Jump to content


Photo

A Wasteful "necessity"?

purpose of evolution

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
50 replies to this topic

#21 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:25 PM

As a Biotechnologist, (someone who deals with the practical applications of Biology that can benefit the world- ie Biofuels), I am increasingly becoming worried about the waste of Gov. taxpayers dollars spent in attempts to affirm evolutionary belief in endless studies.
Wouldn't that money be better spend elsewhere? (like Biotechnology ;) )
In other words what is the purpose of attempting to prove evolution, apart from attempting to provide some form of substance to the atheistic worldview.
Also, what practical applications can come from evolution? (and just evolution)


I believe that it boils down to that if they did not have anything to believe they would feel lost. Having hope, regardless of what it is, brings comfort. Hope that God does not exist and therefore there won't be any judgment for immoral wrong doings is a powerful driving force that brings comfort to them to continue their lifestyle. Not having to have a written moral code to them is freedom because they can do what they want and they decide individually what is right and wrong, truth and lies. This kind of freedom makes them feel powerful that they would have such control over their lives and all that is around them. Makes them a part of the humanism crowd. To most to lose that power is a downgrade to life as for the reason that they fight us so.

#22 supamk3speed

supamk3speed

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 130 posts
  • Age: 24
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:39 PM

Wastefull spending is obviously rampant in science, they spent half a million studying why monkies throw fesces. Seriously, that is just one of many things that the government wastes taxpayers dollars on to make scientific observations on idiotic and moronic studies that don't help anything in our society. Some scientists are smart enough to see the money trail and get government grants for idiotic studies, in my humble opinion evolution is the golden child of this. Good evidence that we need to cut spending instead of focusing on raising taxes on Americans. The more money they rake in with taxes just causes them (the government) to figure out more moronic ideas to throw away our money with.

#23 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 16 February 2012 - 07:48 PM

Wastefull spending is obviously rampant in science, they spent half a million studying why monkies throw fesces. Seriously, that is just one of many things that the government wastes taxpayers dollars on to make scientific observations on idiotic and moronic studies that don't help anything in our society. Some scientists are smart enough to see the money trail and get government grants for idiotic studies, in my humble opinion evolution is the golden child of this. Good evidence that we need to cut spending instead of focusing on raising taxes on Americans. The more money they rake in with taxes just causes them (the government) to figure out more moronic ideas to throw away our money with.


:( I wouldn't advocate cutting spending, (unless it is needed).

I would advocate regulation, (that is the norm here in Australia, since our political history has been steeped in being in favour of Gov regulation- I think it is because of this why we didn't go bust with the GFC)

Regulate the use of such studies-

Why is the study being performed?
What possible good can be conceived from the study?
What gap in knowledge does this study intend to rectify?

These 3 questions should cut to the heart of the matter and realistically define whether a study really is required or not. I personally cannot believe that someone would even attempt a study as to why monkeys throw their excrement.

#24 supamk3speed

supamk3speed

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 130 posts
  • Age: 24
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 16 February 2012 - 08:23 PM

I would say when your government is spending more money than is being taken in that it is time to cut spending. Our country keeps borrowing money from the bank of China with seemingly no intent to become fiscally responsible, in my own accounting I pay back my debt as quickly as I can and never spend more than I make. I definately agree that regulation is needed, the study of monkies throwing there own excrement is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many, many more things our country throws money frivolously at. How about another half mill grant to study how shrimp react to stress? Or how we spent 1.5 mill to remove mold from a residential complex in Louisiana that was scheduled for demolition? Or how about in Clark county Nevada where they spent 64 mill of federal funds on a shooting range that brings in 430,000 a year. The problem? It costs 1.3 mill to operate. The spending issues in America would blow your mind.

#25 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 16 February 2012 - 10:54 PM

I would say when your government is spending more money than is being taken in that it is time to cut spending. Our country keeps borrowing money from the bank of China with seemingly no intent to become fiscally responsible, in my own accounting I pay back my debt as quickly as I can and never spend more than I make. I definately agree that regulation is needed, the study of monkies throwing there own excrement is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many, many more things our country throws money frivolously at. How about another half mill grant to study how shrimp react to stress? Or how we spent 1.5 mill to remove mold from a residential complex in Louisiana that was scheduled for demolition? Or how about in Clark county Nevada where they spent 64 mill of federal funds on a shooting range that brings in 430,000 a year. The problem? It costs 1.3 mill to operate. The spending issues in America would blow your mind.


Then yes I was assuming that a standard of logic was being applied, obviously from your examples this is not the case. I was meaning if spending was done on the proper research and such research resulted in tangible products which then brought wealth into the country then that is a good case for spending- (hence money spent on Biotechnology seems to be quite logically placed, but then I could be biased ;) )


Australia isn't immune, we have our own issues of stupidity. The most prominent I believe is the current view to sell off all our income earning assets. I am quite sure politicians will be given a commission for allowing this to happen as it is extremely stupid in the long run to do so. I foresee a future where Australia is a country just making stuff for other countries since the other countries will own the companies in Australia that makes the stuff. Hence most of the money made from Australian goods will go overseas, it is a very bleak future, and one I refuse to be a part of.

#26 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 17 February 2012 - 01:12 AM

If I made the definition that all the money in the world was my rightful property does that mean that I am now the richest man on the Earth?

I you had invented "money" and the definition of "rich", and had defined the words that way, then yes. Of course you haven't and you didn't, so no.

No... Hence just because some person arbitrarily defines something as X then it doesn't mean that it actually is so.... (This is where some critical thinking comes in)

When "X" is a novel concept then the person/people who came up with it define it. Who else would ? And in science in particular it is quite important that people know what they're talking about, so they often give what are called "scientific definitions" to the words they most need to agree on. Unlike a dictionary definition, which is mostly descriptive (i.e. tells you how people are actually using the word), scientific definitions are usually prescriptive, i.e. they tell people how the word should be used in a scientific context.

You're the one arbitrarily redefining words here. The correct definition of "evolution" can be found in a biology textbook.

If you look at "changes in allele frequency over time", (yes it is what is being taught at university and schools)... It is in fact a misnomer.

You see, if I had a population of people 50% red hair and 50% blonde and over time this became 60% blonde and 40% red.... Then that is a change in allele frequency... Yet it does NOTHING for evolution as described by Darwin, which was new species originating from a single ancestor species. Its a very dishonest representation of what evolution is, and I abhor its use in teaching.

"Changes in allele frequencies over time" is a very precise phrase; it obviously wasn't chosen randomly because it was ehhh, close enough. So when you find a phenomenon which is obviously covered by the phrase, but doesn't correspond to your idea of what "evolution" should mean... you conclude that the definition is obviously wrong? (haha those silly biologists ! They didn't realize that an increasing frequency of blonde hair in a population would come under their definition !)

The Theory of Evolution includes many concepts. Speciation is one of them, although it's mostly a straightforward consequence of changes in allele frequencies over time in two populations. Common descent is another, and that one isn't a straightforward consequence of same. And what you call "microevolution" is one too; in fact it's the main one.
And a population going from 50% blondes to 60% blondes is indeed evolution. Just because it's one bit of evolution you happen to not disbelieve in doesn't mean it's magically turned into "not evolution". And it doesn't mean you have to believe in all aspects of evolution if you don't want to. The Theory of Evolution is a collection of several concepts, some of which logically imply one another and others which are independent. It is in fact possible to accept some parts of it and not accept the whole.

#27 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 February 2012 - 01:35 AM

1. I you had invented "money" and the definition of "rich", and had defined the words that way, then yes. Of course you haven't and you didn't, so no.


