Evolution is a stochastic process with constrained yet unintended consequences.Opethian said:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
prove me wrong on evolution
- Thread starter murdocsvan
- Start date
JerryL
Well-Known Member
Out of context.
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
JerryL and Fade,
If you are serious about understanding evolution and think you'll be arguing for it for some time to come, why don't you invest in an Evolution textbook?
I have one called 'Evolution' Third edition, Mark Ridley. It's pretty good and covers a lot of stuff in a lot of detail.
If you are serious about understanding evolution and think you'll be arguing for it for some time to come, why don't you invest in an Evolution textbook?
I have one called 'Evolution' Third edition, Mark Ridley. It's pretty good and covers a lot of stuff in a lot of detail.
Fade
The Great Master Bates
Patronizing as ever, but thanks I have plenty of books on evolution plus a couple on creationism. Not to mention my phat pipe onto the interweb.Endless said:
I would recommend that you actually take the time to read your book on evolution.
Are you willing to accept that when genes are copied they are rarely if ever perfectly copied? Following on from that, are you willing to accept that those copying errors are known as mutations?
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
you know all this talk about genetics and so on...
and I'm still wondering what the definition of "bird" is.
Or Mammal for that matter.
so lets stop with the personal attacks and get back to the business at hand.
What is the boundry that keeps a bird from being a dinosaur, or a mammal from being a reptile.
What genetic/phylogenic/magic line is it that seperates the species absolutely from sharing a common ancestor?
We know it can't simply be the number of genes... Prezwalski's horse/domesticated horse/zebra
We know they are all related, eaven the strictest of the biblical creationists make wiggle room for the "horse kind" to have "microevolved" from a common ancestor.
so what keeps the Horses from sharing an ancestor with the other Perissodactyla?
All mammals from sharing a common ancestor?
what keeps all the Therapsida from sharing an ancestor?
if the build of of "micro" evolutionary steps can bring about all the variety of the Equidae from Eohippus(hyracotherium) to Equis... why not micro steps from Therapsids to Therians(modern mammals)?
wa:do
and I'm still wondering what the definition of "bird" is.
Or Mammal for that matter.
so lets stop with the personal attacks and get back to the business at hand.
What is the boundry that keeps a bird from being a dinosaur, or a mammal from being a reptile.
What genetic/phylogenic/magic line is it that seperates the species absolutely from sharing a common ancestor?
We know it can't simply be the number of genes... Prezwalski's horse/domesticated horse/zebra
We know they are all related, eaven the strictest of the biblical creationists make wiggle room for the "horse kind" to have "microevolved" from a common ancestor.
so what keeps the Horses from sharing an ancestor with the other Perissodactyla?
All mammals from sharing a common ancestor?
what keeps all the Therapsida from sharing an ancestor?
if the build of of "micro" evolutionary steps can bring about all the variety of the Equidae from Eohippus(hyracotherium) to Equis... why not micro steps from Therapsids to Therians(modern mammals)?
wa:do
JerryL
Well-Known Member
Rehtorical and patronizing (BTW, m library contains more than half a dozen books on evolution (most recently "Aquagenesis"), and a couple dozen on palentology (I too have a couple on creationsim).Endless said:
If you would like to discuss who know what they are talking about; let's start with your factual errors. You asserted that people with downs syndrome were sterile. There is absolutely no basis for this claim. You asserted it for the percoeved support for your case, but you had even this basic statement of fact wrong (or lied about it). Considereing your obvious lack of accurate information, it is you who should be doing reasearch.
Fade
The Great Master Bates
Ooh if we're talking about interesting books covering evolution I have a great one to recommend. It's called The Prehistory of Sex by Timothy Taylor. It's a pretty fascinating look at the role of sex in human evolution which comes(hur hur) to the conclusion that the evolution of the human species has been shaped more by the sexual choices our ancestors made than by natural selection.
isbn 1-85702-573-3
isbn 1-85702-573-3
Could well be true....damn the effect of alcohol on our senses - we'd all be beautiful if it wasn't for it!
Down's Syndrome Men are sterile - apparently only two documented cases of DS men fathering children. Women are fertile - that was my mistake, but i was half right to my credit.
