Just Accidental?

[sayak83]

Let me just conclude with this quote on mutations....

"It is estimated that one million mutations are required for every one percent difference. Moreover, all the mutations must occur exactly where the two genomes differ. How can one have a million mutations when each mutation has to be in the exact sequence to make a human? It’s impossible. George Simpson, a well-known paleontologist and ardent evolutionist, estimated that it would take 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chances to get five mutations in the exact order. Simpson concludes that simultaneous mutations as a process observed today had no part in evolution.

Simpson wrote a surprisingly honest comment on the absence of transitional fossils, "...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.”

If you can quote your sources, so can I.

http://www.creationstudies.org/operationsalt/myth-beneficial-mutations.html

I will respond to your post sequentially as they tackle different aspects of evolution.

This statement quoted above is a complete distortion as no evolutionary biologist has ever said that simultaneous mutations are something that either occurs in evolution or is needed in evolution.

All evolutionary changes are based on differential fitness caused by single mutation events over successive generations. A single mutation event can be the alteration of a single letter in a gene (or a regulatory element of the gene) or a gene duplication or gene deletion event where an entire section of the DNA is pasted in twice (or not pasted in at all) due to a mistake in the replication process. There is no gene where 5 simultaneous mutations are required before it becomes beneficial when the starting ancestral sequence was not.

The rate of mutation in humans is 1.2*10^(-8) per nucleotide per generation.
This has been experimentally demonstrated
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3548427/

A human genome has 3 billion base pairs or 6 billion nucleotides. Thus the number of new mutations that occur in every child is (6*10^9)*(1.2*10^-8)= 72 mutations.
Thus every human being is born with avg. of 72 mutations that did not exist in their parents.

Now consider that there are 7 billion people in the world.
So number new mutations arising at every nucleotide site in the human genome somewhere in the human population is (7*10^9)*(1.2*10^-8)= 84 new mutations per nucleotide site in the human population each generation.

The percentage of beneficial mutations is about 1% (several experimental studies. One example LINK). The percentage of harmful mutations is about 5% and the rest 94% is neutral.


Here is a nice homework problem.

Given that each person is born with 72 mutations on average of with 1% is good, 5% is bad and 94% is neutral, what is the probablity that a person is conceived with
1) At least one beneficial mutation and no harmful mutation?
2) A person is conceived with at least one harmful mutation and no beneficial mutation?




This number above is before considering differential selection. Differential selection is the process by which descendants with harmful mutations are removed from the population because either
1) Due to their harmful mutation they die too early to have offsprings themselves.
2) They have less offsprings than others because of their harmful mutations.


A stark example of differential selection is the fact that 66% of all human embroyos that are conceived are aborted spontaneously. (LINK). It is near certain that these embroyos have harmful gene variants that cause them to stop growing. Thus the percentage of people who are born at all is already a self-selected group from which a significant fraction (find out how much) of the descendants who had one or more harmful mutations have been eliminated already.

Here is a concrete example of beneficial mutations cropping up in human populations today.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4791022/

In 2009, researchers at the Broad Institute in Boston, led by geneticist David Altschuler, started recruiting elderly, overweight individuals who, by all accounts, ought to have type 2 diabetes but didn’t. The scientists weren’t looking for genetic mutations that cause diabetes but rather hoping to find mutations that prevent it. Their search paid off; last year, the group reported in Nature Genetics that people who have particular mutations in a gene called SLC30A8 (Solute carrier family 30, member 8) are 65% less likely to get diabetes, even when they have risk factors like obesity (1).

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Considering you have openly stated you want to focus on fossils my presumption is accurate



When you can avoid quoting Creationist websites that have not only been demonstrated be me but by many others to be liars I will considering changing my opinion.

The only ignorance here is your own as demonstrated on your reliance of dishonest sources.



Hi Kettle. See above



Your reliance on your dishonest sources shows otherwise. You couldn't even bother to fact check your quotes yet expect me to think you are objective. Hilarious.

I don't expect you to think anything about me, just be objective, yourself. Quit relying on narrow-minded explanations of evidence, from people with a priori commitments to materialism.

Cracks me up....SETI researchers, looking for patterns of information, would automatically jump to a conclusion that intelligence was the source of a pattern, if one was discovered. Yet, other scientists see extremely complex patterns of information in our cells, and the laws of finely-tuned atomic forces that enable it -- but most say "it just happened"! That's hilarious!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I will respond to your post sequentially as they tackle different aspects of evolution.

This statement quoted above is a complete distortion as no evolutionary biologist has ever said that simultaneous mutations are something that either occurs in evolution or is needed in evolution.

All evolutionary changes are based on differential fitness caused by single mutation events over successive generations. A single mutation event can be the alteration of a single letter in a gene (or a regulatory element of the gene) or a gene duplication or gene deletion event where an entire section of the DNA is pasted in twice (or not pasted in at all) due to a mistake in the replication process. There is no gene where 5 simultaneous mutations are required before it becomes beneficial when the starting ancestral sequence was not.

