prove me wrong on evolution

[Fade]

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.

Possibly because he had a problem with obfuscation, but that's just my opinion.

 

[rocketman]

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

Offended twice in one thread, not bad! If I wanted answers from them I would've gone to them. Once again, Mr obvious is not paying attention.

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. .

I didn't say events didn't happen, I said I'm looking for proof that they happened the way evolution has theorised that they happened. I think even a casual evolutionist would agree that evolution doesn't have all the answers just yet.

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

Did you just go and google that because I mentioned probability? The probability that you did is pretty high. I was applying probability to the geometry problem especially, and the new dna findings in general, not to specific things mentioned in that article. Trying to imply that I was applying it to those things and/or any and everything to do with evolution [whichever it is] seems like a touch of obfuscation to me.

BTW, I'm not unhappy or frustrated with you, I just don't think you're listening to me properly.

 

[rocketman]

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.

Sorry, you missed the point. :tsk:

The variations can only come after the original! I am looking for proof that the original geometry could have formed up the way it did. I know all about gradual change over time, and how some things can accidentaly build up into a certain shape, [according to some versions of the theory of lucky evolution], but I don't see critical elements like jaws or inner ears doing it in a way that is inline with the theory, it just simply does not figure, for the reasons I mentioned, which are physical, mechanical reasons that grown ups like us should be able to figure out, and which you have not directly addressed.

 

[Fade]

I didn't say events didn't happen, I said I'm looking for proof that they happened the way evolution has theorised that they happened. I think even a casual evolutionist would agree that evolution doesn't have all the answers just yet.

Have you tried looking at the evidence that the fossil record provides?

Did you just go and google that because I mentioned probability? The probability that you did is pretty high. I was applying probability to the geometry problem especially, and the new dna findings in general, not to specific things mentioned in that article. Trying to imply that I was applying it to those things and/or any and everything to do with evolution [whichever it is] seems like a touch of obfuscation to me.

As a matter of fact I did, my usual source of counters to creationist/ID arguments http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/ didn't address this particular point (perhaps because it isn't a valid one?) so I spent a bit of time on the googlebox. So?

At any rate you are still applying probabilty in a way that it was never intended to be used.

BTW, I'm not unhappy or frustrated with you, I just don't think you're listening to me properly.

Maybe you aren't explaining yourself very well.

 

[Fade]

Sorry, you missed the point. :tsk:

The variations can only come after the original! I am looking for proof that the original geometry could have formed up the way it did. I know all about gradual change over time, and how some things can accidentaly build up into a certain shape, [according to some versions of the theory of lucky evolution], but I don't see critical elements like jaws or inner ears doing it in a way that is inline with the theory, it just simply does not figure, for the reasons I mentioned, which are physical, mechanical reasons that grown ups like us should be able to figure out, and which you have not directly addressed.

Would you like me to explain the geometry in a snowflake? Just because geometry is present does not invalidate a naturalistic explaination. Geometry is part of nature afterall. Or did you seriously think that it was something unique to sentience?

 

[rocketman]

Have you tried looking at the evidence that the fossil record provides?

Yes, it's very impressive. It shows me diferent species of animals living at different times. Sometimes if you line 'em up you can even see a sequence. Sometimes they even find two fossils together that are supposed to be from very different times. That sets off some serious alarm bells in my head. Have you gone deep into the history of the classification of these things? That's a story of evolution in itself. Now let's ignore the abnormalities and so on for a sec and take it at face value: great, a [very patchy] sequence of dinos. But I can't actually see the mechanism. Sorry, but it's additive evidence to me, not confirmational. I came looking for a mechanism, as you must know by now. And before you say "He's a lunatic', don't forget that you yourself can't prove to me that one dino become another just because it looks like a sequence, you would need some other way to actually prove it. [dare you to look in the mirror on that one, and tell me if you come up with something]. Remember my story about the sun going around the earth? Well it looks like it does! But it proves to be otherwise. So, on balance, the fossil record is perfectly acceptable to me, but it doesn't give me what i am looking for.

As a matter of fact I did, my usual source of counters to creationist/ID arguments http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/ didn't address this particular point (perhaps because it isn't a valid one?) so I spent a bit of time on the googlebox. So?