Anyway, it doesn't change the fact that DS is caused by duplication of genes - therefore all we are getting is two copies of genes. Those aren't 'new' genes in the sense that they perform some other function - which would classify it as evolution.
Take the example of a newspaper - you buy todays news paper, you read all the information in it - do you then go and buy the same newspaper to get more information? No - because it's a copy of the original information. I never said that DS supports my case - it is irrelevant.
:biglaugh:There's no 3 on my book - it just says third edition.
Maybe you should do some reading on recombination and the proof reading mechanisms that your body has in built to prevent mutations occuring when copying DNA. Maybe you should read how accurate they actually are. Yes, those copying errors that do occur are known as mutations - do you think i deny mutations happen? I know far more about the intricate mechanisms of evolution because i have studied it to a high level. Don't forget that it wasn't too long ago that you wanted to 'start over' in our discussion when i was pointing out your errors. I know all about evolution, i think the problem (and i'm not being patronising) is that i have studied evolution from the genetics level up, whereas you are learning about it from the wide theory of evolution down. Therefore my arguements aren't being understood because they require a good knowledge of the mechanisms of genetics and recombination and the mechanisms in which evolution acts at the genetic level.
I've tried to simplify it, but it's not worked.
I'm talking about a textbook - this deals with things in great detail from the genetic level upwards, as it's used in university courses, well the textbook i quoted anyway. So you can be sure that what is in them is inline with current scientific understanding - as the third edition is.
Hi paintedwolf,
You can define a bird in describing it's physical features - as we normally do to tell the difference. However if we are looking at wanting a quantitative definition (one that can be measured) then we are looking for a definition at the genetic level. As yet science has not arrived at sequencing the genome of a lot of the animals. It was only in 2001 (i think) that we finally sequenced the whole human genome, then in 2005 (i think) that we sequenced the chimp genome. So still a fair way to go before we start defining creatures by their genetic sequences.
This is the problem when evolutionists ask creationists to define 'kind' - it has to be defined at the genetic level and science has not yet reached that stage but it will in time.
To show you what creationists believe - they believe that God created animals according to their kinds - meaning that he created a certain number of kinds. Perhaps he created a wolf like creature and a domestic dog - these two would have to have had enough genetic variation inbuilt into them so that by natural selection and genetic drift and mutations (only knocking out genes) that they could give rise to all the varieties of dogs today. So creationists believe the genetic variation was all inbuilt into the creatures by God. Most creationists also don't believe in the millions of years - they quote assumptions in the dating of strata/rocks that are unwarrented.
Creationists believe that the flood is what caused the fossilisation of the animals - which is true since they had to be quickly buried and under special conditions (normally supplied by floods) which caused the fossilisation. So since the Bible quotes Noah as having all the 'kinds' of animals on the ark - that these must have contained enough genetic variation already inbuilt to give rise to all the creatures we have on earth today. Therefore everything creationists observe - ie. the facts of what happens, regarding the mechanisms of evolution are in accordance with the theory that the genetic variation was inbuilt. Because we do not see mutation producing new genes with novel functions which is what the theory of evolution requires for the first simple organism to evolve to all the organism we have today.
So this is just what creationists believe - i'm not going to argue all the stuff in that, just so you know where a creationist perspective on what he sees and observes comes from.
Does Downs Syndrome count as a mechanism of evolution that could have caused the first simple organism to evolve to all others? No it doesn't. The reason being that simply duplicating the genetic information in the organism doesn't give it anything new - it already has all the products of those genes. So how could it evolve simply by duplication of existing genes? It couldn't - it needs something else, something else that has not been observed.
What about Sickle cell anaemia - is that a mechanism that could have caused the first simple organism to evolve to all others? No, of course it isn't. Sickle cell anaemia is caused by a mutation which impairs the function of a gene, the only reason it is selected for is because an allele produces the right product which keeps the person alive - the defective product helps hinder malaria because malaria needs the proper product. But by simply damaging genes of the first simple organism are we going to get evolution to all other organisms? Of course not, because Sickle cell mutation is an example of a damaging mutation - the product is new, but it doesn't work. The only reason the damaged gene isn't removed by natural selection is because the damage has the benefit of keeping malaria at bay if in a heterozygous individual. Therefore sickle cell anaemia is only an example of how a gene can be damaged but still remain in the population. This isn't an example of mutation that causes evolution of the first simple organism into all others.