The rate of mutation in humans is 1.2*10^(-8) per nucleotide per generation.
This has been experimentally demonstrated
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3548427/

A human genome has 3 billion base pairs or 6 billion nucleotides. Thus the number of new mutations that occur in every child is (6*10^9)*(1.2*10^-8)= 72 mutations.
Thus every human being is born with avg. of 72 mutations that did not exist in their parents.

Now consider that there are 7 billion people in the world.
So number new mutations arising at every nucleotide site in the human genome somewhere in the human population is (7*10^9)*(1.2*10^-8)= 84 new mutations per nucleotide site in the human population each generation.

The percentage of beneficial mutations is about 1% (several experimental studies. One example LINK). The percentage of harmful mutations is about 5% and the rest 94% is neutral.


Here is a nice homework problem.

Given that each person is born with 72 mutations on average of with 1% is good, 5% is bad and 94% is neutral, what is the probablity that a person is conceived with
1) At least one beneficial mutation and no harmful mutation?
2) A person is conceived with at least one harmful mutation and no beneficial mutation?




This number above is before considering differential selection. Differential selection is the process by which descendants with harmful mutations are removed from the population because either
1) Due to their harmful mutation they die too early to have offsprings themselves.
2) They have less offsprings than others because of their harmful mutations.


A stark example of differential selection is the fact that 66% of all human embroyos that are conceived are aborted spontaneously. (LINK). It is near certain that these embroyos have harmful gene variants that cause them to stop growing. Thus the percentage of people who are born at all is already a self-selected group from which a significant fraction (find out how much) of the descendants who had one or more harmful mutations have been eliminated already.

Here is a concrete example of beneficial mutations cropping up in human populations today.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4791022/

Thanks for this! But you expect others to agree that this gradual buildup of beneficial mutations, over time, has accounted for the multitudinous diversity of body plans among organisms, both plants and animals, that have lived? All from one single cell?!

Fantasy, my friend.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I have a very close relationship with my God....I don't just think he exists....I know he does.
You should meet him sometime.

Made me think of Acts 17, especially vs.27,".....although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us."

 

[jonathan180iq]

Cracks me up....SETI researchers, looking for patterns of information, would automatically jump to a conclusion that intelligence was the source of a pattern, if one was discovered. Yet, other scientists see extremely complex patterns of information in our cells, and the laws of finely-tuned atomic forces that enable it -- but most say "it just happened"! That's hilarious!

Your understanding here is inaccurate.
Pattern formations have been found. They're discovered quite commonly, actually. And every one of them, to this point, has been found to be not of intelligent origin. It's not simply a pattern that SETI researchers are looking for, but a particular type of pattern or signal that could not be caused by natural forces.

Symmetry and sequential patterns are a regular part of the Universe. They are natural constructs that have no correlation to intelligence. You are, as have most theists throughout history, mistaking one thing for another.

Thanks for this! But you expect others to agree that this gradual buildup of beneficial mutations, over time, has accounted for the multitudinous diversity of body plans among organisms, both plants and animals, that have lived? All from one single cell?!

Again, no.

From a single self-replicating proto-organism, yes. This is very different from your current understanding of a cell.

There's also good evidence that life originated in multiple places from similar proto-organisms at different times, lending to the eventual addition of gene flow once contact was achieved. But let's not open that can of worms yet.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Let me just conclude with this quote on mutations....

"It is estimated that one million mutations are required for every one percent difference. Moreover, all the mutations must occur exactly where the two genomes differ. How can one have a million mutations when each mutation has to be in the exact sequence to make a human? It’s impossible. George Simpson, a well-known paleontologist and ardent evolutionist, estimated that it would take 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chances to get five mutations in the exact order. Simpson concludes that simultaneous mutations as a process observed today had no part in evolution.

Simpson wrote a surprisingly honest comment on the absence of transitional fossils, "...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.”

If you can quote your sources, so can I.

http://www.creationstudies.org/operationsalt/myth-beneficial-mutations.html

Start citing science journals and academic sites, and I'll start paying attention.
I see this post has been thoroughly discussed by a much more competent poster than myself.



P.S. This is a quote mine. Which means it is a quotation taken out of its original context in such a way as to make it sound like something the author never intended to say.

Here's the full George Simpson quote, in full context. Notice how in it's proper context, it doesn't say what is implied by your partial quote.

"The chances that the remains of an organism will be buried, fossilized, preserved in the rock to our day, then exposed on the surface of dry land and found by a paleontologist before they disintegrate are extremely small, practically infinitesimal. The discovery of a fossil of a particular species, out of the thousands of millions that have inhabited the earth, seems almost like a miracle even to a paleontologist who has spent a good part of his life performing the miracle. Certainly paleontologists have found samples of an extremely small fraction, only, of the earth's extinct species, and even for groups that are most readily preserved and found as fossils they can never expect to find more than a fraction.


