolve: to change or develop slowly often into a better, more complex, or more advanced state

There is real strong evidence for the evolving of life forms. You have even posted that it is called microevolution.

Their argument is that since small changes are occurring, then it follows that many small changes
were sufficient for explaining all life on Earth.

 

[savagewind]

If you check out the number of views this thread has received, I think that will explain the interest people have in this subject.

Or we are bored and hoping for something interesting to read.

 

[Deeje]

Or we are bored and hoping for something interesting to read.

Who is "we"? If you think evolution is true, then go for it...what have you got to lose?

If you want something that interests you perhaps you can find someone else's threads to insert your negative comments.

 

[savagewind]

Who is "we"? .

The people who click into threads because they feel they have nothing better to do at the time.

 

[gnostic]

Where is the proof that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs? That is pure speculation as well.

After high school, one of the subjects I had to study in my civil engineering course was geology and soil mechanics. The geology and study of soil, we were required to learn, were quite specific relating to what we may encounter during the course of excavation and constructions, like the types of rocks (or minerals) or types of soil that are out there, before laying the foundation.

My point is that excavation don't involve us knowing about fossils and what to do with them when we find them. Our geology subject don't focus on fossils, so we are not experts in palaeontology, which is more specialised field in biology and geology.

And it is the same with biology, I would guess. Most biology students studying biology, are mostly involved in either medicine, or the current and extant species of plants and animals, so most don't get involved with study of fossils from ancient plant or animal life. Like I said before, palaeontology is a very specific and specialised field, that only few would study.

Most biologists and biology students don't study dinosaurs, so they wouldn't necessarily know what cause their extinction. The study of dinosaurs are specialised field that not many get the chance to focus on.

Having said that, I can also tell you that in geology, we never focused on rare rocks, minerals or metals. And iridium is one of those rare metal that mostly found in asteroids. And though I am no expert in geology of asteroids, or in iridium, my understanding that you would only find iridium on Earth, when they have impacted or crashed on Earth.

Now I wouldn't know much about what caused the extinction of dinosaurs, but scientists have dated impact site of large crater (Chicxulub crater) in Central America that coincided with the time of dinosaurs become extinct.

It wasn't the impact that directly killed all those dinosaurs, but the massive fallout after the impact, causing the changes in the atmosphere and global climate. Dinosaurs that didn't adapt to sudden change, began dying out about 65 million years ago.

It is the high concentration of iridium found at Chicxulub site, Yucatan peninsula, is indication of meteor.

The question is, Deeje, are you willing to investigate the meteorite and Chicxulub crater a little further.