My probability hunch was right. [It's good for something]. Of-course you can go there. I'm not attacking you, it was after all only an excuse to make a probability joke, but I guess you missed it, despite the smiley. [I'm now computing the odds that you are therfore wound up pretty tight ... I hope my 'amateur' understanding of evolution isn't doing that to you .. another joke btw]. As for the validity of the point remember that mathematics gives way to no one. If it adds up then it is true. Much of science is applied mathematics, as I'm sure you know.

At any rate you are still applying probabilty in a way that it was never intended to be used.

By whose authority? Yours? Again, mathematics is what it is. I think you are talking about when people tweak stats or something. I'm saying: "Look at this troubling aspect of evolutionary theory that hasn't been fully resolved just yet, hmmm , let's just test some assumed possibilities against probability theory and see where it leads..." This is a standard scientific technique for sorting through variables.

Maybe you aren't explaining yourself very well.

You may be right. Much of the terminology is new to me. Apologies to anyone who is annoyed, offended/, etc by my tone/lack of knowledge[?] etc.

 

[rocketman]

Would you like me to explain the geometry in a snowflake? Just because geometry is present does not invalidate a naturalistic explaination. Geometry is part of nature afterall. Or did you seriously think that it was something unique to sentience?

Are you trying to be silly?

The presence of specific geometry in a naturalistic progression tells me it must have had an 'ancestor' geometry in the 'version' before it, right? So how do you get from point A to point B? I don't see the dots connecting. Please provide an example of an intermediate geometry.

What on earth makes you think I was trying to declare some geometries 'unique' ? Painting me with a creationists brush is really starting to get up my nose. What outlet is there for people who have a genuine scientific problem with evolution? Like I said, it's the Middle Ages all over again. I really wonder if you are reading my posts properly and/or if perhaps my wording is worse than I thought.

 

[Fade]

As an aside you haven't actually stated what you believe. If the Theory of Evolution is weak which is what you seem to be implying, then what is the alternative?

 

[rocketman]

As an aside you haven't actually stated what you believe. If the Theory of Evolution is weak which is what you seem to be implying, then what is the alternative?

When a scientist puts forward a theory it's up to him to prove it. If someone who is having an honest look at it starts asking questions it does not follow that the person asking questions has to provide an alternative theory. Maybe they don't have an alternative theory! Is that so bad? Not having an alternative theory does not negate the validty of any question.

Bedtime. C u later.

 

[Fade]

Remember my story about the sun going around the earth? Well it looks like it does! But it proves to be otherwise. So, on balance, the fossil record is perfectly acceptable to me, but it doesn't give me what i am looking for.

The field of genetics might be worth looking into then.

As for the validity of the point remember that mathematics gives way to no one. If it adds up then it is true. Much of science is applied mathematics, as I'm sure you know.

Nice one! You might want to tell all those scientists who spend every working day in the fields of Biology, Geology, paleontology[sp] and Genetics that their work is futile because of a probability that you have arbitrarily assigned to their work.

By whose authority? Yours? Again, mathematics is what it is. I think you are talking about when people tweak stats or something. I'm saying: "Look at this troubling aspect of evolutionary theory that hasn't been fully resolved just yet, hmmm , let's just test some assumed possibilities against probability theory and see where it leads..." This is a standard scientific technique for sorting through variables.

Your continued misuse of probability theory is depressing to witness. I'm trying to find other examples of your misuse of probability theory online and am having difficulty finding any. Can you provide me with some sources to support your probability argument.

 

[Fade]

When a scientist puts forward a theory it's up to him to prove it. If someone who is having an honest look at it starts asking questions it does not follow that the person asking questions has to provide an alternative theory. Maybe they don't have an alternative theory! Is that so bad? Not having an alternative theory does not negate the validty of any question.

Bedtime. C u later.

Alright then, what do you believe?

Nite nite.

 

[JerryL]

I'm with the mathematicians on this one. If you take the theory of evolution as a whole, [be sure to include the start of it as well] then according to the theory of probability the theory of evolution is completely improbable [actually impossible in sci-math terms].

I'm a mathematician (an engineer with a math minor to be exact), so I'm glad that you assert that you agree with me, except that you are not. There is no problem of probabilities in regards to evolution.

Perhaps one day there will be a scientist who is truly clever enough to string it all together instead of the rubbish we get now, a real 'Einstein' of evolution who can answer me the question: which came first, the chicken or the egg?.

The egg.

Once you accept the theory [even without evidence] then everything 'becomes' evidence, because everything can 'explained' by application of the 'time and chance' protocol. How sad that science has devolved to this.

