prove me wrong on evolution

[painted wolf]

I believe you have a mix up between speciation, (which has been observed several times) and Genus.
A wolf and a fox are different species... canids (dogs) and felids (cats) are different genus.

That sort of switch over has yet to be observed in controled situations... however fossil evidence does support it.

wa:do

 

[Fade]

Eyebrows still serve a perfectly valid function.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyebrows

The eyebrow is a bony ridge above the eye that protects the eye and bears a tuft of facial hair in most mammals. The function of the eyebrow hair is to prevent debris such as dandruff and other small objects from falling into the eyes, as well as providing sense of something near the eye, such as an insect and prevent water or sweat from dripping into the eye.

 

[Bishadi]

Once you accept the theory [even without evidence] then everything 'becomes' evidence

Rocketman that was your comment and the answer was put directly in front of you.



You have not done the homework.



You lost yourself in your own questions. The “species” item was not a question. It was someone else’s question. Same with the eye brows question, it is not a sought question by you it is something some else thinks is unanswered.



Be yourself and ask what the questions you need to be answered to offer you a setting to understand or is this just weekend fishing for you. On a catch and release program eh?



Write but no desire to do the homework. Yea seen a few here on that program.



Painted wolf …. I agree … if cross genus combinations were a daily commonality there would be some strange critters on this globe. What is the rocketman looking for the minotaur?

 

[rocketman]

Yeah, I know what eyebrows do, my point being isn't it funny that something significantly less than critical and so aesetically sound made it through? It was an off the cuff remark.

Back to the story.

Observed speciation, mostly in plants so far, doesn't demonstrate that we can pinpoint a genetic mechanism and this is obvious. Mostly the results were weakened or sterile [not able to pass on their genes]. This still doesn't answer my question.

Fossil evidence does not support speciation, anymore than looking at two similar living animals today supports it. Show me the mechanism.

 

[mr.guy]

...my point being isn't it funny that something significantly less than critical and so aesetically sound made it through?

That's extremely funny. Keep 'em coming.

 

[Bishadi]

mr rocketman, you are looking for a fight not an answer.

Fossils do support one thing with absolution and it speaks loudly, that creation "is not as written."

or they need to add a scripture that says, "and though can be'ith employed'ith with irrelevant things, that have nothing to do with'ith, evolution'ith, but to'ith pay'ith taxes with'ith'

an that'ith shall'ith be'ith known'ith as'ith humor, for a change

Sorry if I offended any but I did not draw a cartoon! That could bring damnation and maybe cause thousands to riot, you think?!?!?!

Hey I also meant, today's sciences have also screwed up, the process of evolution is very close and is the best model in structure on observational data but "life" and metabolic processes are incorrect as well and again, we still have creationist lost and scientist unable to compete the picture because they are incorrect in the base framework.

But I'm not.:areyoucra (them things are cute) maybe I should use this one, :jiggy: or ..... because the only reason I write in the first position is, that what I am saying is correct and never published, so how can I reference much or how would anybody know, other than to ask for scenarios to address and hopefully someone can take the ball and run. If there is someone who can drill down to the physiological processes with a thorough knowledge and combine the knowledge of quantum physics then the right person is reading this and will be able to cross bridges never before reached.

Mr rocketman... try my basis and see if you can do something wonderful and describe an undescribed process and get rich or cure something.

Here do this one thing go onto any site that will show a single live cell (moving) and tell me if you see processes, then do the homework as to what these processes are, currently explained, then use "light" as the energy in quanta. All and I mean all energy is quanta ... so take it from there...

 

[Ceridwen018]

Observed speciation, mostly in plants so far, doesn't demonstrate that we can pinpoint a genetic mechanism and this is obvious. Mostly the results were weakened or sterile [not able to pass on their genes]. This still doesn't answer my question.

Fossil evidence does not support speciation, anymore than looking at two similar living animals today supports it. Show me the mechanism.

#1: looking at two similar living animals IS evidence of speciation. Living evidence.
#2: Scientists have been experimenting with speciation in plants as well as other things like bacteria and simple insects, for a really long time. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not going to bother myself with posting sources, because the burden of proof is actually on you. Good scientific papers can't be found on the internet anyhow. Why don't you go to your library and read the last 50 years worth of Nature magazine. That should get you all caught up.