2. When "X" is a novel concept then the person/people who came up with it define it. Who else would ? And in science in particular it is quite important that people know what they're talking about, so they often give what are called "scientific definitions" to the words they most need to agree on. Unlike a dictionary definition, which is mostly descriptive (i.e. tells you how people are actually using the word), scientific definitions are usually prescriptive, i.e. they tell people how the word should be used in a scientific context.

3. You're the one arbitrarily redefining words here. The correct definition of "evolution" can be found in a biology textbook.


4. "Changes in allele frequencies over time" is a very precise phrase; it obviously wasn't chosen randomly because it was ehhh, close enough. So when you find a phenomenon which is obviously covered by the phrase, but doesn't correspond to your idea of what "evolution" should mean... you conclude that the definition is obviously wrong? (haha those silly biologists ! They didn't realize that an increasing frequency of blonde hair in a population would come under their definition !)

5. The Theory of Evolution includes many concepts. Speciation is one of them, although it's mostly a straightforward consequence of changes in allele frequencies over time in two populations.

6. And what you call "microevolution" is one too; in fact it's the main one.

7. And a population going from 50% blondes to 60% blondes is indeed evolution.

8. Just because it's one bit of evolution you happen to not disbelieve in doesn't mean it's magically turned into "not evolution". And it doesn't mean you have to believe in all aspects of evolution if you don't want to. The Theory of Evolution is a collection of several concepts, some of which logically imply one another and others which are independent.

9. It is in fact possible to accept some parts of it and not accept the whole.

I you had invented "money" and the definition of "rich", and had defined the words that way, then yes. Of course you haven't and you didn't, so no.


When "X" is a novel concept then the person/people who came up with it define it. Who else would ? And in science in particular it is quite important that people know what they're talking about, so they often give what are called "scientific definitions" to the words they most need to agree on. Unlike a dictionary definition, which is mostly descriptive (i.e. tells you how people are actually using the word), scientific definitions are usually prescriptive, i.e. they tell people how the word should be used in a scientific context.

You're the one arbitrarily redefining words here. The correct definition of "evolution" can be found in a biology textbook.


"Changes in allele frequencies over time" is a very precise phrase; it obviously wasn't chosen randomly because it was ehhh, close enough. So when you find a phenomenon which is obviously covered by the phrase, but doesn't correspond to your idea of what "evolution" should mean... you conclude that the definition is obviously wrong? (haha those silly biologists ! They didn't realize that an increasing frequency of blonde hair in a population would come under their definition !)

The Theory of Evolution includes many concepts. Speciation is one of them, although it's mostly a straightforward consequence of changes in allele frequencies over time in two populations. Common descent is another, and that one isn't a straightforward consequence of same. And what you call "microevolution" is one too; in fact it's the main one.
And a population going from 50% blondes to 60% blondes is indeed evolution. Just because it's one bit of evolution you happen to not disbelieve in doesn't mean it's magically turned into "not evolution". And it doesn't mean you have to believe in all aspects of evolution if you don't want to. The Theory of Evolution is a collection of several concepts, some of which logically imply one another and others which are independent. It is in fact possible to accept some parts of it and not accept the whole.


1. You failed to understand my meaning.

Here is a 2nd try, Richard Dawkins makes the definition that all Creationists are stupid, does that mean that Creationists are all stupid. What I am attempting to show you is that just because a group of people define something as X doesn't mean it is that, in fact the oscillating definition of "evolution" is a common equivocation of the evolutionist. and I bet that you will need to re-define your definition yourself, proving my point.

2. And I just showed you a scientific situation where the definition doesn't fit.... Oops.

3. No I am sticking to the ORIGINAL definition of "evolution", the one that Darwin claimed in his book.

4. Obviously again you have failed to understand my point.

The definition you cited is in fact fallacious since "changing the frequency of an allele" does in no way whatsoever what evolutionists claim evolution is responsible for.

Evolutionists claim that everything originated from a single organism. If we stick solely to the definition you cited, how in the world does changing the frequency of an allele- (like different colours of hair at the hair colour locus) create NEW species. In order to have NEW species you will require NEW genetic information, (like the genes for leg development for a fish to "evolve" to an amphibian), however your definition claims nothing about NEW information, rather just the variation of the same information over time.... Ooops

5. Pray tell how shuffling the frequencies of the same genetic information of a population will arrive to new species. No scientist has been able to do this, rather they insert genetic information from a different organism, (thus it is new information since it didn't exist in the recipient before). (I know this since it is the cornerstone of Biotechnology, getting cells to do whatever you want by manipulating their DNA). Hence in reality your assertion is not supported. Care to give evidence?


6. Pray tell how variations within a species, (micro "evolution"), can lead to larger changes (macro).. Since no scientist has been able to actually observe or show evidence of this, it is merely taken on faith.

7. I'm sorry I had to have a giggle. Please demonstrate how the changing of the % of hair colour in a population of humans is considered evolution. Since the population is STILL human. Furthermore what new adaptions can come from changing the hair colour? lol

8. How is it "one bit" of evolution? You are presupposing that evolution is true and thus assuming that this is an occurrence of it.

9. It is possible, but then the "theory" is logically incoherent

#28 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 17 February 2012 - 03:39 AM

1. You failed to understand my meaning.

Here is a 2nd try, Richard Dawkins makes the definition that all Creationists are stupid, does that mean that Creationists are all stupid. What I am attempting to show you is that just because a group of people define something as X doesn't mean it is that, in fact the oscillating definition of "evolution" is a common equivocation of the evolutionist. and I bet that you will need to re-define your definition yourself, proving my point.

I understood your meaning, I simply disagreed with it. "Creationists" aren't a scientific concept, and Richard Dawkins isn't a creationistologist who came up with the concept of "creationists", so he can't define "Creationists" as he wishes if he wants to be understood. If they were and he were and he had, then he could define it as he likes. Biological evolution is a scientific concept, that scientists came up with and that scientists refined as they studied it, and as such it has an official definition, and that's the definition biologists give it.

Defining "evolution" to match your idea of what it should mean and arguing with it as if it were the actual theory of evolution is like me telling lawyers what "affidavit" should mean. While arguing that affidavits don't exist.

2. And I just showed you a scientific situation where the definition doesn't fit.... Oops.

It fits perfectly, in fact that situation you came up with is a straightforward example of a situation that definition is meant to fit. The fact that you think it doesn't fit shows your idea of what "evolution" should mean does not match what the actual theory of evolution says. If you want to argue against the actual theory of evolution and not a strawman, that's a problem.

3. No I am sticking to the ORIGINAL definition of "evolution", the one that Darwin claimed in his book.

He didn't actually define the word in his book as far as I can tell; it probably was already a term of the art. And this originalism of yours might be appropriate for religion but it's not how science works. Do you also stick to Dalton's ORIGINAL definition of "atom" when talking quantum theory ?

4. Obviously again you have failed to understand my point.

The definition you cited is in fact fallacious since "changing the frequency of an allele" does in no way whatsoever what evolutionists claim evolution is responsible for.

It's what evolution is. As per how it's defined in biology textbooks. You can disagree with its implications, but if you don't use that definition or at the very least accept that that's the correct scientific definition, then you aren't arguing against the theory of evolution, you're arguing against a strawman.

Evolutionists claim that everything originated from a single organism.

Common descent is one aspect of the theory of evolution. It's a contingent aspect that's actually logically independent from other aspects of the theory such as species mutability, or natural selection+random mutation and so on. Again, you seem to think that "what evolutionists say" is this unique block of stuff that are all logically equivalent to one another, so that disagreeing with one part means disagreeing with the whole. Maybe it's because you see the Bible this way so you think science is the same. That is not so. The theory of evolution is a collection of different concepts, some of which logically imply each other and others that don't. The reason most biologists accept those different aspects is they have independent lines of evidence for each of them. But it is perfectly possible to agree with some aspects but not others - as you do, accepting micro-evolution but disagreeing with common descent.