JerryL
Well-Known Member
"So far, the range of sterility vs. fertility in cases of male Down's syndrome is not yet fully clear, but it appears that impairment of fertility, and sterility are most frequent" - Down's syndrome in the male. Reproductive pathology and meiotic studies, Johannisson R, Gropp A, Winking H, Coerdt W, Rehder H, Schwinger E.
But let's talk about if it's "new", which is to say wheter it has an effect not had by other genes.
In specific, the new chromosome is believed to change the X-inactivation function, and as such result in abnormal male development. It is a new function.
You are still trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Gene reproduction: USA today has an article and the New Your Times copies it. The New York Times is not "new" because it has the same information as USA today.
Gene mutation: USA today has an article today and a different one tomorrow. It is not "new" because it's still USA today.
New York times copies USA today and then prints something different tomorrow?
You use two or three different definitions in your ever moving "new novel", just like I said you would, in order to "win" with a self-conflicting position.
It's hard to tell with the scitzophrenia of your position. The first part of your above comment argues against mutations occur and you follow with saying that they do occur. If you and we both agree that mutations occur, what's the point in suggesting that people see how mutations don't happen?
Riiight. It's us that have ignored when errors have been pointed out. The only one you've even commented on was Downs Syndrome, and that's only after it had been hounded on several times by several posters.
One need not understand differntial Calculus to know that 1+1 doesn't equal 3. Your arguments are logically unsound and fundamentlaly unsupported. You've made repeated positive claims with no support. Perhaps before you worry about reading on evolution, you should read a book on argument and support, or at least basic logic.
Your appeal is to current scientific understanding and university courses?
OK. 99% of American biologists are evolutionists.
95% of all American scientists are evolutionists.
What would you like to duscuss about universities and geneticists? They are in near-universal agreement with evolution and (by extesion) agree nearly-universally that you are wrong. Or do more than 99% of people with higher degrees in biology lack your understanding?
So you can't even define what the difference is but you are sure it's there.
And with that said, with a straight face, someone who cannot even define "kind", but is sure there is such a thing; and can't propse a mechanism which would allow DNA to even know whether a given pair-change was effecting "kind", much less restrictit it, but is sure "it's there somewhere" is basing his entire argument on "you can't show me that someone has acutally observed a change of some particular pairs that are just like all the others except in some way I can't evidence nor define so you are wrong"?
That's intellectual dishonesty beyond the pale.
PS, don't forget to correct my spelling again: that might make up for you not having a leg to stand on.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Endless... what do you think about the paper published recently in Nature about the Chicken genome?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/guide/chicken/
http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/chickengenome/index.html
and surely the physical features of the bird are determined by genes, and with parsimony if you have two animals with feathers... chickens, penguins and Archeopteryx for example, then they likely use the same gene to do so.
if they use the same genes to do the same function, then there must be a relationship between them. right?
wa:do
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/guide/chicken/
http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/chickengenome/index.html
and surely the physical features of the bird are determined by genes, and with parsimony if you have two animals with feathers... chickens, penguins and Archeopteryx for example, then they likely use the same gene to do so.
if they use the same genes to do the same function, then there must be a relationship between them. right?
wa:do
Err...ok....JerryL, i think most of what i posted has gone way over your head because you don't understand the basics. Why in the world would i argue against mutations occuring?? I talked all about sickle cell anaemia - that is caused by a mutation. I believe in mutations happening - the proof is there. I've even induced mutations in DNA - of course i'm not arguing against mutations occuring :areyoucra
Hi painted Wolf,
I can't actually read those papers cause i'm not currently subscribed.
Possibly though i'm not sure. I'm not sure whether the feather structures of them all are the same - if you get what i'm talking about. Certainly there are likely to be a lot of common genes to control the 'feather process'.
It depends what you mean by relationship. If you mean an evolutionary relationship then no it doesn't mean this unless you accept evolutionary theory on this sort of scale. A creationist will say that they could have been created separately - ie. the ancestor of the penguins was on the ark as was the ancestor of the chickens. The creationist will not try to say that there was this much genetic variation in one creature - to my knowledge anyway. Whether the ancestor of the penguin looked much like the penguin of today i don't honestly know. This is the reason genetic studies have to be used to define a kind. A creationist would have to work backwards to be able to place animals in categories of 'kinds'.