Much like the sadness that birds have stopped flying and people have turned purple. Your comment seems unrelated to reality.

Just once I would like a scientifically-minded person to present in a debate like this some genuine evidence, and I don't mean observational/additive, but something truly substantive, namely, CONFIRMATION OF THE MECHANISMS OF EVOLUTION.

Some examples of new species which have arisin within recorded history:

Seedless grapes (pretty self-explanitory)

Salmon (http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/arc...1900salmon.html)

Goatsbeard ("Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved.")

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences. (Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.) Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island. (Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.) Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.) Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American. It's called "A Breed Apart." It tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, that is a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The flies feed an breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. There's enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators that they're witnessing speciation in action. Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them otherwise.

Evolution as it stands demands I accept that everything happened by accident [call it chance, random, etc if you will - I prefer the term accident because it implies 'not by design']. So, do the scientists of this world HONESTLY expect me to believe that the tens of thousands of interactions of my body accidently came to be in the time geologists say has passed?

Yea, I looked at a beach the other day. Can you believe that people want me to believe that it's those specific grains of sand by accident (chance, random, etc)? It's obviously statistically impossible that any collection of molecules ended up anywhere by any mechanism other than intelligenct design. Much like I know that God controlls the lotter numbers because of the very low odds of the numbers that did come up coming up.

Debates like this tend to draw out folks who gleefully think they have enough knowledge to glorify themselves at the expense of others, what's known as intellectual vanity.

 

[painted wolf]

Rocketman... what do you think of Chaos Theory and the formation of Fractals?

I'm just curios what sort of "meccanism" it is that you are looking for in evolution. Mutation and natrual selection, punctuated equilibrium, and Genetics are all known and evidenced. But they arn't the "meccanism" that you seek.
Can you give me a better idea of what it is that you are looking for?
I do agree that Science doesn't have answers for everything... if it did then we would have nothing to look for in the furture.

wa:do

 

[Bishadi]

rocketman …. isn't it really cool how our ancestor had a really lucky accident and split into two, as in male and female

this tells me, I was right, you are not doing the homework, you are just taking others arguments. This line just told everybody, you have not even completed biology 100.



Go back a few billion years if you want to define “female” or the initial biological life form that gives a portion of itself for its sub, or child, in a sense.

rocketman ……… and why I can't fully accept the theory of evolution as a proven hypothesis?

Because you first need to walk, young lad.



You keep mentioning the math, which is why I sent you that email, which :areyoucra (googled)you up, you wanted the foundation, I gave you mathmatical theorem ……. The basis is correct and your most treasured "sources" have not had the same opportunity you have right now.



You asked for the right framework, you have more than anyone here as far as material to offer a mathematical basis, use it, describe what you are seeking to ease your mind but a soap box is just a place for your self, not for your purpose.

 

[rocketman]

Thanks for trying to help me everyone. I appreciate it.

The field of genetics might be worth looking into then. .

Been there, done that. They don't know what modifies the genome. Is it cosmic rays? Is it something else? If you know what it is then you can repeat it in a lab, right? You can manipulate genes manually in a controlled environment but evolution says that accidents in the field can also get it right. That's mighty hard for me to swallow given that the rewrite has to be oh so very specific, and that there would also be tons of mistakes along the way. They've tried lots of mechanisms to simulate accidents, but they seem to have a nasty habit of killing or damaging the genes. And since we've only ever seen damaged genes or deformities passed on [no new organs, and no, an extra finger doesn't count] we have no obserational evidence that there really ever was anything new and useful for the selection process to choose from within the genome [cross breeding doesn't give new organs]. They're guessing. Educated guess, but still a guess. Despite being a probability buff that is not how I do my core science. Like I said, whoever figures this one out is going to be the darling of the scientific community.

Nice one! You might want to tell all those scientists who spend every working day in the fields of Biology, Geology, paleontology[sp] and Genetics that their work is futile because of a probability that you have arbitrarily assigned to their work. .