If we stick solely to the definition you cited, how in the world does changing the frequency of an allele- (like different colours of hair at the hair colour locus) create NEW species. In order to have NEW species you will require NEW genetic information, (like the genes for leg development for a fish to "evolve" to an amphibian), however your definition claims nothing about NEW information, rather just the variation of the same information over time.... Ooops

"Species" is also a scientific concept, that has scientific definitions (plural because it's a fuzzy concept). The main definition of "species" requires reproductive isolation. It's rather trivial to see how changes in allele frequencies in different populations could lead to reproductive incompatibility between them, and it's actually been made to happen in the laboratory several times.

There is no scientific definition of "species" that includes "requires NEW genetic information". Maybe you should use words like "kind" that don't have a scientific definition, it would cause less confusion. (although "information" is also a word that has scientific definitions, and by any of them adding information to the genome through existing forms of mutation and natural selection or drift is also trivial).

You probably think biologists are sneakily defining things just so that they can say they've observed "speciation" or "evolution" or "adding of information", as opposed to defining words in a way that helps them best study whatever they're studying. But if I were you I'd be more worried about how creationists don't have precise definitions of those words at all.

7. I'm sorry I had to have a giggle. Please demonstrate how the changing of the % of hair colour in a population of humans is considered evolution. Since the population is STILL human. Furthermore what new adaptions can come from changing the hair colour? lol

It's the definition. You're giggling because you're using the word wrong and somehow assume that means the biologists who actually came up with the concepts and defined the words associated with them are the ones using the word wrong.

9. It is possible, but then the "theory" is logically incoherent

"Logically independent" and "logically inconsistent" are very different things. Different aspects of the theory of evolution are logically independent from each other, but they're not logically inconsistent; if they were that would be a problem. And it is extremely strange for you to suggest that a theory one can accept some aspects of and not others is "logically incoherent". If this were true then theories would never be able to change, because that would mean rejecting some aspects of the current theory (by changing them to something different) and keeping the rest. Absolute unchanging received knowledge is fine for religion, but it isn't how science works. All theories are contingent on the evidence, and they very often change as new evidence comes in. The theory of evolution as much as any other (which is one reason that insisting on Darwin's definitions is absurd).

#29 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 February 2012 - 06:38 AM

1. I understood your meaning, I simply disagreed with it. "Creationists" aren't a scientific concept, and Richard Dawkins isn't a creationistologist who came up with the concept of "creationists", so he can't define "Creationists" as he wishes if he wants to be understood. If they were and he were and he had, then he could define it as he likes. Biological evolution is a scientific concept, that scientists came up with and that scientists refined as they studied it, and as such it has an official definition, and that's the definition biologists give it.

2. Defining "evolution" to match your idea of what it should mean and arguing with it as if it were the actual theory of evolution is like me telling lawyers what "affidavit" should mean. While arguing that affidavits don't exist.

3. It fits perfectly, in fact that situation you came up with is a straightforward example of a situation that definition is meant to fit. The fact that you think it doesn't fit shows your idea of what "evolution" should mean does not match what the actual theory of evolution says. If you want to argue against the actual theory of evolution and not a strawman, that's a problem.

4. He didn't actually define the word in his book as far as I can tell; it probably was already a term of the art. And this originalism of yours might be appropriate for religion but it's not how science works. Do you also stick to Dalton's ORIGINAL definition of "atom" when talking quantum theory ?

5. It's what evolution is. As per how it's defined in biology textbooks. You can disagree with its implications, but if you don't use that definition or at the very least accept that that's the correct scientific definition, then you aren't arguing against the theory of evolution, you're arguing against a strawman.


6. Common descent is one aspect of the theory of evolution. It's a contingent aspect that's actually logically independent from other aspects of the theory such as species mutability, or natural selection+random mutation and so on. Again, you seem to think that "what evolutionists say" is this unique block of stuff that are all logically equivalent to one another, so that disagreeing with one part means disagreeing with the whole. Maybe it's because you see the Bible this way so you think science is the same. That is not so. The theory of evolution is a collection of different concepts, some of which logically imply each other and others that don't. The reason most biologists accept those different aspects is they have independent lines of evidence for each of them. But it is perfectly possible to agree with some aspects but not others - as you do, accepting micro-evolution but disagreeing with common descent.


7. "Species" is also a scientific concept, that has scientific definitions (plural because it's a fuzzy concept). The main definition of "species" requires reproductive isolation. It's rather trivial to see how changes in allele frequencies in different populations could lead to reproductive incompatibility between them, and it's actually been made to happen in the laboratory several times.

8. There is no scientific definition of "species" that includes "requires NEW genetic information".

9.Maybe you should use words like "kind" that don't have a scientific definition, it would cause less confusion. (although "information" is also a word that has scientific definitions, and by any of them adding information to the genome through existing forms of mutation and natural selection or drift is also trivial).

10. You probably think biologists are sneakily defining things just so that they can say they've observed "speciation" or "evolution" or "adding of information", as opposed to defining words in a way that helps them best study whatever they're studying.

11.But if I were you I'd be more worried about how creationists don't have precise definitions of those words at all.

12. It's the definition. You're giggling because you're using the word wrong and somehow assume that means the biologists who actually came up with the concepts and defined the words associated with them are the ones using the word wrong.

13. "Logically independent" and "logically inconsistent" are very different things. Different aspects of the theory of evolution are logically independent from each other, but they're not logically inconsistent; if they were that would be a problem. And it is extremely strange for you to suggest that a theory one can accept some aspects of and not others is "logically incoherent". If this were true then theories would never be able to change, because that would mean rejecting some aspects of the current theory (by changing them to something different) and keeping the rest. Absolute unchanging received knowledge is fine for religion, but it isn't how science works. All theories are contingent on the evidence, and they very often change as new evidence comes in. The theory of evolution as much as any other (which is one reason that insisting on Darwin's definitions is absurd).



1. Then only the Egyptians can define evolution since it was their idea in the FIRST place. If you bothered to read the rest of my post you will see how the definition you gave doesn't even describe evolution at all... oops

2. What I have said is what evolution is. Biology online disagrees with you....Oops!


"(2) The sequence of events depicting the evolutionary development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny.
http://www.biology-o...onary/Evolution

So too does Berkley, http://evolution.ber...01/IIntro.shtml

"Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life."

Double Ooops!

Hence I ask you to retract your slanderous statement that I have been conjuring up my own definitions. I ask that you to do some actual research before you make accusations like that

3. Again I refer you to point 2. I have been using the actual definition all along and my quotes shed light on your attempt at equivocation, (which I predicted before).

4. Refer to point 2 I have justified myself with a modern definition from scientific resources, (unless you wish to argue with Berkley university and Biology online....)

5. Again refer to point 2, no strawman has been used, and I'd like you to retract your statement that I have used as such.

6. No it isn't independent. As I said if you refute or disclose one part then the "theory" collapses.

ie- No speciation therefore no common descent as there is no explanation for the multitude of species from a single one
ie- No common descent then no requirement for speciation as there is no need for the explanation of life from a single cell
ie- No macro evolution = No evolution at all as this is the touted "mechanism"

THe only one you can get rid of is variation within a species (aka micro evolution) since it is variation within a species it does nothing for the 3 concepts above anyway.

7. If its a "fuzzy" concept then I cannot see how it is considered "scientific"... Perhaps metaphysical, not scientific, science deals with FACTS, not "fuzzy" stuff, that is pseudoscience.