"In view of these facts, the record already acquired is amazingly good. It provides us with many detailed examples of a great variety of evolutionary phenomena on lower and intermediate levels and with rather abundant data that can be used either by controlled extrapolation or on a statistical sampling basis for inferences as to phenomena on all levels up to the highest. Among the examples are many in which, beyond the slightest doubt, a species or genus has been gradually transformed into another. Such gradual transformation is also fairly well exemplified for subfamilies and occasionally for families, as the groups are commonly ranked. Splitting and subsequent gradual divergence of species is also exemplified, although not as richly as phyletic transformation of species (no doubt because splitting of species usually involves spatial separation and paleontological samples are rarely adequate in spatial distribution). Splitting and gradual divergence of genera is exemplified very well and in a large variety of organisms. Complete examples for subfamilies and families are also known, but are less common.


"In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences. When paleontological collecting was still in its infancy and no clear examples of transitional origin had been found, most paleontologists were anti-evolutionists. Darwin (1859) recognized the fact that paleontology then seemed to provide evidence against rather than for evolution in general or the gradual origin of taxonomic characters in particular. Now we do have many examples of transitional sequences. Almost all paleontologists recognize that the discovery of a complete transition is in any case unlikely. Most of them find it logical, if not scientifically required, to assume that the sudden appearance of a new systematic group is not evidence for special creation or for saltation, but simply means that a full transitional sequence more or less like those that are known did occur and simply has not been found in this instance."

(Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360)




This is one of the reasons I don’t trust creationist websites, and you shouldn’t either.

 

[Deeje]

"In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences. When paleontological collecting was still in its infancy and no clear examples of transitional origin had been found, most paleontologists were anti-evolutionists. Darwin (1859) recognized the fact that paleontology then seemed to provide evidence against rather than for evolution in general or the gradual origin of taxonomic characters in particular. Now we do have many examples of transitional sequences. Almost all paleontologists recognize that the discovery of a complete transition is in any case unlikely. Most of them find it logical, if not scientifically required, to assume that the sudden appearance of a new systematic group is not evidence for special creation or for saltation, but simply means that a full transitional sequence more or less like those that are known did occur and simply has not been found in this instance."

I love it when you quote stuff......please read the words that you didn't highlight.

This is saying that when Darwin first proposed evolution as "the" explanation concerning the diversity of life on this planet, NO evidence was available to substantiate his theory. On the contrary, everything pointed in the opposite direction. But as time went on they found "many examples of transitional sequences". Really? Was this the case, or was it more a case of forcing the "evidence" to fit the theory?

Now here is the clincher.......
"Almost all paleontologists recognize that the discovery of a complete transition is in any case unlikely. Most of them find it logical, if not scientifically required, to assume that the sudden appearance of a new systematic group is not evidence for special creation or for saltation, but simply means that a full transitional sequence more or less like those that are known did occur and simply has not been found in this instance."

Have you become so insensitive to the language used that you can't see what these people are actually saying? Read your own quotes.....I believe that you are shooting yourself in the foot here.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You were making the point about not rushing drugs to market without trials....I agree with that, but what brings a drug to the marketplace is not necessarily the trials....but it's more about how much money can be made by manufacturing it. We all know how much money these drugs bring in.

That’s also a factor in determining what types drugs are tested in the first place, at least in private facilities where profit is often the main goal. Why bother testing drugs to treat rare illnesses that very few people are going to contract? If you do, you have to jack the price up just to make back what was spent on research and development. I don’t disagree with you that the profit margins on new drugs are often obscene. Here in Canada, our government negotiates bulk prices with pharmaceutical companies and so our drugs cost somewhat less than the prices Americans are paying for them. I’m sorry, but I don’t know what the situation is in Australia.

That’s why we need to keep funding research facilities like the NIH and public universities where the profit motive isn’t the main goal.

My point was that cannabis has no detrimental side effects and is known to be an effective treatment for a great many diseases and symptoms. Yet it remains demonized by the ones who don't want it released into public hands. The drugs that do get released have numerous side effects, for which (naturally) there are more drugs.

I agree that cannabis is relatively harmless, but it is known to have some harmful interaction when taken in tandem with other drugs, which can be a problem for the elderly, for example. Mixing cannabis with acetaminophen can cause impairments in motor coordination, thinking and judgment in the elderly. Mixing cannabis with buprenorphine or naloxone can lead to respiratory distress, coma and sometimes death. Taking cannabis with Levacetylmethadol can cause coma and death, in extreme cases. And people suffering from schizophrenia should probably avoid it altogether. This is the kind of thing that researchers are looking for during drug trials and what makes them necessary, even for something as seemingly innocuous as cannabis.

It is a known fact that more people die from prescription drugs than any others. What is the point of a treatment if the side effects are making the patient worse than they already were?

Opioids have definitely been overprescribed (in North America, at least) over the last 20 or so years and addiction drives the usage up even more. The good thing is though, that we have become aware of the problem so that doctors are now adjusting the frequency and amount of opioid prescriptions, and the FDA has tightened up regulations and implemented an “Opioid Action Plan” to begin to deal with the problem. This issue is being discussed in the literature (especially in regards to long-term pain management) more and more and is definitely recognized as a real problem that needs addressing (and is currently being addressed).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3073133/
https://www.hopkinsarthritis.org/patient-corner/disease-management/benefits-and-risks-of-opioids-for-chronic-pain-management/#guidelines
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2711509/

On the other hand, opioids have a lot of applications and are quite effective in helping a lot of people suffering from extreme pain, terminal illnesses and severe anxiety to maintain a decent quality of life.