If we take for example all the dogs we have today - a creationist would have to have the genetic sequencing of the types of dogs inorder to be able to work back and see how much genetic variation the original dog or dogs there must have been - and whether it would be possible.
Hope that shows you how a creationist would look at it.
JerryL
Well-Known Member
Rhetoric over substantiative content again. I've shown one issue after another with your posts and you've, by and large, not answered them.
Option 1: A "new gene" is one that was no posessed by the parents.
Example: Downs syndrome has a 34th chromosome containing many genes not present in the parenty.
Addendum: Said "new gene" must also work (create protiens) and "do something new" (give a trait that the parents do not have"
Example extension: The genes present in the downs-syndrome chromosome do create protiens and do give a group of traits (collectively referred to as Down's syndrome) to the child that the parent did not have (assuming this is not the child of a Down's syndrome parent).
Option 2: A "new gene" must contain new information (a new base-pair combination) as well as the above addendum
Example: The sickle-cell gene contains base-pair arrangements not found in the non-sickle-cell gene, which do function to create protiens and do have give a trait not had by a parent without the sickle-cell gene (malaria resistance minimally, and sickle-cell anemia in the case of the sickle-cell code being on boh sides).
Of course, if you want to assert that "human kind" is by default sickle-cell, then reverse the example for option 2.
Now, let's discuss the worst-case... Option 3: a "new gene must meet all of the above".
We have almost all the parts with the down's syndrome chromosome. A 34th active chromosome was formed. You've argued "It's got the same base-pairs as chromosome 21", but that's not particularly accurate.
I've found creationist sites claiming 4.2 mutations per person per generation. I'm not sure what the mainstream data is offhand, but I do recall a study looking at the effect of radiation exposure around Chernobyl by looking at the mutation differences between generations and comparing it to human norms. This tells me that the number is not normally zero, but I invite you (for the first time in this thread I believe) to actually cite a source.
So where was I going? Ahh yes, we have Chromosome 34, a copy of 21... until a mutation occurs in either chromosome. With 34 chromosomes and 4 mutations per generation; the likelyhood of a mutation in at least one of them in a given generation is better than 50% (again, you are welcome to cite a source if yo uwould like to say chromosome 21 has a below-average likelyhood of mutation).
So, what do we have with the child of a downs-syndrome mother? A human with 34 chromosomes, with functioning genes in all of them, and with no two chromosomes identical.
The only possible counter argument would be an assertion that any mutation in a functioning gene always results in either the same protiens, or no protiens; but that's disproven by the sickle-cel mutation in the red-cell gene.
This is not, at present, an issue of biology so much as one of logic. You've offered no "magic mechanism" to prevent a change that you've already conceeded you can't even define clearly but that you keep existing is impossible. Offer a mechanism and we can see if the mechanism is "over my head".
BTW, is it also "over the head" of the 99% of biologists who are evolutionists?
JerryL
Well-Known Member
And a creationists would also have to ignore the predictable differenciation in midocondrial DNA (something you were happy to correct spelling on but a problem you never addressed), the fossil records showing the evolution of both species, the physcial evidene of an old earth, the physical evidence of a humanity seperated more than "noah's ark" ago, and the complete and utter lack of evidence (or even possability, and I'm happy to discuss the geology and physics) of such an event as the Biblical flood.
But we are not discussing the absurdity of a hypothetical coreationist, so much as your illogical and unsupported claims regarding mutation and genes.
I've never understood why so many people think evolution is so important. The story of the beginning of earth and the love of God for humanity that is shown in this section of the Bible seems to outweigh the actual need to find some kind of scientific proof of what actually happened at the beginning of the world. I find it rather like spending ones whole life trying to find Noah's Ark and never finding an actual faith. Fighting about it also seems rather pointless especially with what is going on in the world right now. Seems like a very low priority to me.
True to most it is a low priority.
JerryL,
The mechanism that would have to be observed would be mutation causing a new gene, which had a new function that was biochemically advantageous to the organism and fitted in with all the existing biochemical pathways in the organism. Take the feathers as an example - genes had to be formed that previously didn't exist to control and bring that whole process of forming feathers into effect. We do not observe a mechanism occuring that could have lead to this.