8. Obviously you do not understand evolution, nor do you understand how life works and the genetic mechanisms of how DNA attributes to the various forms of life.

Premise 1: An organism is composed of its cells
Premise 2: DNA is information that accounts for the growth, upkeep and functions of an organism and its cells
Premise 3: In order to have NEW functions for either the cell or the organism there must be NEW information to code for said (NEW) functions.
Premise 4: Therefore in order to have NEW species with NEW functions there is a requirement for NEW DNA.

This is very very basic logic, so your confusion on this point is quite worrisome.

9. Please don't blame your confusion on me. Furthermore just a moment ago you were saying to use scientific definitions rather than dictionary, (which I have done so), so it seems that your comments here contradict what you said earlier..... Interesting...

10. Did I claim as such? Please quote me, if you cannot I ask that you retract your slanderous statement.

11. Neither do you since the species concept is, (as you said), "fuzzy"..... Hmmm

12. Please see point two, I have been vindicated in the definition I have used, since it is the actual definition of macroevolution.

13. Firstly you have

i) failed to show how they are independant
ii) failed to grasp that common descent implies speciation hence the two are linked together.
iii) created a rabbit hole which has no relation to the OP nor to the central points of the last few posts.

I ask you to keep on track, I won't be replying to anything about this point as it is a waste of time and a distraction. (Perhaps later we may come back to it, when everything else is finished).

#30 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 17 February 2012 - 10:30 AM

1. Then only the Egyptians can define evolution since it was their idea in the FIRST place. If you bothered to read the rest of my post you will see how the definition you gave doesn't even describe evolution at all... oops

Hey, you're the one who's all about using Darwin's definition for some reason. Science is an ever-progressing enterprise so it's always best to go with the most recent definition.

2. What I have said is what evolution is. Biology online disagrees with you....Oops!


"(2) The sequence of events depicting the evolutionary development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny.
http://www.biology-o...onary/Evolution

Interesting. Hmm, does this (2) in front of the definition indicate there's a (1) ? Let's see, oh yes it does :
(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.
You have GOT to be kidding me here.

So too does Berkley, http://evolution.ber...01/IIntro.shtml

"Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life."

Double Ooops!

Um, what part of "This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next)" don't you get ?

You said that microevolution isn't part of evolution. I said it is. I never said it was THE WHOLE of evolution, in fact I seem to recall saying several times, as in "in each of my posts on this thread", that the theory of evolution consists of several interrelated but different concepts. Those two definitions you have quoted show clearly that microevolution is a part of the scientific definition of evolution. I mean, I assume that changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next falls under "microevolution" for you ?

5. Again refer to point 2, no strawman has been used, and I'd like you to retract your statement that I have used as such.

At this point I honestly have no idea what you're arguing or what you think I'm arguing. A population going from 50% blondes to 60% over a few generations is a change in "gene" frequency (actually allele frequency, but let's go with the way Berkeley phrased it if you want) from one generation to the next. And your Berkeley definition of evolution says "This definition [of evolution] encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next)". Thus, that definition of evolution encompasses a population of 50% blondes getting to 60% blondes over time. What am I missing here ? If a box contains green blocks and red blocks, it contains red blocks. The fact that it contains green blocks too doesn't make it stop containing red blocks.

6. No it isn't independent. As I said if you refute or disclose one part then the "theory" collapses.


ie- No speciation therefore no common descent as there is no explanation for the multitude of species from a single one

That's true.

ie- No common descent then no requirement for speciation as there is no need for the explanation of life from a single cell

"requirement for" isn't a relationship of logical implication. Life could have several different independent origins that subsequently speciated. That's in fact what baraminologists think - they think that all living species can be classified into a few "kinds" (that often correspond to genera or families) with each "kind" descending from one of the creatures Noah took onto the Ark and that speciated after the flood into its current diversity.
The evidence points against those interpretations but there's nothing about them that's logically incompatible with speciation.

ie- No macro evolution = No evolution at all as this is the touted "mechanism"

Well, you know, except for microevolution, which according to the definitions of "evolution" you posted is encompassed in said definitions. And that's another "no requirement for X" relationship which is not, as a matter of fact, a relationship of logical implication. There could exist that much-vaunted limit to microevolution that makes speciation or too-large changes impossible while populations still adapt and change a bit through the mechanisms of random mutation, natural selection and drift.
Again, the evidence doesn't point that way but there's nothing logically inconsistent about it.

7. If its a "fuzzy" concept then I cannot see how it is considered "scientific"... Perhaps metaphysical, not scientific, science deals with FACTS, not "fuzzy" stuff, that is pseudoscience.

Science deals with reality. Reality rarely lends itself to absolute clear-cut universal definitions. Scientific definitions are much more precise than vernacular ones, but they get that precision at the expense of uniqueness and universality.

8. Obviously you do not understand evolution, nor do you understand how life works and the genetic mechanisms of how DNA attributes to the various forms of life.

Premise 1: An organism is composed of its cells
Premise 2: DNA is information that accounts for the growth, upkeep and functions of an organism and its cells
Premise 3: In order to have NEW functions for either the cell or the organism there must be NEW information to code for said (NEW) functions.
Premise 4: Therefore in order to have NEW species with NEW functions there is a requirement for NEW DNA.

This is very very basic logic, so your confusion on this point is quite worrisome.

Why don't you look up a definition of "species" in a biology resource of some sort ? I can wait.

9. Please don't blame your confusion on me. Furthermore just a moment ago you were saying to use scientific definitions rather than dictionary, (which I have done so), so it seems that your comments here contradict what you said earlier..... Interesting...

I was telling you to use scientific definitions for scientific words. "Kind" isn't a scientific word, so not using a scientific definition for it isn't a problem.

10. Did I claim as such? Please quote me, if you cannot I ask that you retract your slanderous statement.

Sorry; I usually try to avoid mindreading in internet arguments, and that was a particularly obnoxious example. I retract it and apologize.

11. Neither do you since the species concept is, (as you said), "fuzzy"..... Hmmm

Among scientific definitions of "species", there is the Biological Species Concept : "a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.", there are morphospecies, groups of organisms that share a number of diagnostic traits (that one's mostly used in paleontology because you can't exactly see what interbreeds with what there), there are genetic species, groups of organisms with similar DNA (that one's used for bacteria and viruses insofar as "species" is used at all for those, because they don't reproduce s*xually).
Usually science responds to fuzziness by restricting the scope of its definition and if necessary creating several different ones that apply to different cases, and sticking with a particular one in any given context. And that's what's done with "species". All of those definitions have in common the idea that there's a smallest group of individuals that are all similar to each other and different from others; the problem is quantifying "similar" and "different" in a consistent way. It can't be done across all of life, so different methods are used in different contexts.

I ask you to keep on track, I won't be replying to anything about this point as it is a waste of time and a distraction. (Perhaps later we may come back to it, when everything else is finished).

If you still think after reading this post that the definitions you posted vindicate you then I don't think there's anything I can add either. I've also just noticed you did actually respond to my second post on the first page that was on the topic, I'm sorry I'd missed it. Seeing as you had after all responded I'll be glad to get back on topic as soon as I've read it said response (also seeing I'd missed a response by Teejay. Really sorry about that).

#31 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 17 February 2012 - 01:24 PM

Sorry about the multiple postings, I don't know how I managed to miss those previous replies :-/


1. Ah you're making the distinction between "pure science" and "practical science". Yes there are many studies done just for the sake of knowing something. These provide the foundation for practical science to exist.

