Jump to content


Photo

A Wasteful "necessity"?

purpose of evolution

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

#41 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 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 - 09:30 PM

Furthermore the scientific method only allows for inference in the HYPOTHESIS, (not in the evidence / testing itself).

http://teacher.nsrl..../AppendixE.html

"As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories.

As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day.

Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way."



This is exactly why I claim that evolution is not scientific, as it doesn't follow the scientific method. Hence inference based "science" without experimentation is simply pseudoscience.

#42 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 20 February 2012 - 03:13 PM

@Gilbo

I think we've been misunderstanding each other. The point I've been making isn't that microevolution and macroevolution come down to the same thing (well, I probably said something to that effect in an early post but it wasn't my main point. That'll teach me: I'll try to stay more focused in the future). My point is that you've been using "evolution" to mean "macroevolution" when that is not what the word means. "Evolution" in its scientific sense means both microevolution and macroevolution, as the definitions you posted showed. Kind of like "mass" means both "inertial mass" and "gravitational mass", even though the two aren't necessarily the same thing (in Newtonian mechanics at least) (by "not necessarily" I don't mean there are cases where they are different; I mean it isn't a theoretical necessity that they be the same thing). There could be arguments to be made about whether inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same thing and how they're related, but the word "mass" still refers to both (or either).

That said I'll answer a few of your other questions since you feel I haven't addressed them at all. But they're general questions that have been asked a thousand times so I don't expect rehashing them much further will be very interesting; odds are I'll leave you with the last word after this.

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


Are you referring to this ?

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....

The problem, as I said in my original response to this, is that "new information" has nothing whatsoever to do with how species are defined (which is either reproductive isolation, or degrees of DNA/morphological similarity), so as written that question made no sense. But I see that didn't satisfy you, probably because it isn't really the "species" part you're interested in but the "new information" part, so I'll address that.

First, I'm afraid I don't see where you showed logically that adding new information to the genome is impossible. That previous paragraph merely asserts it and asks for evidence to the contrary. Would you mind pointing me to where you showed it ?

In the meantime, again I said this in my response to an earlier post but I'll try to be more explicit here. Take a gene. Take a gene duplication; that's a form of mutation. We now have two genes that are the same (this can have actual effects on the organism, beneficial or deleterious, but it doesn't add "new" genes per se), where before we had one. Now in a later generation, have a point mutation on one of the two genes (or several on both over several generations, point being they're different mutations). We now have two different genes. Where a few generations ago we had only one.
In what sense is that not a new gene, or new information ? And how is it logically impossible ?

(as for the post #20, I'm afraid I don't see which part of it you're referring to)


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)

So I'm realizing. I was disputing from the start your specific statement that microevolution wasn't part of evolution. If you had added "when macroevolution is concerned" from the start I wouldn't have had a problem. Even better would have been to say "macroevolution" instead of "evolution" since they're not synonymous.

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).

I wasn't claiming that at all, hence the "no". You were showing examples of where breeding by selecting for a few traits with no concern for viability results in non-viable individuals, and proposed them as examples of limits on evolution. But natural selection doesn't select with no concern for viability, so that particular problem doesn't apply to it. That doesn't make it stronger than artificial selection. It isn't a matter of "strength" at all.

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.

Those links to "sites" you told me were against forum rules. With the name of the paper written out in case the links didn't work.

#43 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 20 February 2012 - 03:41 PM

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

I said "a single revolution of Pluto around the Sun". i.e. Pluto completing a full turn around the Sun. That has never been observed. Mostly because there hasn't been one since Pluto's discovery. We know it does go around the Sun, and we even know its trajectory and how long it takes to do so, because we have a good underlying theory of how heavenly bodies move and we can extrapolate its whole orbit from a few observations and some maths.
Similarly we've got maths that show that under most conditions alleles either reach fixation or die out, and being advantageous, neutral or deleterious merely changes the odds of that happening. Those maths don't require "macro evolution", by the way.

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.

Actually that's exactly what I'd call inference so I'm a bit confused here. People observed wobbles in the orbit of Uranus, and deduced from those observations and pre-existing theory (here, Newtonian mechanics), that there must be another planet out there. If that isn't inference I don't know what is. And in fact that inference was wrong; they were right when they did that inference and discovered Neptune, but then when there was still an unaccounted-for wobble in Uranus' orbit they looked for a new planet, and when they found Pluto they thought that was the one but it turned out its mass is way too small to affect Uranus that way. In the end it turned out they'd gotten Neptune's mass wrong.