None of the really smart people in the fields you mention should be offended by my expression that 'Much of science is applied mathematics". If you run into a brick wall where observation and measurement become difficult you can often apply math to what you've got so far and come up with a solution. So much of science can be expressed algorithmically, which is quite common in this digital day and age. Math underpins physical law, physical law controls scientific endeavour [or do you believe in free will?]. I did not say that "much of science is applied probability", just in case anyone got the wrong idea. Mathematics can add to the validity of a point if it can be shown to be true to the agreed upon variables and accurate in practice. [If it adds up, and it is all-agreed on what is being added, then it helps make a point more valid. Isn't that obvious? Did you think I said it proves a point? Big difference there]. I 'arbitrarily' assigned a probability to nothing. Arbitrary probability is false probability. Now let's have a look at what I was actually doing with probability:

Your continued misuse of probability theory is depressing to witness. I'm trying to find other examples of your misuse of probability theory online and am having difficulty finding any. Can you provide me with some sources to support your probability argument.

Mutation is said to be a random process. Probability is precisely the math you would use for describing a random process. That's what it was invented for [discovered actually, math being independant of everything, even evolution]. Probability is my guide, not my proof. I was focusing in on things like the geometry problem because that's where probability steered me as you'll see a little later. I also applied probability specifically to the geometry problem [which is a seperate use of it] but that was just to say that the geometry is accurate or 'non-negotiable' [probability=0]...imo

There are odds for winning the lottery, and those odds may help you decide if it is worth risking your money. Probability is a guide. We even use it all the time to guide others regarding our intentions "I'll probably go to the concert..' Probability led me to question evolution. Having done so I've found some holes [well known to high-end scientists]. Am I being unreasonable with my use of probability? If I say "It just doesn't sound right" you'll say "How unscientific !" Can I ever win with you?

ps: how are you going with that geometry problem?

Alright then, what do you believe?

I'm having trouble believing in evolution. I'm talking dinos into birds, not the minor stuff. Whether the mechanisms are the same for big and little changes doesn't interest me. What interests me is identifying a naturally occuring accidental phenomenon that will safely rewrite the genome [of anything] to turn it into something NEW. I'm talking wings growing out of your back or something. Make it as gradual as you like [although that implies direction and more lucky accidents than unlucky ones; more serious probability issues that cause one to take a CLOSER look].

You have twice assumed you knew what I believed, offering advice framed with an attack on other people's ideas. Most people would say that you have a pretty serious bias problem. I'm not one of them but should I take the risk of being belittled?. I like to discuss science in the framework of science, don't you? You give science a bad name. I don't get my ideas from dubious sources, surely you are beginning to see that? And it's not that hard to answer your question if you look around... I'm here out of genuine interest. If I am one thing or another my credibility is no different than anybody else's. And don't assume anything about what I think of 'alternate theories' or 'origin beliefs'.

I'm a mathematician (an engineer with a math minor to be exact), so I'm glad that you assert that you agree with me, except that you are not. There is no problem of probabilities in regards to evolution.

Hi there JerryL.

I learn't a lot about mathematics from the work of Fred Hoyle. Yes Fade, he's got an alternative to evolution [no it's not my cup of tea either]. I understand that the creationist crowd credit him with saying that the first life/protein whatever could not have happened. That argument of his is widely dismissed, but also widely misunderstood in my opinion. Natural selection is not actually chance, and that's where they shot him down, but I believe the first self-replicator was subject to chance if you view it's coming together as a 'mutation': it was it's own genome, a genome that previously didn't exist, new info was added. Funny that, how little things slip away. They never did truly rebut his math, they just reset the target [single molecule only]. But I digress. Roger Penrose, the guy who proved [imo] you can't do true AI with binary computing, also taught me a lot through his profound writings. People like this demonstrate how to apply math with respect for the truth and not just so it lines up with what you want it to say. They were atheists for the record. Hoyle figured out how stars work, Penrose theorised black holes way back when the idea was pure sci-fi. I use Penrose's style of checking whenever I study Hoyle's work. My conclusion, armed with data regarding proteins that Hoyle never had in his day, is that Hoyle was right [laugh, boo, whatever u do..]. Even with a single molecule the odds are against it. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that it wasn't very likely to have happened the way it is described. I'm way out on my own here, heavily outnumbered, and bound to cop flak, but I can say I have at least tried my very best. Penrose's book [not about evolution]: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0192861980/202-3817784-4707021