However, the study I talked about was not a case of pure science, it was a case of splitting hairs. There is a difference between observing a phenomenon and documenting it, and a tirade of useless studies to attempt to fit one type of tree within a man-made chart, which has no representation of reality, just assumption based logic.


I don't think the distinction between pure and applied sciences is very clear-cut, but sure why not. As for placing some species within a phylogeny, the effort to stick a tree somewhere in a chart is basically the formalization of the effort to figure out how similar and different it is to other trees. I expect that's of some interest to people who study Wollemi pines for a living, which is why they would have gotten funding for the project. Because even pure sciences usually need to give reasons why their research is important to get funding.

2. So fitting things into an "man-made chart" and assuming that it is a represntation of reality will give new insights. You do realise that the "tree of life" is entirely arbitrary, and has no basis of actual factual proof. Therefore attempting to find somethings place on it really is a never-ending useless endeavor since the chart is man-made it is applicable to change... Yet what do these changes mean?

Those changes usually occur when new evidence comes to light. That's something that tends to happen to theories that are based in reality. And then there are the cases where there's disagreement about which tree is best; that is also something that tends to happen in reality-based fields when there isn't enough evidence to tell one way or another. Such disagreements are often resolved as more evidence comes in.


4. Epigenetics... How does that have anything to do with evolution? In fact a conclusion from epigenetics is that we can no longer use the % of DNA similarity since there is something else behind the scenes affecting the DNA products created... Meaning that 2 things can have the same DNA but be totally different due to the DNA producing totally different products- (they found that each gene in a human has an average of 20 different gene products, and these are the ones we know about....)


I expect the people who think genetic mechanisms are first and foremost in studying evolution also think epigenetics are relevant.

5. Again these are solely used to affirm evolution, (as I stated in the OP), how do these have a purpose outside of affirming evolution.


It seems I don't know what you mean by “affirming evolution” then; it's pretty clear to me from the titles of those papers that they're about investigating various mechanisms of evolution. (...okay, for some of them the abstract is more informative than the title actually. If anyone actually cares I can summarize them, but I figured my post was getting long as it was)

6. By what mechanism?


Irreducibly complex systems (i.e. systems where if you take any one part away the whole system doesn't work) can arise from reducibly complex systems (i.e. systems that can survive having one part taken out) by mechanisms such as generalist sub-systems becoming specialized. As for adding information to DNA, gene duplication and subsequent mutations in the copies can result in additional information by all straightforward definitions of "information".

7.

It occurs in selective breeding programs, whereby a trait is exaggerated to the point that it causes health problems in the animal. See Persian cats (the ones with the squashed noses). Some can barely breathe :(

The same can be said for any animal. At the farm I used to work at, (we had pigs), more angular legs were a trait that was desired with the pigs, since it gives more spring in their jump for mating. However this trait also made leg problems more prominent as a straighter leg would be more under the bulk of the animal and thus can hold them up better.
The same can be said for attempting to increase the size of the pig. Too long, (more ribs = more meat), and there will be back problems, too large and there will be other problems with their legs due to the weight load of the animal.

So the limits are imposed by the physical properties themselves. The only reason why you do not hear of this is because you do not look for it, "seek and you shall find"


Believe it or not I do know about the horrors of excessive breeding in domestic animals. It's really outrageous. And while it does show the limits of pushing one or two specific traits at the expense of the health of the whole animal, it isn't something that's relevant to natural selection because in nature animals that are that unhealthy don't survive to pass on their traits.
It says nothing about the limits on changing many traits together in a way that keeps the species viable at every step. The way animal breeders did in the past, when they actually needed their animals and crops to be functional and not just decorative.

8. How about you post evidence instead of just sites. (I believe this is against the forum rules).. I'm not going to waste my time reading a paper because you can't.


You specifically asked for studies and papers, that is what the links I gave point to. I didn't know posting such things was against forum rules; if that's the case I apologize.

#32 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 17 February 2012 - 06:10 PM

Sorry about the multiple postings, I don't know how I managed to miss those previous replies :-/
(EDIT having read Teejay's post : I'm sorry, you ask some very very general questions which would require lengthy and more to the point off-topic answers... And from what I understand it isn't this forum's etiquette to go too much off-topic. I'd be willing to try and address your post in a different thread though.)



I don't think the distinction between pure and applied sciences is very clear-cut, but sure why not. As for placing some species within a phylogeny, the effort to stick a tree somewhere in a chart is basically the formalization of the effort to figure out how similar and different it is to other trees. I expect that's of some interest to people who study Wollemi pines for a living, which is why they would have gotten funding for the project. Because even pure sciences usually need to give reasons why their research is important to get funding.


Those changes usually occur when new evidence comes to light. That's something that tends to happen to theories that are based in reality. And then there are the cases where there's disagreement about which tree is best; that is also something that tends to happen in reality-based fields when there isn't enough evidence to tell one way or another. Such disagreements are often resolved as more evidence comes in.



I expect the people who think genetic mechanisms are first and foremost in studying evolution also think epigenetics are relevant.


It seems I don't know what you mean by “affirming evolution” then; it's pretty clear to me from the titles of those papers that they're about investigating various mechanisms of evolution. (...okay, for some of them the abstract is more informative than the title actually. If anyone actually cares I can summarize them, but I figured my post was getting long as it was)


Irreducibly complex systems (i.e. systems where if you take any one part away the whole system doesn't work) can arise from reducibly complex systems (i.e. systems that can survive having one part taken out) by mechanisms such as generalist sub-systems becoming specialized. As for adding information to DNA, gene duplication and subsequent mutations in the copies can result in additional information by all straightforward definitions of "information".


Believe it or not I do know about the horrors of excessive breeding in domestic animals. It's really outrageous. And while it does show the limits of pushing one or two specific traits at the expense of the health of the whole animal, it isn't something that's relevant to natural selection because in nature animals that are that unhealthy don't survive to pass on their traits.
It says nothing about the limits on changing many traits together in a way that keeps the species viable at every step. The way animal breeders did in the past, when they actually needed their animals and crops to be functional and not just decorative.


You specifically asked for studies and papers, that is what the links I gave point to. I didn't know posting such things was against forum rules; if that's the case I apologize.

Sorry about the multiple postings, I don't know how I managed to miss those previous replies :-/



I don't think the distinction between pure and applied sciences is very clear-cut, but sure why not. As for placing some species within a phylogeny, the effort to stick a tree somewhere in a chart is basically the formalization of the effort to figure out how similar and different it is to other trees. I expect that's of some interest to people who study Wollemi pines for a living, which is why they would have gotten funding for the project. Because even pure sciences usually need to give reasons why their research is important to get funding.


Those changes usually occur when new evidence comes to light. That's something that tends to happen to theories that are based in reality. And then there are the cases where there's disagreement about which tree is best; that is also something that tends to happen in reality-based fields when there isn't enough evidence to tell one way or another. Such disagreements are often resolved as more evidence comes in.



I expect the people who think genetic mechanisms are first and foremost in studying evolution also think epigenetics are relevant.


It seems I don't know what you mean by “affirming evolution” then; it's pretty clear to me from the titles of those papers that they're about investigating various mechanisms of evolution. (...okay, for some of them the abstract is more informative than the title actually. If anyone actually cares I can summarize them, but I figured my post was getting long as it was)


Irreducibly complex systems (i.e. systems where if you take any one part away the whole system doesn't work) can arise from reducibly complex systems (i.e. systems that can survive having one part taken out) by mechanisms such as generalist sub-systems becoming specialized. As for adding information to DNA, gene duplication and subsequent mutations in the copies can result in additional information by all straightforward definitions of "information".