You know they did the same thing with Mercury; there was an anomaly in its orbit, and they inferred there must be another planet inside its orbit too. Except there wasn't, in that case it was Newton's theory that was wrong.
  • jason likes this

#44 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 20 February 2012 - 05:40 PM

@Gilbo

I think we've been misunderstanding each other. The point I've been making isn't that microevolution and macroevolution come down to the same thing (well, I probably said something to that effect in an early post but it wasn't my main point. That'll teach me: I'll try to stay more focused in the future). My point is that you've been using "evolution" to mean "macroevolution" when that is not what the word means. "Evolution" in its scientific sense means both microevolution and macroevolution, as the definitions you posted showed. Kind of like "mass" means both "inertial mass" and "gravitational mass", even though the two aren't necessarily the same thing (in Newtonian mechanics at least) (by "not necessarily" I don't mean there are cases where they are different; I mean it isn't a theoretical necessity that they be the same thing). There could be arguments to be made about whether inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same thing and how they're related, but the word "mass" still refers to both (or either).

That said I'll answer a few of your other questions since you feel I haven't addressed them at all. But they're general questions that have been asked a thousand times so I don't expect rehashing them much further will be very interesting; odds are I'll leave you with the last word after this.



Are you referring to this ?

The problem, as I said in my original response to this, is that "new information" has nothing whatsoever to do with how species are defined (which is either reproductive isolation, or degrees of DNA/morphological similarity), so as written that question made no sense. But I see that didn't satisfy you, probably because it isn't really the "species" part you're interested in but the "new information" part, so I'll address that.

First, I'm afraid I don't see where you showed logically that adding new information to the genome is impossible. That previous paragraph merely asserts it and asks for evidence to the contrary. Would you mind pointing me to where you showed it ?

In the meantime, again I said this in my response to an earlier post but I'll try to be more explicit here. Take a gene. Take a gene duplication; that's a form of mutation. We now have two genes that are the same (this can have actual effects on the organism, beneficial or deleterious, but it doesn't add "new" genes per se), where before we had one. Now in a later generation, have a point mutation on one of the two genes (or several on both over several generations, point being they're different mutations). We now have two different genes. Where a few generations ago we had only one.
In what sense is that not a new gene, or new information ? And how is it logically impossible ?

(as for the post #20, I'm afraid I don't see which part of it you're referring to)



So I'm realizing. I was disputing from the start your specific statement that microevolution wasn't part of evolution. If you had added "when macroevolution is concerned" from the start I wouldn't have had a problem. Even better would have been to say "macroevolution" instead of "evolution" since they're not synonymous.


I wasn't claiming that at all, hence the "no". You were showing examples of where breeding by selecting for a few traits with no concern for viability results in non-viable individuals, and proposed them as examples of limits on evolution. But natural selection doesn't select with no concern for viability, so that particular problem doesn't apply to it. That doesn't make it stronger than artificial selection. It isn't a matter of "strength" at all.


Those links to "sites" you told me were against forum rules. With the name of the paper written out in case the links didn't work.



I asserted it as it was supported from the previous premises. For there to be new functions there requires new DNA.. Like the evolution of the exoskeleton of insects or the first transitions of a wings of a bird, or lungs in fish.

" 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"
post #27


"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."
post# 29

In order to have a new species macro-evolution needs to occur, and for that to occur you will need dramatic changes in the organisms function hence NEW DNA. This is also based on the observation of the fossils.. In order to go from a bacterial cell to multicellular there requires a mechanism for adding NEW DNA. This mechanism is still unknown despite it being the most important thing in this first change.

Your response to this was
" Why don't you look up a definition of "species" in a biology resource of some sort ? I can wait."
post# 30


Ok if you admit that "changes in allele frequency over time" does not lead to macro evolution, pray tell why you think evolutionists would try and make the two the same?... (Intellectual dishonesty perhaps? )

Then what was the point of this,

"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."
post# 31

I was saying that since we observe limitation in farms that have a stronger selection that nature ever would have, (the ability to pick and choose who mates who based on their performance and structure type, as according to the farmers whims). Hence if we see limitation where stronger selection is concerned then we would also see it (more so) when weaker (natural) selection is concerned. This is based on logic, from the observations from farms. That was my entire point, to refute this you would need to either
i) claim that natural selection is "stronger" hence has no limitations like domesticated selection
ii) show how there is no limits in nature (there is no proof there isn't, whereas our evidence from farms suggest there is indeed)


Where did I say that posting links was against forum rules, you said I missed your links and I asked in which post will I find them. I don't see why you can't just tell me which post to look at to see them, as I seem to keep missing them.

I probably said something to the effect of, answering a person JUST with a link is against the forum rules. I can't speak for the mods and admin, but I get the sense that they prefer it when people actually write stuff and put their own views of the link. It all comes down to fairness, how would you like to spend 3 hours on a post (I don't take that long, but lets assume 3 hours), only for me to post up a link and claim that I've debunked your post... That would probably annoy you yes?