I'm detecting an assumption that in my earlier posts I was applying probability theory to abiogenesis, which is actually seperate from evolution, some say. I wasn't, but before I tell you what I was applying it to let's have a quick look at abiogenesis anyway. Science says that the first self-replicating molecule [molecules? they're not really sure] arose from some primordial mixture of elements purely by chance. It has been estimated that something as simple as a single protein of maybe 24-36 amino acids in length constituted the first self-replicating lifeform. However [and it's abig one], there really is NO confirmation of this. It therefore remains purely hypothetical and leaves some very big doors open that even a complete, simple, modern-style cell could pass through. They say the first one could have been ANYTHING [sounds arbitrary to me] but without proper explanation go on to say that "Oh, but it must be as simple as possible" - Huh?! Why?! Hmmm. [yes, I'm serious. what's stopping a proper cell from being the candidate??] Science needs to be truly scientific at all times before it starts rushing around declaring it has all the answers. It is exactly the same as my problem with an accidental mechanism for improving the genome [ie: what was it, and don't say mutation - I mean what exactly was it?]. So in both abiogenesis and evolution there are acknowledged holes, and yes, they bother me. Interesting links:

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

http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/sak-peptides.html

to be continued....

 

[spookboy0]

what point are you going for? points like "Big bang + Evolution + Protazoic goop + a bunchload of time = everything"?

 

[rocketman]

The egg.

continued...

Luckily the egg was smart enough to know what a chicken looked like. The eggs' mother must have been so proud, after all, she didn't know what a chicken looked like. Even though the eggs stopped replicating the chickens knew exactly how to make more anyway so everyone was happy! A biological tribar? [sorry, math humor]

Much like the sadness that birds have stopped flying and people have turned purple. Your comment seems unrelated to reality.

Not if you come to face the fact that once you accept the theory of evolution then any apparent change is automatically explained. For example, if a change is detected [ a new fossil perhaps?], nobody says "Hey, I don't think this one happened because of evolution, we'd better call in CSI to check it out". When you heard about the pocket of unique life in Papua the other day did you think of anything other than evolution? Notice how the folks on the sub-continent are all mid-brown? They stayed in one area long enough for the gene pool to even out with the majority dominant genes winning. NO NEW GENES. Sometimes the dormant genes resurface, some large Indian families having almost the full color palette of children. No one ever tests the theory anymore, but they'll talk all day about the facts - facts which fit a theory, even if the theory itself is not proven. This basic gene-mixing and unmixing does not make new genes that are encoded for new organs and so on. I still think it is sad that science has devolved to this. Somehow I get the feeling you still won't see it. That's OK, I admit I'm not a very good communicator.

Some examples of new species which have arisin within recorded history:

I accept this kind of speciation, although it doesn't add the 'new stuff' to the gene pool. I accept natural selection too. I question what was available for selecton though. You have requoted one or two that painted wolf posted. Please go back and thoroughly re-read my response to her.

Yea, I looked at a beach the other day. Can you believe that people want me to believe that it's those specific grains of sand by accident (chance, random, etc)? It's obviously statistically impossible that any collection of molecules ended up anywhere by any mechanism other than intelligenct design. Much like I know that God controlls the lotter numbers because of the very low odds of the numbers that did come up coming up.

I said "...in the time geologists say has passed". That's a very short time for so many original features, let alone all the variations. This one is pure math, it simply doesn't add up. Admittedly my numbers are my own, but I am being very conservative in my count of special features and very generous in my features per-generation numbers. Still does not compute. Guess that one is my personal opinion, there's no reason for you to trust my math. And Fade, this one is not probability, it's simply addition.

***
Nice picture. See me? I'm the little all-white teacup way in the background. Neither the pot nor the kettle will fill me up. I am getting thirsty! Say, did you see the title of this thread? I was talking to him. As for me, clearly no one is on my side - hardly constitutes 'glorifying myself at the expense of others' does it? Thanks again for tring to help me.
**

Rocketman... what do you think of Chaos Theory and the formation of Fractals?

I'm just curios what sort of "meccanism" it is that you are looking for in evolution. Mutation and natrual selection, punctuated equilibrium, and Genetics are all known and evidenced. But they arn't the "meccanism" that you seek.
Can you give me a better idea of what it is that you are looking for?
I do agree that Science doesn't have answers for everything... if it did then we would have nothing to look for in the furture.

wa:do for your post painted wolf!

You are very polite. Yes, fractals forming due to chaos. Excellent point. When I am trying to imagine evolution I think of an explosion in slow motion. Fractal theory helps me see how complexity can increase and can come from something reasonably simple. That helps me picture it in my head. Some people who argue against evolution have a problem with increasing complexity, I know, but fractal theory would seem to have a different point of view. I note that the patterns tend to repeat on small and large scales. Naturally, being mathematically minded, I always wondered if THAT would explain things for me, but alas, I don't really see that it does. Maybe I have missed something?