None of this means that cannabis is a cure for everything though. It has to stand on its own merits and that means recognizing the potential negative effects of it as well (of which there are few, we agree).

Yes I can site you two personal examples. One of my closest friends has Parkinson's Disease and the drugs used to treat her, if she had she followed the doctor's prescriptions, (Specialist Neurologist) he admitted would have killed her by now. She is only alive today because she refused to keep taking the prescribed medications....all tested and legal....but would have been lethal. She wants to try cannabis but will her doctor be allowed to prescribe it?

If she lived where I live her doctor could prescribe cannabis and she could probably even grow her own.

There isn’t enough information here to make any kind of determination either way. What drug was she taking? What dosage? Did her doctor work with her to adjust her dosage or try another drug? How do you know it would have killed her by now if she continued taking it? What is her condition now as compared to before she started taking medication? Every drug isn’t effective for every person. Some people have higher or lower thresholds for certain drugs than others. People have different reactions to different drugs. Sometimes it takes a few tries to get the dosage right.

A friend of mine had to work with his doctor for three years before they finally were able to determine the exact right dosage required to help him properly control his epilepsy. He can go off his treatment at any time and still not experience a seizure for perhaps months on end, which gives the illusion that he is fine and dandy, but he’ll always starting having them again eventually, if he stops taking his meds permanently.

Another friend has a problem with deteriorating eyesight due to hemorrhages in the eye. They have no idea what is wrong with her but they prescribed cortisone and a bunch of other drugs that they warned could cause cancer. She is blind in one eye and almost lost sight in the other recently. The drugs have blown her up like a freakish balloon and she has had no actual benefit from the drugs that were given to her. She is a single Mum of autistic 8 year old and scared of what will become of her daughter if anything happens to her.

She is desperate to try cannabis.

They feel trapped in a system that appears to be heartless.

It’s always ultimately up to the person taking the meds to decide if they want to continue taking them. Nobody is forced to take anything. You have to weigh out the risks and benefits and come to your own decision. In the case of your friend, it sounds like the doctor fully informed her of the possible risks involved in taking the drug before prescribing them. As I mentioned long ago, there are risks involved in doing a lot of things, but we decide to do them anyway because the benefits can outweigh the risks. I’m curious what she thinks cannabis will do for her eyes.

Researchers aren’t magic. It is difficult to create effective drugs with absolutely no side effects, just because of the way our bodies work. Cannabis isn’t free of side effects either.

No, I am suggesting that many of these "tested" drugs are making many people sicker than they were before. So much for the testing. On that score alone medicinal cannabis should be free to grow in your own backyard. It is one of the safest drugs known to man.

They are actually tested and the side effects are noted and relayed to the patient, as per your example.

I agree that marijuana should probably be legalized for recreational use, however, when we’re talking about making it available for medical use, it needs proper testing first. The major downside to it being illegal for all purposes for so long is that it has hindered researchers’ abilities to test its efficacy in the first place. This is changing now in a big way.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you know about the results of the double-blind studies, you would know that the placebo effect is often a better "fix" than the drug on trial, which may or may not have the desired result for many patients. It would benefit patients who were on placebos to keep taking them, yet even they are withdrawn. Can you tell me why? If sugar pills were working, why take them away?

It can be, yes. But placebo doesn’t act on the disease; rather it acts on the symptoms, and the way the person feels. So in the sense that it makes someone feel better it can be beneficial but it’s important to note that it’s not treating the underlying disease. And the can also make people feel worse (the nocebo effect). Nonethless, the American Cancer Society reports that in 2008 almost half of doctors surveyed said they’d used a placebo when they felt it might help make the patient feel better.

http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/treatmenttypes/placebo-effect


They are withdrawn because the study is over. Patients are made aware of the details, timeframe and parameters of the study, as I pointed out a few posts ago. Patients are allowed to seek treatments outside of the study as well.

Please don't get me wrong....I am not anti-drugs, per se......I am just against the way big pharma operates.

If they get their hands on cannabis, and "pharmaceuticalize" it, I am not confident that the real benefits will be passed on.....I believe it has the potential to replace many of the drugs now used routinely with awful side effects. So how do you suppose that they will make up for the short fall?

This has been done already.

http://phytomedical.ca/
https://medicalmarijuana.ca/
https://www.tilray.ca/

Well, the last time I looked both were classified as drugs. Both tobacco and alcohol are addictive and both are known to cause serious health issues and even death.....yet both are perfectly legal. Low THC medicinal cannabis has no known side effects and has no recorded deaths from overdose.

They’re not prescribed to treat ailments though.

As to cannabis overdoses, I know another poster already addressed that.

I am saying that there are ingredients in junk food that can be replaced by healthier options. If you over eat junk food it will end up killing you...if you over eat good healthy food, you don't end up obese or dead. Education and availability at reasonable prices would be money better spent than treating the obesity related diseases that affect millions today, costing billions in health care.