 

[painted wolf]

actually speciation is being observed in Fish, Lizards, snakes, Chimpanzee's, Birds, Insects, and I beleive some mammals.

They are going about it just fine, with no sterility or weakness issues.

http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=100692&org=NSF
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1123973.stm
http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/Jul-Sep/msg00188.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3790531.stm
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002551.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3382

hope these examples, (there are a great many more out there) prove helpful. In all of these the observed meccanisms of mutation and natural selection have been/are being recorded.

wa:do

 

[Bishadi]

Painted wolf .... thanks for the guidance, I will do some reading. I agree with progressions in biology but did we scare off the rest? Did I screw up offering my idea?

Was it the scripture comment? :bonk:

 

[Fade]

Yeah, I know what eyebrows do, my point being isn't it funny that something significantly less than critical and so aesetically sound made it through? It was an off the cuff remark.

Be that as it may it was still a somewhat rediculous thing to say. As is 'something significantly less than critical'.
Let me get this straight, you think providing protection to the eyes, especially in animal species that primarily rely on vision to survive, is an aesthetic choice? :biglaugh:
I

 

[rocketman]

mr.guy, not sure if you are laughing with me or at me. ^^

Fade, you can live without your eyebrows. And pay attention, I didn't say it was an aesethic choice, just strangley aesethic. Big diff' dude. ^^

Bishadi, I am not looking for a fight. And why bring religon into it? I never mentioned it. I came to this thread [over some other similar ones] because the title suggested it might be about science. I have nagging issues with the theory of evolution and I thought maybe someone could help me. Anyways, you made me laugh [hey, where's my cartoon?:jiggy: ] And no, your unusual take on biology doesn't scare me off [your complexly worded email nearly did though ]. Besides, I'm halfway around the world so don't expect me to respond in a timely fashion.

Ceridwen018, I think Mustang Sally is the coolest religon I've ever heard of. I also think this here comment: "looking at two similar living animals IS evidence of speciation. Living evidence." is hard for me to swallow from a scientific point of view. Want a reason from a scientist for that? No problem. Allow me to quote from the second article that painted wolf posted:

"One of the largest mysteries remaining in evolutionary biology is exactly how one species can gradually diverge into two," says Darren Irwin of the University of California, San Diego, US.

And from the fourth article:

"Though speciation is a crucial element of understanding how evolution works, biologists have not been able to discover the factors that initiate the process. "

And you can pick it by looking at animals with your bare eyes? Not bad. I draw out these two quotes because they reinforce with absolute authority what I have been trying to say all along: that even the best scientists don't have a mechanism up their sleeve that truly describes how one animal can become another. We can go on all day about natural selection and speciation [none of which I've denied, in fact here's more for you: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html ] My problem is that these 'speciation' events are always debated, [are they a new species or not?] eg: http://www.bioline.org.br/request?oc95092 And most of the ones that are able to pass on their genes can still reproduce with the original version. Even the mosquitoes in painted wolfs' third article are able to get back their original dna through the 'middle man' of the underground mozzies that can still breed with those above - the pipeline is still open; see here for a more recent article: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-2540.1999.00412.x While I'm at it I may as well address the other articles. As for the fruitfly article here is a quote from it: 'Whether the two closely related fruit fly populations the scientists studied - Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae - represent one species or two is still debated by biologists. " As for the cichlid article if you read the abstract you will see that there remains hybridization and obviously therefore no mention of reproductive isolation: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15245419 As for the sticklebacks they are still able to breed with each other [they prefer not to though].