I read ahead to your post so I have slowly been trying to paint what I am looking for in the preceding posts, namely, what natural event can rewrite the genome to encode for new things. Repetition of existing genes is obvious, like extra fingers and so on, and deformities too, easy to see how they can be passed on. But what mechanism in the field can possibly rewrite the dna without destroying or deforming it? Is it lightning strikes? Temperature? Is it cosmic radiation ? Atmospheric pressure waves? [who knows what early earth was like..?]. I just can't see that there was an accidental phenomenom that 'luckily' did this out in the field so many times over and over and over again for billions[?] of years, time and again accidentaly rewriting what is a very sophisticated language [my choice of word], namely, the genotype, into a better adapted one, especially where survival required a serious rengineering of structure/organ type/sensory system and so on. So yeah, the physical mechanism? I've looked far and wide and I can't find that anyone has done this in a lab anywhere. Do you know of anything? Quite apart from selecton, there has to be something to select from. The choice is either a better model [the old one dies out] or a worse model [the old one survives, the new one dies]. I imagine that a lot of deformities and garbled DNA would have produced animals that would've failed, but even so, what is the mechanism? That there is a mechanism acting at all, so many times, is quite interesting in and of itself, don't you think? Some people talk about random changes in the genome without knowing the cause but accepting it anyway. It can be seen that genes have changed for no apparent reason. But these changes don't rewrite the dna in any way that adds anything NEW to the genepool. We can do it manually with genetic engineering, but that is a complicated microscopes and lab-coats deal - how does it happen in the field?

This problem lead me to start looking at other things like the geometries and so on. The more I look at it the less comfortable I feel with it. I hope I've made some sense and haven't sounded like a crazy fool.

As for the future...yeah! Always looking forward to it!

this tells me, I was right, you are not doing the homework, you are just taking others arguments. This line just told everybody, you have not even completed biology 100.
Go back a few billion years if you want to define "female" or the initial biological life form that gives a portion of itself for its sub, or child, in a sense.

Bishadi, even a child will see the problem of splitting a species into two that is not fully prepared for each other, or are you saying we were? Yeah, right. I'd like to know how you justify that one at the macro level. Maybe your saying it was an asexual thing until one day one of the offspring started to mutate. You now have the irreconcilable problem of adapting his/her reproductive system so that it begins to match the other, while at the same time the other begins to adapt also until one day they are both ready to be 'together' and stop being asexual. This is fallacy gone mad. Insanity of the highest order. I suppose you just want me to accept it because 'here we are'. No hope of that. Even if we split way back when we were simpler, the two halves eventually have to come together at some point, and somehow their genes must be able to combine. LUCKILY the lady had a reproductive system [that took up quite a fair bit of her internal space?] and the guy had something that was JUST RIGHT to help her out. This after so much time being asexual, but natural selection saw ahead and GOT THEM READY. [I know specificity is not accepted as proof against evolution, but it is accepted as proof for it: a prejudiced double-standard if there was ever one; again, all facts fit the theory, don't they?]

Because you first need to walk, young lad.

You keep mentioning the math, which is why I sent you that email, which (googled)you up, you wanted the foundation, I gave you mathmatical theorem ……. The basis is correct and your most treasured "sources" have not had the same opportunity you have right now.

You asked for the right framework, you have more than anyone here as far as material to offer a mathematical basis, use it, describe what you are seeking to ease your mind but a soap box is just a place for your self, not for your purpose.

I can't accept it as a proven hypothesis [I mean the whole package overall] because too much of it lies untested and unproven, in my opinion. Your email did not provide a mathematical theorem that describes what I am looking for. Why not post it and let others decide. I encourage you to keep going with your work though.

What on earth do you mean by 'treasured sources'?? I didn't know I had any treasured sources. Please explain.

Friend, that last line is gibberish. Sounds like you are 'googled' up. I understand you have a language problem but I get more lost every time I read that line. I hope something I've posted here tonight [today..wherever u r] answers that last one for you.

Thanks all.

 

[Fade]

Despite being a probability buff that is not how I do my core science. Like I said, whoever figures this one out is going to be the darling of the scientific community.

I wouldn't call you a probability buff nor would I say you were doing any 'core' science.