If you want to ban foods that can cause obesity than you should just ban all foods. Junk food eaten in moderation doesn’t generally lead to heart disease, obesity or death. Overeating and under exercising that can possibly lead to those things. Drinking too much water can hurt you too. There are plenty of options to junk food that are readily available just about anywhere.

Education is always an important aspect of proper health and nutrition. I won’t disagree with you there.

It has just become legal in my state in Australia, but only in a very restricted way. I asked our doctor what he thought of it and he said that only selected doctors would even be allowed to prescribe it and for a limited range of conditions. That means that there are so many hoops to jump through, that the people who can benefit from this drug will not gain access to it when they need it, which is right now.

Well I agree that it should only be prescribed for conditions in which it has been demonstrated to be an effective treatment.

 

[sayak83]

Thanks for this! But you expect others to agree that this gradual buildup of beneficial mutations, over time, has accounted for the multitudinous diversity of body plans among organisms, both plants and animals, that have lived? All from one single cell?!

Fantasy, my friend.

My post was meant to demonstrate the fact that beneficial mutations do in fact occur frequently and accumulate in the population.
To answer your question one has to know how do the genes direct the embroyo (which is a single cell) into the adult body plan through the successive cell division cycles and how much difference in the genetic instruction does it take to divert the embroyo's development from one type of body to another. One of the most exciting progress over the last 20 years have been the elucidation of this very process and today scientists know that the differences in these sequential instructions are not actually that much. This is to be expected because we are not changing one adult body into another. Biology's task is much much simpler. It starts from one cell (the embroyo) and subtly alters how it divides and where the daughter cells that emerge connect to each other and suddenly you get a very different type of body. It is quite clear now that the number of mutations that differentiate the genes that control the body of a fly, a starfish or a human is actually quite small. These small genetic changes have large observable effects on the body shape, but to the evolutionary process its not a big deal.

People got Nobel Prize for this (and several more since).
http://thenode.biologists.com/molecular-control-of-embryonic-development/research/

Isn't it interesting that every human body starts as a single cell? Mere chance?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I love it when you quote stuff......please read the words that you didn't highlight.

I highlighted the words taken from your quote mine for your benefit. It was the other words I wanted YOU to read.

This is saying that when Darwin first proposed evolution as "the" explanation concerning the diversity of life on this planet, NO evidence was available to substantiate his theory. On the contrary, everything pointed in the opposite direction. But as time went on they found "many examples of transitional sequences". Really? Was this the case, or was it more a case of forcing the "evidence" to fit the theory?

Boy, you really are a selective reader.

It isn’t saying that at all. It is saying that the fossil record was lacking at the time.

Please take note that he’s talking about the paleontological evidence, which was lacking at the time and the reason that many paleontologists didn’t initially accept the theory of evolution (as they shouldn’t have). That was over 150 years ago, by the way. We now have an abundance of fossil evidence along with mountains of evidence from several different fields of science.

Now here is the clincher.......

"Almost all paleontologists recognize that the discovery of a complete transition is in any case unlikely. Most of them find it logical, if not scientifically required, to assume that the sudden appearance of a new systematic group is not evidence for special creation or for saltation, but simply means that a full transitional sequence more or less like those that are known did occur and simply has not been found in this instance."

Have you become so insensitive to the language used that you can't see what these people are actually saying? Read your own quotes.....I believe that you are shooting yourself in the foot here.

Again, you’re removing a small piece of the quote to make it say what you want. You skipped over the paragraph where he says, “the record already acquired is amazingly good (in 1953, mind you ) and then goes on to point out that, “Among the examples are many in which, beyond the slightest doubt, a species or genus has been gradually transformed into another.”

And the sentence that directly precedes the one you conveniently cut out above, states that, “Now we do have many examples of transitional sequences.”

So yeah, following the evidence to its logical conclusion leads one to evolutionary theory.

As I pointed out, George Simpson wrote that in 1953. Do you have any idea how much we’ve learned since then. I mean, 1953 is the year Watson and Crick first figured out the structure of DNA!

Please stop perpetuating a quote mine. It’s dishonest. You presented this as a scientist seemingly saying that the fossil record contains no transitional forms and doesn’t point to evolution as a reality when in fact he is saying that there was enough evidence in the fossil record in 1953 to logically conclude that animals evolve over time. In other words, he was saying the opposite of what you had claimed he said.

I would definitely want someone to point out to me if I were improperly quoting someone.

 

[Deeje]

This has been done already.

http://phytomedical.ca/
https://medicalmarijuana.ca/
https://www.tilray.ca/

I was more referring to pharmaceutical companies synthesizing the compounds in a lab for mass production. I have read where the efficacy is lost when the drug with its all its medicinal properties is not sources from the natural plant. I do not trust them not to interfere with those properties. This has the potential to make a big impact on their business and we can see this already interfering with the release of this medicine to those who really need it....right now. The stalling tactics are disturbing to say the least. It isn't about safety, its about profit.

They’re not prescribed to treat ailments though.

Alcohol and tobacco are not "prescribed", but they are taken by millions of people, none the less. I have never met an alcoholic yet who was not a self medicating depressive.
Tobacco is also a highly addictive drug used by many to calm their nerves, so even though they are not "medicines" per se, they are still used as drugs and are perfectly legal despite the fact that both can cause serious illness and death.