As for the last one about Red Squirrels, I like it, it's a good article. What it says though is that Squrirrels with an already existing gene will do better in global warming than those that don't already have it. This is good old natural selection, which I am not disputing - but as I have said earlier, natural selection has only ever been shown to work on and within the species, not drastically alter it into another one, even over time. I'm looking for big changes, really new species. I'm looking for a way to rewrite a gene sequence so it turns a flipper into a foot or a claw into a wing and so on. Nothing in any of these examples [or any others I've seen] adds a new function/organ that was not already there in the existing gene pool. See a pattern forming here? None of the sighted 'speciation' rewrites the genes to produce new functions/organs [I will accept new camoflague patterns]. What is the mechanism? Mutation, most people say, but as the quotes suggest, this isn't something you can just reproduce in a lab. In my original post I said that I came looking for confirmation of the mechanism of evolution. Now can you see that I am talking about method of change, not selection?Selection is not change in and of itself, it is merely survival of something that has already changed. Of-course selection is sound theory, the fittest naturally survives, but you have to prove that there is something to select from [I'm talking the big stuff, new organs/functions not just breeding stuff like camo patterns]. It gets quite complicated sometimes, here's another quote from the second article: "This creates a paradox in which two co-existing forms of the songbird can be considered as two species and as a single species at the same time," remarks Irwin. And you wonder why I have trouble with evolution?

So you see Ceridwen018, the onus is not on me to prove anything, because science itself does not yet have confirmation, yet they often present the theory of evolution as a tried and true package. I'm uncomforatble with that. It's peer-pressure science and it's constrained by the catch-22 problem that all facts happen to fit the theory [even if we don't test the theory]. In science, if you put forward a theory, the onus is on you to prove it, not on others to disprove it. And there are good science papers on the web, you've just gotta' pay for them. I read them often. But the library is cheaper.

I'm about to split this post as it's getting long. I have more problems with evolution theory that I may as well bring up now that people [hopefully] can see where I'm coming from. Oh, and thanks for the links painted wolf.

to be continued.....

 

[rocketman]

...continued.

Sorry for these long posts..

Now then, I was ranting and raving ['as usual' you all say at once] about how evolution just doesn't seem to be the real deal to me. Too many holes in the theory, too many unanswered questions, a woeful lack of direct evidence and a culture that treats it like a sacred religon.

I worry about the numbers, frankly. Have you guys ever heard anyone talking about the appendix? It's a 'vestigal' organ, right? We don't really need it, [kinda like eyebrows?] Well anyway, apart from the debate about whether it's really vestigal [some say the lymphoid nodules found in it help support the immune system] there is another common mention of the appendix when talking about evolution. That is, a lot of 'experts' say that they think that the human appendix 'is slowly disappearing' as man evolves and may 'eventually disappear altogether'. This assertion has always struck me like a punch to the head. [yeah, you guys want to do that to me don't you??]. I simply cannot believe that a credible scientist could talk like that. It never added up to me at all. There is no physical evidence of this and the requirements to carry out this action are mathematically colossal. It would have to start with a lucky accident [we're getting into proper evolution here kids, not the stuff of natural selections]. This lucky accident would have to alter the genes that encode for the appendix and make it smaller [if you want it to go away slowly over generations] or to make it go away altogether. Does anyone realise the ridiculously astronomical odds of that happening?? Whoa boy. Now, we'd like to assume it would happen, even though we have no idea how genes could be accidentaly rewritten like that [and not be destroyed by the process - again, what's the mechanism?]. Then we'd have to get the new genes into the rest of the population. That's gonna' be one big breeding party! [Your'e in, I hear you say?]. It would take what, thousands, millions of generations of normal breeding to get it into the whole poulation? I think you'll agree a new species branching off is much more likely.

I ramble on about this 'future' evolution to keep your interest in the real problem: the past. Notice in my appendix story I described a lucky accident? Pop quizz: how sophisticated are you? Your body I mean. Pretty sophisticated, huh? Well, thats a lot of lucky accidents you got there. Now maybe they are all because of time and chance. Except for one small problem, there wasn't enough time, and er, we're not sure about chance either. [what mechanism rewrites dna to a more sophisticated level? oh sorry, that's right, we don't know yet]. How many unlucky accidents were there to go with the lucky ones? There must have been a few according to the laws of time and chance. In fact, we know that in the time available for things to change there must have been a lot of improvements going on. Maybe with a frequency like that we might see a sudden random change in our recorded history? Maybe even just one. Well, people get deformities, people are born with five fingers or three eyes[?] right? We know that dna can get damaged and garbled, and damaged dna can even be passed on. An unlucky accident that started back somewhere in the victims family tree. But has anyone ever observed a new organ or function appearing? I didn't think so. What we've seen are variations on the existing gene pool, not new info written into the genes, as the dinosaurs to bird crowd suggests. Maybe they're right, I've just never heard of any proof.