Believe it or not I do know about the horrors of excessive breeding in domestic animals. It's really outrageous. And while it does show the limits of pushing one or two specific traits at the expense of the health of the whole animal, it isn't something that's relevant to natural selection because in nature animals that are that unhealthy don't survive to pass on their traits.
It says nothing about the limits on changing many traits together in a way that keeps the species viable at every step. The way animal breeders did in the past, when they actually needed their animals and crops to be functional and not just decorative.


You specifically asked for studies and papers, that is what the links I gave point to. I didn't know posting such things was against forum rules; if that's the case I apologize.



#33 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 February 2012 - 06:35 PM

1. Hey, you're the one who's all about using Darwin's definition for some reason. Science is an ever-progressing enterprise so it's always best to go with the most recent definition.


2. Interesting. Hmm, does this (2) in front of the definition indicate there's a (1) ? Let's see, oh yes it does :
(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.
You have GOT to be kidding me here.


3. Um, what part of "This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next)" don't you get ?

4. You said that microevolution isn't part of evolution. I said it is. I never said it was THE WHOLE of evolution, in fact I seem to recall saying several times, as in "in each of my posts on this thread", that the theory of evolution consists of several interrelated but different concepts.

5. Those two definitions you have quoted show clearly that microevolution is a part of the scientific definition of evolution. I mean, I assume that changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next falls under "microevolution" for you ?


6. At this point I honestly have no idea what you're arguing or what you think I'm arguing. A population going from 50% blondes to 60% over a few generations is a change in "gene" frequency (actually allele frequency, but let's go with the way Berkeley phrased it if you want) from one generation to the next. And your Berkeley definition of evolution says "This definition [of evolution] encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next)". Thus, that definition of evolution encompasses a population of 50% blondes getting to 60% blondes over time. What am I missing here ? If a box contains green blocks and red blocks, it contains red blocks. The fact that it contains green blocks too doesn't make it stop containing red blocks.


That's true.


7. "requirement for" isn't a relationship of logical implication.


8. Well, you know, except for microevolution, which according to the definitions of "evolution" you posted is encompassed in said definitions. And that's another "no requirement for X" relationship which is not, as a matter of fact, a relationship of logical implication. There could exist that much-vaunted limit to microevolution that makes speciation or too-large changes impossible while populations still adapt and change a bit through the mechanisms of random mutation, natural selection and drift.
Again, the evidence doesn't point that way but there's nothing logically inconsistent about it.


9. Science deals with reality. Reality rarely lends itself to absolute clear-cut universal definitions. Scientific definitions are much more precise than vernacular ones, but they get that precision at the expense of uniqueness and universality.


10. Why don't you look up a definition of "species" in a biology resource of some sort ? I can wait.


11. I was telling you to use scientific definitions for scientific words. "Kind" isn't a scientific word, so not using a scientific definition for it isn't a problem.


12. Sorry; I usually try to avoid mindreading in internet arguments, and that was a particularly obnoxious example. I retract it and apologize.


13. Among scientific definitions of "species", there is the Biological Species Concept : "a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.", there are morphospecies, groups of organisms that share a number of diagnostic traits (that one's mostly used in paleontology because you can't exactly see what interbreeds with what there), there are genetic species, groups of organisms with similar DNA (that one's used for bacteria and viruses insofar as "species" is used at all for those, because they don't reproduce s*xually).
Usually science responds to fuzziness by restricting the scope of its definition and if necessary creating several different ones that apply to different cases, and sticking with a particular one in any given context. And that's what's done with "species". All of those definitions have in common the idea that there's a smallest group of individuals that are all similar to each other and different from others; the problem is quantifying "similar" and "different" in a consistent way. It can't be done across all of life, so different methods are used in different contexts.


14. If you still think after reading this post that the definitions you posted vindicate you then I don't think there's anything I can add either.


Hey, you're the one who's all about using Darwin's definition for some reason. Science is an ever-progressing enterprise so it's always best to go with the most recent definition.


Interesting. Hmm, does this (2) in front of the definition indicate there's a (1) ? Let's see, oh yes it does :
(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.
You have GOT to be kidding me here.


Um, what part of "This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next)" don't you get ?

You said that microevolution isn't part of evolution. I said it is. I never said it was THE WHOLE of evolution, in fact I seem to recall saying several times, as in "in each of my posts on this thread", that the theory of evolution consists of several interrelated but different concepts. Those two definitions you have quoted show clearly that microevolution is a part of the scientific definition of evolution. I mean, I assume that changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next falls under "microevolution" for you ?


At this point I honestly have no idea what you're arguing or what you think I'm arguing. A population going from 50% blondes to 60% over a few generations is a change in "gene" frequency (actually allele frequency, but let's go with the way Berkeley phrased it if you want) from one generation to the next. And your Berkeley definition of evolution says "This definition [of evolution] encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next)". Thus, that definition of evolution encompasses a population of 50% blondes getting to 60% blondes over time. What am I missing here ? If a box contains green blocks and red blocks, it contains red blocks. The fact that it contains green blocks too doesn't make it stop containing red blocks.


That's true.


"requirement for" isn't a relationship of logical implication. Life could have several different independent origins that subsequently speciated. That's in fact what baraminologists think - they think that all living species can be classified into a few "kinds" (that often correspond to genera or families) with each "kind" descending from one of the creatures Noah took onto the Ark and that speciated after the flood into its current diversity.
The evidence points against those interpretations but there's nothing about them that's logically incompatible with speciation.

Well, you know, except for microevolution, which according to the definitions of "evolution" you posted is encompassed in said definitions. And that's another "no requirement for X" relationship which is not, as a matter of fact, a relationship of logical implication. There could exist that much-vaunted limit to microevolution that makes speciation or too-large changes impossible while populations still adapt and change a bit through the mechanisms of random mutation, natural selection and drift.
Again, the evidence doesn't point that way but there's nothing logically inconsistent about it.


Science deals with reality. Reality rarely lends itself to absolute clear-cut universal definitions. Scientific definitions are much more precise than vernacular ones, but they get that precision at the expense of uniqueness and universality.


Why don't you look up a definition of "species" in a biology resource of some sort ? I can wait.


I was telling you to use scientific definitions for scientific words. "Kind" isn't a scientific word, so not using a scientific definition for it isn't a problem.


Sorry; I usually try to avoid mindreading in internet arguments, and that was a particularly obnoxious example. I retract it and apologize.


Among scientific definitions of "species", there is the Biological Species Concept : "a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.", there are morphospecies, groups of organisms that share a number of diagnostic traits (that one's mostly used in paleontology because you can't exactly see what interbreeds with what there), there are genetic species, groups of organisms with similar DNA (that one's used for bacteria and viruses insofar as "species" is used at all for those, because they don't reproduce s*xually).
Usually science responds to fuzziness by restricting the scope of its definition and if necessary creating several different ones that apply to different cases, and sticking with a particular one in any given context. And that's what's done with "species". All of those definitions have in common the idea that there's a smallest group of individuals that are all similar to each other and different from others; the problem is quantifying "similar" and "different" in a consistent way. It can't be done across all of life, so different methods are used in different contexts.


If you still think after reading this post that the definitions you posted vindicate you then I don't think there's anything I can add either. I've also just noticed you did actually respond to my second post on the first page that was on the topic, I'm sorry I'd missed it. Seeing as you had after all responded I'll be glad to get back on topic as soon as I've read it said response (also seeing I'd missed a response by Teejay. Really sorry about that).



1. Which I have done so

2. And? It was you who said that I was completely arbitrarily making up my own definition, yet I have shown that I have not, and that evolution is defined by the progression of life over time. I am still waiting for your retraction of you erroneous statement, rather than your diversionary tactics here

3. I was showing you that I didn't make up my own definition as you claimed, your comments here attempt to divert from the fact that I called you out on your false claims.