As to cannabis overdoses, I know another poster already addressed that.

You can almost count on one hand the number of people who have had cannabis identified as a cause of death. Most had other drugs in their system. Some may well have had a negative reaction to it. People's responses to drugs vary greatly.

Well I agree that it should only be prescribed for conditions in which it has been demonstrated to be an effective treatment.

I would like to see it prescribed freely by doctors for any and all ailments where no other therapy has worked. We have cannabinoid receptors all over our bodies, so I believe that this plant is designed to treat a multitude of illnesses. Neurological conditions in particular respond well to cannabis.

For those who suffer every day, what possible harm is there in trialing it? If done under a doctor's supervision and if the medicine or even the medicinal plant seeds could be prescribed by a doctor and administered from a pharmacy, all the controls would be in place. Patients could be monitored and the plants only grown by those authorized by their doctors to do so. That at least would be better than what is happening here in my country at present.
They have lumped all cannabis under one umbrella and banned the lot. That is like banning non-alcoholic wine along with the high alcohol spirits.

Release the low THC, high CBD genus and let us try it for our family members who are suffering.
They have nothing to lose.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

"These small genetic changes have large observable effects on the body shape, but to the evolutionary process its not a big deal."

Really?! So you can explain how natural selection "knows" that it would benefit an organism to modify its genes, to morphologically transform a fin into a foot? (Why are all living things perfectly adapted to the environment in which they live?) Why don't we find intermediate forms of organisms, with half-foot, half-fin mutatations? They should be living everywhere even now! Especially should they abound in the fossil record!

I think it's a very big deal!

It's for this reason that Gould thought up 'punctuated equilibrium.'
Oops, I just gave you an out.

 

[Deeje]

As I pointed out, George Simpson wrote that in 1953. Do you have any idea how much we’ve learned since then. I mean, 1953 is the year Watson and Crick first figured out the structure of DNA!

Please stop perpetuating a quote mine. It’s dishonest. You presented this as a scientist seemingly saying that the fossil record contains no transitional forms and doesn’t point to evolution as a reality when in fact he is saying that there was enough evidence in the fossil record in 1953 to logically conclude that animals evolve over time. In other words, he was saying the opposite of what you had claimed he said.

I would definitely want someone to point out to me if I were improperly quoting someone.

Improperly quoting someone is not what happened here. I did not put those words in his mouth. Please read them again.....

The fossil record is anything but complete and you know it. If you listen to scientists, you'd think that they had all they needed to demonstrate that their theory is true without question, but that is simply not the case. The fossil record still lacks transitional species, as it always has. Linking one species to another is done by suggestion. But it is never "suggested" that a related species might have appeared just as suddenly in the strata as the later species by other means. There is nothing linking them but imagination and a will to force their evidence to fit their pre-conceived ideas.

What he said is very telling....see for yourself....

"In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences. When paleontological collecting was still in its infancy and no clear examples of transitional origin had been found, most paleontologists were anti-evolutionists. Darwin (1859) recognized the fact that paleontology then seemed to provide evidence against rather than for evolution in general or the gradual origin of taxonomic characters in particular. Now we do have many examples of transitional sequences. Almost all paleontologists recognize that the discovery of a complete transition is in any case unlikely. Most of them find it logical, if not scientifically required, to assume that the sudden appearance of a new systematic group is not evidence for special creation or for saltation, but simply means that a full transitional sequence more or less like those that are known did occur and simply has not been found in this instance."

Do you see the part that peer pressure plays in the promotion of evolution even today? How can it be "scientifically required" to "assume" that evolution is true? In every university it is "required" for evolution to be accepted as fact. Those "examples of transitional sequences" are not proven, but assumed. Assumption, conjecture and suggestion does not make anything true. It makes it a "theory" and no one would mind in the least if it was promoted as such, but we all know that it isn't.

Evolution is what science thinks might have happened.....but the truth is not really known by any measure that man currently has...everything is open to fall in a heap with the next 'discovery'. So how are evolutionist placed in any better position than those who advocate for Intelligent Design? We are in equal standing from my estimations.

 

[sayak83]

Improperly quoting someone is not what happened here. I did not put those words in his mouth. Please read them again.....

The fossil record is anything but complete and you know it. If you listen to scientists, you'd think that they had all they needed to demonstrate that their theory is true without question, but that is simply not the case. The fossil record still lacks transitional species, as it always has. Linking one species to another is done by suggestion. It is not even suggested that a related species might have appeared just as suddenly in the strata as the later species.There is nothing linking them but imagination.

What he said is very telling....see for yourself....

"In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences. When paleontological collecting was still in its infancy and no clear examples of transitional origin had been found, most paleontologists were anti-evolutionists. Darwin (1859) recognized the fact that paleontology then seemed to provide evidence against rather than for evolution in general or the gradual origin of taxonomic characters in particular. Now we do have many examples of transitional sequences. Almost all paleontologists recognize that the discovery of a complete transition is in any case unlikely. Most of them find it logical, if not scientifically required, to assume that the sudden appearance of a new systematic group is not evidence for special creation or for saltation, but simply means that a full transitional sequence more or less like those that are known did occur and simply has not been found in this instance."