Coming from a mathematical background it's the geometry that really gets me. I mean, look at your jaw [or any jaw]. The thing is HINGED. Very cool work for a biological process like evolution I must say. 10 out of 10 for engineering prowess. How did you get the pivot points to line up just so? What's that you say? Many years of trial and error, mutation and selecton? Er, I don't think so. You see folks, one of the interesting things about geometry is that it is, by definition, very precise. You simply can't have a jaw with intermediary stages, the geometry just won't work. So maybe the mysterious force that can rewrite dna did it all in one go! A very lucky accident indeed. Same goes for the inner ear that I mentioned in my original post: 3 rings arranged at 90x90x90 degrees for balance. How many variations of our ancestors did it take to get that right? Er, sorry. Once again our old friend geometry wants to be all accurate and spoil the party. [He is clever though isn't he?]. Yep, you can't have an intermediary stage for you inner ear either so it must have happened in one generation [else we'd have staggered around like fools]. Talk about lucky accidents! We are lucky indeed aren't we? Given the architecture of the skull/inner ear/jaw maybe it just all happened at the same time!

Speaking of math, isn't it really cool how our ancestor had a really lucky accident and split into two, as in male and female? I'm so glad that when that happened we so very luckily had a lucky accident with our dna somehow being rewritten so that we knew all about the other half and that chemicals filled our brain and gave us that 'drive' that ain't got nuthin' to do with cars [er, backseats..?]. Now remember, this lucky accident [splitting in two, brain rewiring, chemical messengers] happened within the one generation because, otherwise, we would've stopped breeding. And that would've taken the fun out of everything!:jiggy:

I'm getting off the rails here, but I'm trying to get my points over without being pedantic. Can anyone begin to see why I am having problems with this theory, why I am fed up with the stock-in-trade' answers', and why I can't fully accept the theory of evolution as a proven hypothesis? I really could go on and on, and get quite technical if you like, but I don't want to ramble - I've done enough of that already. The peer-pressure culture of modern evolutionary science reminds of the Middle Ages where if you didn't agree with the wider view you got into a lot of trouble. I'll never stop learning, and I have nothing against anyone who uses the theory as a framework for their work, but I have reached a point where I can longer accept it. Some will ridicule me and say "He doesn't understand it', and I don't begrudge them either. Maybe it is me, but there's a sneaking suspicion in the back of my mind that all is not well with the theory. What makes it harder for me to believe is the math. The theory of probablity says that the theory of evolution is improbable [actually 'impossible' by pure mathematical standards]. And yes, I've looked quite seriously at those numbers. Actually, the more we learn just how sophisticated things are, the higher those odds skyrocket. Genes can be changed, but they have to be rewritten in a way that passes on that exact change if the change is to survive. That's a very complex set of information. Think about it, not just a change but a footnote to say 'oh, and pass it on too'. I just can't see how it can happen accidentaly, and I'm yet to see science explain it either.

I hope I haven't annoyed anyone!

Load your weapons and commence fire...

 

[Fade]

Fade, you can live without your eyebrows. And pay attention, I didn't say it was an aesethic choice, just strangley aesethic. Big diff' dude. ^^

You can live without an awful lot of your bodyparts, that doesn't negate their evolutionary purpose.

Here is an interesting factoid about natural selection in humans. The human penis is the largest in relation to body size of all the great apes. It appears that human females have been somewhat selective in their choice of mate
Size does matter, apparantly.

 

[Fade]

Coming from a mathematical background it's the geometry that really gets me. I mean, look at your jaw [or any jaw]. The thing is HINGED. Very cool work for a biological process like evolution I must say. 10 out of 10 for engineering prowess. How did you get the pivot points to line up just so? What's that you say? Many years of trial and error, mutation and selecton? Er, I don't think so. You see folks, one of the interesting things about geometry is that it is, by definition, very precise. You simply can't have a jaw with intermediary stages, the geometry just won't work. So maybe the mysterious force that can rewrite dna did it all in one go! A very lucky accident indeed. Same goes for the inner ear that I mentioned in my original post: 3 rings arranged at 90x90x90 degrees for balance. How many variations of our ancestors did it take to get that right? Er, sorry. Once again our old friend geometry wants to be all accurate and spoil the party. [He is clever though isn't he?]. Yep, you can't have an intermediary stage for you inner ear either so it must have happened in one generation [else we'd have staggered around like fools]. Talk about lucky accidents! We are lucky indeed aren't we? Given the architecture of the skull/inner ear/jaw maybe it just all happened at the same time!