4. And here is the equivocation I predicted!!! :D :D :D

The only definition of evolution you gave at first was JUST "change in allele frequency over time", that was it. Now you are trying to add more stuff in, (which I said you would try to)... So what is the definition now?

5. And as I said just because someone claims it to be so in a definition doesn't make it so! Honestly use some critical thinking and look at what I have been saying. I have shown how variation within a species is not responsible for what evolutionists claim as evolution, therefore (when you look at reality) it is not part of the definition. Just because they arbitrarily bungle them together to make Macro-evolution seem more realistic (when it has never been observed or tested), is not my problem, it is a problem of the intellectual honesty of those who do such a thing, (or their capacity for critical thinking).

If I told you that the part of the definition of Pigs was that at midnight they do a rain dance and cause it to rain, and you show how that is not real then of course the definiton is wrong, I have done the same, showing how variiations in allele frequency (of the SAME genetic information) can NEVER lead to a new species. Hence (as I said right at the start) the definition is flawed since what it claims to do, has not been observed, verified or proven.

6. You're missing the fact that changing the frequency of the same genetic information does not lead to new species. THerfore logically it doesn't follow. Therefore the definiton is wrong.

7. Yes it is. You require air to breathe does that mean that if there is no air that you can still exist? Honestly if you debunk just one part of evolution it crumbles.

8. Actually the evidence does point toward limitation (did you not read what I said). Please cite empirical evidence that there is no limitation that a fish can evolve into an amphibian etc. Unless you do so then you cannot make smug claims about where the evidence points, since you have given none at the moment.

9. And? The funny thing is that evolution (as per macro evolution) has not been observed in reality.... hence by definiton it is not scientific, rather it is an idea that is postulated...

10. Why don't you? You are the evolutionist, not me.

11. Did I use the word kind? Or does your speech here have no point.

12. Thanks

13. True, but it still isn't a proper definiton if it requires annotations and exceptions. Rather it shows how limited such a concept is. Yes scientists attempt damage control with the use of exceptions etc, however that still doesn't change the fact that it is shaky and that how do we know that this definition is representative of actual reality, (as I said just because this is how it is defined doesn't mean it is the correct meaning when reality is concerned. All definitions are man-made arbitrary ideas, and one that requires exceptions and such should be taken "with a grain of salt".

14. My main points I want you to glean from this are

i) I didn't make the definition up
ii) Understand that variation within a species (micro) does not attribute to macro evolution- there has been no observations claiming otherwise. OR do we believe in stuff without empirical evidence
iii) therefore if observations of reality deem that micro doesn't attribute to macro then the definitions given here that do are incorrect
iv) Thus showing that definitions are not the be-all-end-all of truth, (even more so since they are an arbitrary man-made idea)

#34 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 February 2012 - 07:00 PM

1. I don't think the distinction between pure and applied sciences is very clear-cut, but sure why not. As for placing some species within a phylogeny, the effort to stick a tree somewhere in a chart is basically the formalization of the effort to figure out how similar and different it is to other trees. I expect that's of some interest to people who study Wollemi pines for a living, which is why they would have gotten funding for the project. Because even pure sciences usually need to give reasons why their research is important to get funding.


2. Those changes usually occur when new evidence comes to light. That's something that tends to happen to theories that are based in reality. And then there are the cases where there's disagreement about which tree is best; that is also something that tends to happen in reality-based fields when there isn't enough evidence to tell one way or another. Such disagreements are often resolved as more evidence comes in.



3. I expect the people who think genetic mechanisms are first and foremost in studying evolution also think epigenetics are relevant.


4. It seems I don't know what you mean by “affirming evolution” then; it's pretty clear to me from the titles of those papers that they're about investigating various mechanisms of evolution. (...okay, for some of them the abstract is more informative than the title actually. If anyone actually cares I can summarize them, but I figured my post was getting long as it was)


5. Irreducibly complex systems (i.e. systems where if you take any one part away the whole system doesn't work) can arise from reducibly complex systems (i.e. systems that can survive having one part taken out) by mechanisms such as generalist sub-systems becoming specialized.

6. As for adding information to DNA, gene duplication and subsequent mutations in the copies can result in additional information by all straightforward definitions of "information".


7. Believe it or not I do know about the horrors of excessive breeding in domestic animals. It's really outrageous. And while it does show the limits of pushing one or two specific traits at the expense of the health of the whole animal, it isn't something that's relevant to natural selection because in nature animals that are that unhealthy don't survive to pass on their traits.
It says nothing about the limits on changing many traits together in a way that keeps the species viable at every step. The way animal breeders did in the past, when they actually needed their animals and crops to be functional and not just decorative.


You specifically asked for studies and papers, that is what the links I gave point to. I didn't know posting such things was against forum rules; if that's the case I apologize.



1. and how does hair splitting (since that is what it is), contribute to our knowledge as a whole.... (We may spend $3 million on the studies for this... is it really worth that)

2. Or it occurs so people have stuff to do

3. I asked for some papers containing empirical evidence of the genetic mechanisms... Can you please cite some.

Epigenetics as I concluded would be worse off for evolution as it debunks the DNA% claim and also adds a new level of complexity within a cell for evolution to account for, (yet even now it cannot account for the cellular systems that we know of at the moment)

4. Please summarise away, however please make sure that the papers are actually empirical... not papers hypothesizing potential mechanisms... (This is science after all and science is based on facts not presupposition)

5. Please cite evidence, empirical evidence not inference based evidence. Furthermore, what do you do when the IC system is one that is required on DAY ONE of the life of the cell. Cellular respiration is one such thing.

6. Actually no... for two reasons

i) a copy is a copy, it makes no account for how new information is formed. In this instance you need information to exist in the first place.
ii) since it is a copy it will have the same signal pathway that activates it meaning that the "new" function will not be actvated when required..
iii) where has it been cited that mutation on copied DNA results in entirely NEW traits, we can have variations of old traits but that is not NEW.

7. So your claims here is that natural selection is stronger in the wild than in a farm.... Where a farmer can pick and choose which exact male and female can mate thus exerting 100% control over the selection of the animals... Whereas nature is random mating.

Furthermore, animals die in farms too..... Or just because they live on a farm they are now invincible?.. ;)

I hope you see how your claim is wrong and that selection is many times more powerful in a lab or farm than what would ever occur in nature.



??? What studies did you link to? I see no such thing

#35 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 17 February 2012 - 07:56 PM

I'm a bit confused by this question; do you have any examples of studies whose only aim is to prove evolution ? As far as I know, the idea that evolution happened, and works roughly though the mechanisms of mutations, natural selection & drift is considered settled science in biology


There isn't a single biological study that has ever confirmed this settled idea you have.

Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila

Experimental evolution systems allow the genomic study of adaptation, and so far this has been done primarily in asexual systems with small genomes, such as bacteria and yeast1, 2, 3. Here we present whole-genome resequencing data from Drosophila melanogaster populations that have experienced over 600 generations of laboratory selection for accelerated development. Flies in these selected populations develop from egg to adult ~20% faster than flies of ancestral control populations, and have evolved a number of other correlated phenotypes. On the basis of 688,520 intermediate-frequency, high-quality single nucleotide polymorphisms, we identify several dozen genomic regions that show strong allele frequency differentiation between a pooled sample of five replicate populations selected for accelerated development and pooled controls. On the basis of resequencing data from a single replicate population with accelerated development, as well as single nucleotide polymorphism data from individual flies from each replicate population, we infer little allele frequency differentiation between replicate populations within a selection treatment. Signatures of selection are qualitatively different than what has been observed in asexual species; in our S@xual populations, adaptation is not associated with ‘classic’ sweeps whereby newly arising, unconditionally advantageous mutations become fixed. More parsimonious explanations include ‘incomplete’ sweep models, in which mutations have not had enough time to fix, and ‘soft’ sweep models, in which selection acts on pre-existing, common genetic variants. We conclude that, at least for life history characters such as development time, unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time. Link

Yes, aelyn that is correct. There has never been a single example of a new adventageous allele that has been observed reaching fixation in any organism; So, how can it be settled?