Do you see the part that peer pressure plays in the promotion of evolution even today? How can it be "scientifically required" to "assume" that evolution is true? In every university it is "required" for evolution to be accepted as fact. Those "examples of transitional sequences" are not proven, but assumed. Assumption, conjecture and suggestion does not make anything true. It makes it a "theory" and no one would mind in the least if it was promoted as such, but we all know that it isn't.

Evolution is what science thinks might have happened.....but the truth is not really known by any measure that man currently has...everything is open to fall in a heap with the next 'discovery'. So how are evolutionist placed in any better position than those who advocate for Intelligent Design? We are in equal standing from my estimations.

Why are you quoting from something that was written in 1953? There are today hundreds and hundreds of examples of fossils that show the transition from one family to another and for categories well above families. The evidence exists in loads and most of them have been discovered in the recent decades. Pioneers like Dr. Simpson used the theory of evolution and the then scanty fossil record to predict many of the trends in the ancient history of life that had since be vindicated by the expanding fossil record. Its absolutely pathetic that your source uses things written 60-70 years ago in their desperate attempt to wish away the exponentially growing evidence for evolution in modern scientific literature.

All the fantasy, all the delusion, all the denials and obfuscations are coming from you. It shows as clear as daylight.

 

[sayak83]

"These small genetic changes have large observable effects on the body shape, but to the evolutionary process its not a big deal."

Really?! So you can explain how natural selection "knows" that it would benefit an organism to modify its genes, to morphologically transform a fin into a foot? (Why are all living things perfectly adapted to the environment in which they live?) Why don't we find intermediate forms of organisms, with half-foot, half-fin mutatations? They should be living everywhere even now! Especially should they abound in the fossil record!

I think it's a very big deal!

It's for this reason that Gould thought up 'punctuated equilibrium.'
Oops, I just gave you an out.

There are, to my knowledge 5-6 well preserved fossils (and many more less complete ones) of the Devonian era showing the transformation of fins to feet. Feet evolved in a group of early fish that used it to walk under water in ponds and river beds. They therefore had both fin-like and feet-like characteristics
http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/re-acanthostega.html
http://www.science20.com/news_artic...ifferent_life_histories_earliest_land_animals

Currently modern amphibians (which are descendants of these lineages) as well as alligators and otters etc. fill this ecological niche. These ancient "walking fishes" were out competed by amphibians in the Pennsylvanian era that followed the Devonian era. This too is recorded in the fossil record.
http://www.reptileevolution.com/amphibamus.htm

 

[Deeje]

Here is a concrete example of beneficial mutations cropping up in human populations today.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4791022/

In 2009, researchers at the Broad Institute in Boston, led by geneticist David Altschuler, started recruiting elderly, overweight individuals who, by all accounts, ought to have type 2 diabetes but didn’t. The scientists weren’t looking for genetic mutations that cause diabetes but rather hoping to find mutations that prevent it. Their search paid off; last year, the group reported in Nature Genetics that people who have particular mutations in a gene called SLC30A8 (Solute carrier family 30, member 8) are 65% less likely to get diabetes, even when they have risk factors like obesity (1).

In reading through this article I see nothing but wishful thinking of something that might happen in the future if they can find enough "wellderly" people to study. "The hunt is on" was a dead giveaway......

Why are you quoting from something that was written in 1953? There are today hundreds and hundreds of examples of fossils that show the transition from one family to another and for categories well above families. The evidence exists in loads and most of them have been discovered in the recent decades.

I completely disagree. What we see is not "loads" of "evidence" at all, but what we can clearly see is that the "load of evidence" is quite small and very inconclusive without a massive amount of interpretation. All I see is science forcing the evidence to fit the theory, rather than the other way around. .

Pioneers like Dr. Simpson used the theory of evolution and the then scanty fossil record to predict many of the trends in the ancient history of life that had since be vindicated by the expanding fossil record.

"Vindicated by the fossil record"? The fossil record is pathetic, not only in its content, but in the wild imaginings of the evolutionary scientists in their "interpretation" of the so called "evidence".

Can you be convicted on circumstantial evidence if your opposing lawyer is very clever in his use of words? Yes you can.
It appears to be

but there is a lingering doubt when you know what the evidence really consists of.

It's is absolutely pathetic that your source uses things written 60-70 years ago in their desperate attempt to wish away the exponentially growing evidence for evolution in modern scientific literature.

To my way of thinking, what is pathetic is that there is no real evidence. You keep putting up this argument for "evidence", but in reality it just isn't there. Over a 100 years of evolutionary infiltration into the human psyche has not turned up a single solitary piece of hard evidence that one species ever evolved into another. I see adaptation within species, but that is not what you are promoting. There is absolutely no proof that all life on this planet evolved from a single celled organism billions of years ago. That is the real delusion.

All the fantasy, all the delusion, all the denials and obfuscations are coming from you. It shows as clear as daylight.