JerryL,
Those are duplicated genes Jerry - all the 'new' genes are genes that the parents already have. Duplication alone is not going to get evolution from the first simple organism to all the other organisms. Simply buying the same newspaper twice means you can have twice as much content but exactly the same information.
The parent produces exactly the same proteins as the DS - the only difference is quantity of the proteins and perhaps regulation (switching on and off of the genes).
The sickle cell gene forms a defective product - one that does not interact properly with the biochemical environment in which it is in. This is not a mechanism by which the first simple organism can evolve to all others - we are simply observing mutations damaging genes. Damage alone doesn't equal progress.
I think you will find that the mutations are occurring in what you would call 'junk DNA' - sections of the DNA which don't code for the proteins - ie. sections of DNA which are not genes.
No it is not - but the theory of evolution doesn't merely rely on the genetic side of things. But i am approaching this from that side to show that there is a difference between microevolution and macroevolution. It is you rather than me that does not have the mechanism showing that macroevolution can occur - because there are no examples of it, the mechanism has never been observed to happen.
The mechanism that would have to be observed would be mutation causing a new gene, which had a new function that was biochemically advantageous to the organism and fitted in with all the existing biochemical pathways in the organism. Take the feathers as an example - genes had to be formed that previously didn't exist to control and bring that whole process of forming feathers into effect. We do not observe a mechanism occuring that could have lead to this.
JerryL
Well-Known Member
No, duplication alone is not enough. There must then be cxhanges in the base-pair order on either of the two genes. This is called "mutation" and you have stipulated that it does indeed happen.
Buying tomorrows paper is indeed new information, even if the format was copied from yesterdays.
Chromosome 34 interferes with X-inactivation, creating a new morphology wich does not occur in any circmustance without it. Welcome to evolution.
Defective is subjective and entirely irrellevent. The gene is more useful than harmful in areas with high malaria.
I could equally argue that the non-sickle-cell gene creates a defect by where the body is vunerable to destruction via malaria. The point is that the sickle cell gene is "new information" on an existing gene that does a "new thing". It's "novel".
Your only real counter is that it occurs in a spot that already exists (IOW, you would be arguing that new spots cannot be made); downs syndrome proves that new spots can be made.
Many are... and that fact would change the frequency of gene changes. It would have no impact at all on the fact that genes change.
Do you agree that functioning genes and mutate in to other functioning genes (if not, how do you explain sickle-cell anemia?).
Do you agree that functioning genes can be copied and still function while their originals are also functioning? (If not, how do you explain downs syndrome).
If both of those are "yes", under what pretext do you assert that a compied, functioning gene is unable to mutate jus like an "uncopied" functioning gene to produce a changed copied functioning gene ("novel new")? It's the only scenerio I've not orced an actual example down our throat on, but it's one you've offered ZERO support against.
Of course not, it goes into biology and reproduction... 99% of them are evolutionsts to. Explain that.
"macroevolution" is a fictitious and (you admitted yourself) undefined standard that means whatever the creationist needs it to mean in order for there to not be an example.
Once upon a time, "kind" ment "species"... but then we started showing examples of speciation and it moved, and moved, and moved again.
I told you early in this thread you would do exactly that with "new gene", having moved from "information not contained in either parent that functions" to "base pairs , that don't match other base pairs, appearing sudddenly in a new location, creating a protien which is no created anywhere else, which effects morphology, in a "positive" way, and does not cause sterility"
I show you one of those, and you'll add another criteria and another untli there isn't an example. It's the exact same thing creatinsts do with "missing links", it's the exact same thing they do with "kind", and you are doing it now with "novel new".
The analogy I made early on is very accurate here. You are asserting that it's impossible to write Harry Potter with a pencil because no one has seen it done.
And at this point you are demanding it to occur all simultaniously, which isn't what happenes.
How do you explain that there isn't a single number of functioning genes in the human species? Different people have different numbers.
You also never told me if a chimp could become a human with microevoltuion. We don't appear to have any more genes than they do.
Feathers is a mutation of hair (or vice-versa). It's a change in the genes that are responsable for scales, hair, and feathers. It's not "novel new" by the standard you've put up.
Of course, the fossil record shows animals like the dromaeosaur with pre-feathers in non-birds.