None of the really smart people in the fields you mention should be offended by my expression that 'Much of science is applied mathematics".

Mathematics no, probability yes.

I did not say that "much of science is applied probability", just in case anyone got the wrong idea. Mathematics can add to the validity of a point if it can be shown to be true to the agreed upon variables and accurate in practice. [If it adds up, and it is all-agreed on what is being added, then it helps make a point more valid. Isn't that obvious? Did you think I said it proves a point? Big difference there]. I 'arbitrarily' assigned a probability to nothing. Arbitrary probability is false probability. Now let's have a look at what I was actually doing with probability:

You didn't say it but your entire point rest on it.

Yes lets have a look at what you were actually doing with probability.

Mutation is said to be a random process. Probability is precisely the math you would use for describing a random process. That's what it was invented for [discovered actually, math being independant of everything, even evolution]. Probability is my guide, not my proof. I was focusing in on things like the geometry problem because that's where probability steered me as you'll see a little later. I also applied probability specifically to the geometry problem [which is a seperate use of it] but that was just to say that the geometry is accurate or 'non-negotiable' [probability=0]...imo

I'm still waiting for you to show me what you were actually doing with probability.

There are odds for winning the lottery, and those odds may help you decide if it is worth risking your money. Probability is a guide. We even use it all the time to guide others regarding our intentions "I'll probably go to the concert..' Probability led me to question evolution. Having done so I've found some holes [well known to high-end scientists]. Am I being unreasonable with my use of probability? If I say "It just doesn't sound right" you'll say "How unscientific !" Can I ever win with you?

Not with the arguments you have put forward thus far...

ps: how are you going with that geometry problem?

What problem? You think it's a problem, doesn't mean it is one. Remember the snowflake?

I'm having trouble believing in evolution. I'm talking dinos into birds, not the minor stuff. Whether the mechanisms are the same for big and little changes doesn't interest me.

Science has identified numerous examples of intermediary species between dinos and birds.

What interests me is identifying a naturally occuring accidental phenomenon that will safely rewrite the genome [of anything] to turn it into something NEW. I'm talking wings growing out of your back or something. Make it as gradual as you like [although that implies direction and more lucky accidents than unlucky ones; more serious probability issues that cause one to take a CLOSER look].

Mutation?

You have twice assumed you knew what I believed, offering advice framed with an attack on other people's ideas. Most people would say that you have a pretty serious bias problem. I'm not one of them but should I take the risk of being belittled?. I like to discuss science in the framework of science, don't you?

I would love to discuss Science in the framework of Science. I have been, you on the other hand have yet to start.

You give science a bad name. I don't get my ideas from dubious sources, surely you are beginning to see that? And it's not that hard to answer your question if you look around... I'm here out of genuine interest. If I am one thing or another my credibility is no different than anybody else's. And don't assume anything about what I think of 'alternate theories' or 'origin beliefs'.

I'm still waiting to see these sources.

 

[rocketman]

You are a hard man to get along with Fade. Something tells me you didn't wait for my continuation post before you posted but whatever... I'm really trying to be reasonable you know.

I wouldn't call you a probability buff nor would I say you were doing any 'core' science.

You don't have the advantage of knowing me. I do my science in a way that I can prove it to others. There is no other way to do it. Just because I ask a question doesn't mean I am saying I have proof of something. [You are behaving as if I did. What's eating you anyway?] Evolution is core science, we are both doing it, together.

Mathematics no, probability yes.

As long as you understand that I was defending all of mathamatics, that's cool.

You didn't say it but your entire point rest on it.

You'll change your mind if you read the continuation post. If not then I give up trying to tell you what scientists actually use probability for.

Yes lets have a look at what you were actually doing with probability.

See last answer

I'm still waiting for you to show me what you were actually doing with probability.

Same again.

Not with the arguments you have put forward thus far...

I respect that. No problem

What problem? You think it's a problem, doesn't mean it is one. Remember the snowflake?

The snowflake can have pretty much any geometry it pleases, but if you look at a different snowflake with different geometry it still does the job of being a snowflake. A jaw on the other hand can only have rather specific minimum geometry, thus if you change it it is no longer a jaw. I just can't imagine what the version just before the first jaw looked like. If I can't see a physical transition I can't see one happening with time and chance. Did the gum go hard and turn into a jaw? Did the inline pivots then form up over time, and finally did the muscles begin to pull in the right directions as time and chance modified that baby? This geometry thing is overwhelming proof to me [i repeat, me] that evolution of this type has major problems. If you can see a way then show me, don't give me snowflakes.