It only "shows" to those who want evolution to be true and who accept the "evidence" along with the interpretation that science presents.
I don't accept it and never will.
I see your theory as something you will never be able to "prove" as long as you live.
I can see that you believe it, but I believe just as passionately for ID.

I only have to look at the miracle of reproduction to know that all these babies are the product of design. All conceived and entered into the world in their own unique way. These are not unintentional accidents of blind evolution.

 

[sayak83]

In reading through this article I see nothing but wishful thinking of something that might happen in the future if they can find enough "wellderly" people to study. "The hunt is on" was a dead giveaway......

I completely disagree. What we see is not "loads" of "evidence" at all, but what we can clearly see is that the "load of evidence" is quite small and very inconclusive without a massive amount of interpretation. All I see is science forcing the evidence to fit the theory, rather than the other way around. .



"Vindicated by the fossil record"? The fossil record is pathetic, not only in its content, but in the wild imaginings of the evolutionary scientists in their "interpretation" of the so called "evidence".

Can you be convicted on circumstantial evidence if your opposing lawyer is very clever in his use of words? Yes you can.
It appears to be

but there is a lingering doubt when you know what the evidence really consists of.



To my way of thinking, what is pathetic is that there is no real evidence. You keep putting up this argument for "evidence", but in reality it just isn't there. Over a 100 years of evolutionary infiltration into the human psyche has not turned up a single solitary piece of hard evidence that one species ever evolved into another. I see adaptation within species, but that is not what you are promoting. There is absolutely no proof that all life on this planet evolved from a single celled organism billions of years ago. That is the real delusion.



It only "shows" to those who want evolution to be true and who accept the "evidence" along with the interpretation that science presents.
I don't accept it and never will.
I see your theory as something you will never be able to "prove" as long as you live.
I can see that you believe it, but I believe just as passionately for ID.

I only have to look at the miracle of reproduction to know that all these babies are the product of design. All conceived and entered into the world in their own unique way. These are not unintentional accidents of blind evolution.

In this entire reply there is not a single piece of concrete argument for your position. I will reply when you have something substantive to say. All I see here is the variation on "I won't accept it, I won't, I won't.."

 

[Shad]

I don't expect you to think anything about me, just be objective, yourself.

At least I fact check. Heard of it?

Quit relying on narrow-minded explanations of evidence, from people with a priori commitments to materialism.

This is hilarious coming from the same person that linked dishonest sources that themselves have a commitment to religion. Try again son.

Cracks me up....SETI researchers, looking for patterns of information, would automatically jump to a conclusion that intelligence was the source of a pattern, if one was discovered.

Seti researches are not biologists nor a part of evolution studies. Different field completely...

Yet, other scientists see extremely complex patterns of information in our cells, and the laws of finely-tuned atomic forces that enable it -- but most say "it just happened"! That's hilarious!

Most do not say it happened. Most say they do not know. You repeat a strawman likely from the same dishonest source you previously used

 

[sayak83]

In reading through this article I see nothing but wishful thinking of something that might happen in the future if they can find enough "wellderly" people to study. "The hunt is on" was a dead giveaway......

I completely disagree. What we see is not "loads" of "evidence" at all, but what we can clearly see is that the "load of evidence" is quite small and very inconclusive without a massive amount of interpretation. All I see is science forcing the evidence to fit the theory, rather than the other way around. .



"Vindicated by the fossil record"? The fossil record is pathetic, not only in its content, but in the wild imaginings of the evolutionary scientists in their "interpretation" of the so called "evidence".

Can you be convicted on circumstantial evidence if your opposing lawyer is very clever in his use of words? Yes you can.
It appears to be

but there is a lingering doubt when you know what the evidence really consists of.



To my way of thinking, what is pathetic is that there is no real evidence. You keep putting up this argument for "evidence", but in reality it just isn't there. Over a 100 years of evolutionary infiltration into the human psyche has not turned up a single solitary piece of hard evidence that one species ever evolved into another. I see adaptation within species, but that is not what you are promoting. There is absolutely no proof that all life on this planet evolved from a single celled organism billions of years ago. That is the real delusion.



It only "shows" to those who want evolution to be true and who accept the "evidence" along with the interpretation that science presents.
I don't accept it and never will.
I see your theory as something you will never be able to "prove" as long as you live.
I can see that you believe it, but I believe just as passionately for ID.

I only have to look at the miracle of reproduction to know that all these babies are the product of design. All conceived and entered into the world in their own unique way. These are not unintentional accidents of blind evolution.

Ictheyostega, a 370 million year old fish-amphibian transitional species that had fish like traits (tail fins, gills, fish like snout and teeth) and land animal like traits (four legs with feet and fingers, shoulders and necks and hips and lungs) . Found in the horizon between the arising of lungfish ancestors (lobe finned fish, 420 million years) and later modern amphibians (320 million years) . Just accident or evolution?

Full CT-scanned image of the animal based on fossils (over 200 individuals found)

Full details of anatomy
http://tolweb.org/Ichthyostega

How it moved on land, hauling its body like seals
http://phys.org/news/2012-05-shift-shore-extinct-tetrapod-ichthyostega.html