The evolution of the hinged jaw is pretty well documented in the fossil record. I suggest you go read a book about it.

 

[rocketman]

You can live without an awful lot of your bodyparts, that doesn't negate their evolutionary purpose.

The precision and fine tuning of evolution, to even come up with eyebrows, never ceases to amaze me. Not.

Here is an interesting factoid about natural selection in humans. The human penis is the largest in relation to body size of all the great apes. It appears that human females have been somewhat selective in their choice of mate
Size does matter, apparantly.

lol:bounce

 

[rocketman]

The evolution of the hinged jaw is pretty well documented in the fossil record. I suggest you go read a book about it.

You missed the point, variations don't count, it's the underlying geometry that all the versions contain that is so impressive. If I hadn't read the 'books' I wouldn't be seeking answers here.

Now what about the inner ear, Fade?

 

[Fade]

You missed the point, variations don't count, it's the underlying geometry that all the versions contain that is so impressive. If I hadn't read the 'books' I wouldn't be seeking answers here.

Now what about the inner ear, Fade?

I suggest reading a proper book instead of some creationist pulp fiction. You could start with some of the wonderful work by Stephen Gould.

Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin
&
The Panda's Thumb are good places to start.

The title of The Panda's Thumb alone is interesting in the context of this discussion.

 

[rocketman]

I suggest reading a proper book instead of some creationist pulp fiction. You could start with some of the wonderful work by Stephen Gould.

Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin
&
The Panda's Thumb are good places to start.

The title of The Panda's Thumb alone is interesting in the context of this discussion.

Creationist pulp fiction? What on earth is wrong with you? Have you read my posts properly? You really seem to have trouble paying attention to things. Your knee-jerk assumption is insulting.

Anyhow, maybe I'm wrong and you're just trying to be helpful in an insulting way! So thanks for the links. But...no cigar. Gould is good, love his style, but he's never shown the actual origin of the geometry of a hinged jaw. I'm not going to get into melodrama over variations or jawless species or anything else, rather, I will continue asking how a non-negotiable geometry of precision and effect can physically be the result of a mutation and selection process. Show me a true 'intermediate' geometry and I'll admit it's possible, but as you know, geometry doesn't lie. A hinge is a hinge, not a box. Could a flap evolve into a twin-pivot swing hinge? It would have to do so in one generation, lest it not work at all [by definition] ..see the problem? The problem is massively compounded [in probability terms] by the need for the pivots to be almost perfectly in-line or risk jaw-lock. I won't even mention the inner ear...

Gould was never fond of number-crunchers like me, but the rate of new info regarding dna is showing so much more complexity than ever imagined that the odds involved [probability is a legitimate science] are really demanding attention. More than ever the odds dismiss the idea of macro-evolution [for want of a better term]. I am within my rights to question evolution. I will not give in to the peer pressure. I will continue to see if there really is any hard proof for all of the claims made. I think my last couple of big posts showed that even at the top end of town it's a learning process.

This is my current attitude towards evolution, as summed up by no less than Mister Gould himself:

"Objectivity cannot be equated with mental blankness; rather, objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences and then subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny — and also in a willingness to revise or abandon your theories when the tests fail [as they usually do]."

Cheers

 

[Fade]

Oh wait sorry, my bad...I meant Intelligent Design Pulp Fiction, forgive my assumption that you were a creationist.

Probability is a science, I'll grant you that. However, making up results based on events that have already happened and then holding them up as proof that the events couldn't have happened is pure fallacy.

Here is an interesting read for you http://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/
Reading through the intro made me think of your post.

 

[Fade]

You missed the point, variations don't count, it's the underlying geometry that all the versions contain that is so impressive. If I hadn't read the 'books' I wouldn't be seeking answers here.

Now what about the inner ear, Fade?

It is you who has missed the point. Variations DO count. That's the whole point. Or do you not understand what evolution means? I suggest a quick browse in a dictionary just to be sure.

The same argument applies to the inner ear.