And in context to the OP, this was a huge waste of time and money except to expose the smoke screen that everyone of us know wasn't true already.


Enjoy.

#36 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 18 February 2012 - 10:28 AM

The only definition of evolution you gave at first was JUST "change in allele frequency over time", that was it. Now you are trying to add more stuff in, (which I said you would try to)... So what is the definition now?

This all started when you said microevolution isn't part of evolution. I replied that it is, and after some back and forth you yourself posted definitions that said so. Yes, in my first reply I did say evolution was defined as allele change within populations - it would have been more accurate of me to say that evolution includes that definition. But given I made it very clear in subsequent posts that evolution encompassed several concepts I assumed my meaning was obvious.

It's no problem though, you can accuse me of equivocation and have a victory dance if you like. As long as we agree that the definitions you posted say that microevolution is part of evolution.

I'm having trouble reconciling these two things :

And as I said just because someone claims it to be so in a definition doesn't make it so!

and

I didn't make the definition up

Do you agree with the definitions you posted or not ? You didn't make your definition up out of thin air, and if I said or implied you did I apologize; but limiting your definition of "evolution" to only half of what the word actually means is also incorrect.

Epigenetics as I concluded would be worse off for evolution

Which, if true, would make it very relevant to evolution indeed, hence studies. No ?

5. Please cite evidence, empirical evidence not inference based evidence.

You complained that I was going off-topic when responding to your claim that microevolution isn't part of evolution, and now you've pushed the irreducible complexity discussion from mentioning it, to asking for a mechanism, to asking for "empirical evidence". I tried to keep my responses as short as possible at each step but at this point it won't be possible anymore so I'm stopping here.

So your claims here is that natural selection is stronger in the wild than in a farm...

No.

Whereas nature is random mating.

All those courtship rituals and mating fights beg to differ.

??? What studies did you link to? I see no such thing

Those links I posted. They link to scientific papers. You know it takes time and effort to search the internet for relevant resources; if those efforts are going to be so rudely ignored I won't bother again. Next time, at least pretend you skimmed the abstract and give some reason why the studies I link to don't correspond to what you asked for instead of acting like they aren't there.

Please summarise away, however please make sure that the papers are actually empirical...

1) Yeah, in light of that last line I changed my mind; read the abstracts
2) They are. Can't remember all of them offhand, but there were experiments and models in there.

#37 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 18 February 2012 - 10:43 AM

There isn't a single biological study that has ever confirmed this settled idea you have.


It's not a settled idea I have, it's a settled idea biologists have. Whether you think they're wrong or right about it is completely irrelevant to the context of that sentence, which was that scientists don't do studies that have no aim but to "affirm" settled science. This isn't a statement about evolution, it's a statement about what kinds of studies biologists do, in response to a post by gilbo which was about what kinds of studies biologists do.
But then, since I wrote that sentence gilbo said a few things that make me suspect we don't mean the same thing by "affirming" a theory, so that probably takes care of that.

There has never been a single example of a new adventageous allele that has been observed reaching fixation in any organism; So, how can it be settled?

There has never been an observation of a single revolution of Pluto around the Sun either. You really underestimate the role inference plays in all science, not just evolution or historical sciences.

#38 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 18 February 2012 - 11:22 AM

1. This all started when you said microevolution isn't part of evolution. I replied that it is, and after some back and forth you yourself posted definitions that said so. Yes, in my first reply I did say evolution was defined as allele change within populations - it would have been more accurate of me to say that evolution includes that definition. But given I made it very clear in subsequent posts that evolution encompassed several concepts I assumed my meaning was obvious.

2. It's no problem though, you can accuse me of equivocation and have a victory dance if you like. As long as we agree that the definitions you posted say that microevolution is part of evolution.

3. I'm having trouble reconciling these two things :

and

4. Do you agree with the definitions you posted or not ? You didn't make your definition up out of thin air, and if I said or implied you did I apologize; but limiting your definition of "evolution" to only half of what the word actually means is also incorrect.


5. Which, if true, would make it very relevant to evolution indeed, hence studies. No ?


6. You complained that I was going off-topic when responding to your claim that microevolution isn't part of evolution, and now you've pushed the irreducible complexity discussion from mentioning it, to asking for a mechanism, to asking for "empirical evidence". I tried to keep my responses as short as possible at each step but at this point it won't be possible anymore so I'm stopping here.


7. No.


All those courtship rituals and mating fights beg to differ.


8. Those links I posted. They link to scientific papers. You know it takes time and effort to search the internet for relevant resources; if those efforts are going to be so rudely ignored I won't bother again. Next time, at least pretend you skimmed the abstract and give some reason why the studies I link to don't correspond to what you asked for instead of acting like they aren't there.


1) Yeah, in light of that last line I changed my mind; read the abstracts
2) They are. Can't remember all of them offhand, but there were experiments and models in there.


Shakes head.....


1. You began with your definiton of frequency change in alleles, in my next reply I predicted you would need to change it to something else, which you have admitted to.

Now I also showed HOW allele frequency is not a represntation of evolution, you have not replied to this, even when I brought it up again. If I was just claiming it wasn't so then that is fine, however when I show you that it is not logically possible to change the frequency of the SAME alleles and somehow arrive at speciation, then I'd assumed you'd sit up and take notice. Hence why I have stated all along that that definition (the micro one) is not proper, since it doesn't logically follow.

Please read my posts I have put forward this evidence over and over and you haven't refuted it. Post #20 and post #27

2. No as I have stated over and over, I have given evidence as to why your definition of micro-evolution is not a logical represtation of evolution itself, please state evidence to the contrary, (and no don't just claim because they say so, please show how changing the frequency of the same alleles on the same loci brings about NEW genetic information.

If you cannot then you must concede that "changing the frequency of alleles" is not evolution when macro evolution is concerned, (and is the thing I am discussing here)

3. I know you are, otherwise I wouldn't be needing to repeat myself over and over

4. Please read points 1 and 2

5. What is your point?

6. ...... So asking for empirical evidence is a bad thing? (The only complaint I made was when you were discussing how common descent and speciation are independant of each other... Which has nothing to do with IR... so your post here doesn't logically follow)

7. If you agree with me then what was your point before? (since you were indirectly claiming that natural selection is stronger in nature than in a farm). Therefore my point stands and that farms (with higher selection pressures) still show LIMITATION in the changes that occur in the livestock.

Yet such matings only occur to some animals, and there is always the chance of rape.. thus not 100% like a farm

8. I honestly didn't see them so I take your offense as unwarranted, which post are they at so I know where to look.

#39 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 18 February 2012 - 11:33 AM

There has never been an observation of a single revolution of Pluto around the Sun either. You really underestimate the role inference plays in all science, not just evolution or historical sciences.


Yes there has. How do we know it exists? Because we can observe it through telescopes and we can see it's changing orbit.

#40 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 18 February 2012 - 04:27 PM

the discovery of pluto
http://www.universet...scovered-pluto/

its affects were observed by a wobble on another planet. so thats hardly inference. so they began to look to see what caused it and observed it and named it pluto.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users