Science has identified numerous examples of intermediary species between dinos and birds.

Good for them. Everything is an intermediary species if you line it all up a certain way. It's like school photos, they get you to stand according to height, looks nice, but it doesn't mean you are standing next to someone you like. Granted, the time scales make what your saying quite acceptable, but allowing myself to embrace it all gung-ho like with these other issues outstanding? most notably: prove that a natural mechanism could have caused the genes to be re-encoded for wings. Read what I said to painted wolf. And don't get angry, this is how I see it. If you want me to see it your way you are going to have to do better than short sharp retorts.

Mutation?

Yes, but how friend? What actually does it do out in the field?

I would love to discuss Science in the framework of Science. I have been, you on the other hand have yet to start.

Why? Have I been going on about religon? Sports? Politics? Just what was I discussing? Did I present an idea that was ficticous? I was asking questions and found myself having to explain myself [over and over it seems]I never said you weren't either, I'm just wondering why all of a sudden you want to know what I believe? Seemed really strange to me actually. Of-course your earlier asumptions about me didn't help your cause, because scientists don't operate on assumptions, unless they are working towards proving them one day. Remind you of anything?

I'm still waiting to see these sources.

By that I meant that my ideas are my own, unless otherwise stated. My point being that I'm not what you first took me as, so don't think you know where I get my ideas from either.

All is well friend, we are both on a free-to-air forum and both expressing our views/asking questions. I'm happy. Be happy with me.

 

[Fade]

You are a hard man to get along with Fade. Something tells me you didn't wait for my continuation post before you posted but whatever... I'm really trying to be reasonable you know.

I know, it can be tough dealing with someone who is the personification of hubris.

You don't have the advantage of knowing me. I do my science in a way that I can prove it to others. There is no other way to do it. Just because I ask a question doesn't mean I am saying I have proof of something. [You are behaving as if I did. What's eating you anyway?] Evolution is core science, we are both doing it, together.

Asking questions that have already been answered by science and then pretending that they haven't doesn't strike me as being particularly Scientific. Like I said before, the evolution of the hinged jaw is pretty well documented. If memory serves the theory goes that it had something to do with gills in early jawless fish. try googles book search.

As long as you understand that I was defending all of mathamatics, that's cool.

I fail to see your point. You are defending mathematics in the hope that I will take this to mean that your probability argument has merit. Sounds like a strawman to me.

You'll change your mind if you read the continuation post. If not then I give up trying to tell you what scientists actually use probability for.

They don't use it to disprove evolution, that's for certain.

The snowflake can have pretty much any geometry it pleases, but if you look at a different snowflake with different geometry it still does the job of being a snowflake. A jaw on the other hand can only have rather specific minimum geometry, thus if you change it it is no longer a jaw. I just can't imagine what the version just before the first jaw looked like. If I can't see a physical transition I can't see one happening with time and chance. Did the gum go hard and turn into a jaw? Did the inline pivots then form up over time, and finally did the muscles begin to pull in the right directions as time and chance modified that baby? This geometry thing is overwhelming proof to me [i repeat, me] that evolution of this type has major problems. If you can see a way then show me, don't give me snowflakes.

Time, chance and natural selection...mix in a does of mutation and you have a pretty strong recipe for just about anything. If you wont accept the evidence provided by the fossil record then this discussion is futile.

Good for them. Everything is an intermediary species if you line it all up a certain way.

Yes well done, glad you realise that. Everything is in fact intermediary. Bravo sir you are so nearly at the answer that your nose is touching it.

Yes, but how friend? What actually does it do out in the field?

creates mutants?

Why? Have I been going on about religon? Sports? Politics? Just what was I discussing? Did I present an idea that was ficticous? I was asking questions and found myself having to explain myself [over and over it seems]I never said you weren't either, I'm just wondering why all of a sudden you want to know what I believe? Seemed really strange to me actually. Of-course your earlier asumptions about me didn't help your cause, because scientists don't operate on assumptions, unless they are working towards proving them one day. Remind you of anything?

I'm starting to think that my original assumption was correct. Your continued dance around my question is answer enough.

All is well friend, we are both on a free-to-air forum and both expressing our views/asking questions. I'm happy. Be happy with me.

I just threw up a little...

Shameless dodgeball quote.