Hence yes you are allowed to post links, just not as only thing in the post. Please show me the post if I have said otherwise.

#45 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 20 February 2012 - 07:47 PM

I asserted it as it was supported from the previous premises. For there to be new functions there requires new DNA.. Like the evolution of the exoskeleton of insects or the first transitions of a wings of a bird, or lungs in fish.

" 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"
post #27


"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."
post# 29

In order to have a new species macro-evolution needs to occur, and for that to occur you will need dramatic changes in the organisms function hence NEW DNA. This is also based on the observation of the fossils.. In order to go from a bacterial cell to multicellular there requires a mechanism for adding NEW DNA. This mechanism is still unknown despite it being the most important thing in this first change.

Your response to this was
" Why don't you look up a definition of "species" in a biology resource of some sort ? I can wait."
post# 30

Actually not quite, my first response to this line of argument was in post# 28,
""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"."


You'll excuse me for not thinking I needed to explain the definition of species twice to someone who's studying in a biology-related field.


Ok if you admit that "changes in allele frequency over time" does not lead to macro evolution, pray tell why you think evolutionists would try and make the two the same?... (Intellectual dishonesty perhaps? )

I admit no such thing. Just because something isn't the main point I'm making at a given time doesn't mean I disagree with it. It just means I'm not frittering away my time and attention on unrelated stuff... something I'm sorry to say I completely failed at here.

Then what was the point of this,

"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."
post# 31

The point of this is the same thing I said in the very post you're replying to, is that your example doesn't apply to natural selection. It "isn't something that's relevant to" it. This has nothing to do with one form of selection being stronger than another, it's about what's selected for. Natural selection selects for viability. Extreme artificial selection for a few superficial traits doesn't. Therefore, natural selection doesn't result in non-viable individuals the same way artificial selection can. Thus, that particular limit applies to thoughtless artificial selection but not to natural selection.

Where did I say that posting links was against forum rules, you said I missed your links and I asked in which post will I find them. I don't see why you can't just tell me which post to look at to see them, as I seem to keep missing them.

Post# 17.

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.

Which was a response to post# 14. In which I did not, as a matter of fact, answer "JUST with a link". And the only reason I had so many papers in that post was that because that was what you specifically asked for in the post I was responding to.

#46 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 20 February 2012 - 08:22 PM

Actually not quite, my first response to this line of argument was in post# 28,
""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"."


You'll excuse me for not thinking I needed to explain the definition of species twice to someone who's studying in a biology-related field.



I admit no such thing. Just because something isn't the main point I'm making at a given time doesn't mean I disagree with it. It just means I'm not frittering away my time and attention on unrelated stuff... something I'm sorry to say I completely failed at here.


The point of this is the same thing I said in the very post you're replying to, is that your example doesn't apply to natural selection. It "isn't something that's relevant to" it. This has nothing to do with one form of selection being stronger than another, it's about what's selected for. Natural selection selects for viability. Extreme artificial selection for a few superficial traits doesn't. Therefore, natural selection doesn't result in non-viable individuals the same way artificial selection can. Thus, that particular limit applies to thoughtless artificial selection but not to natural selection.


Post# 17.

Which was a response to post# 14. In which I did not, as a matter of fact, answer "JUST with a link". And the only reason I had so many papers in that post was that because that was what you specifically asked for in the post I was responding to.

Actually not quite, my first response to this line of argument was in post# 28,
""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"."


You'll excuse me for not thinking I needed to explain the definition of species twice to someone who's studying in a biology-related field.



I admit no such thing. Just because something isn't the main point I'm making at a given time doesn't mean I disagree with it. It just means I'm not frittering away my time and attention on unrelated stuff... something I'm sorry to say I completely failed at here.


The point of this is the same thing I said in the very post you're replying to, is that your example doesn't apply to natural selection. It "isn't something that's relevant to" it. This has nothing to do with one form of selection being stronger than another, it's about what's selected for. Natural selection selects for viability. Extreme artificial selection for a few superficial traits doesn't. Therefore, natural selection doesn't result in non-viable individuals the same way artificial selection can. Thus, that particular limit applies to thoughtless artificial selection but not to natural selection.


Post# 17.

Which was a response to post# 14. In which I did not, as a matter of fact, answer "JUST with a link". And the only reason I had so many papers in that post was that because that was what you specifically asked for in the post I was responding to.



There is no definitive definition of species... However you are totally missing my point (are are attempting to debate semantics).

In order to got from bacteria to fish you need DNA that codes for such changes this is evident in how DNA codes for our development, function and upkeep. It doesn't need to be a specific part of the "species concept" since it is already implied. Unless you don't like to logically look at things outside of how evolutionists define them.... Or would you claim that a fish has the same DNA as its bacterial "ancestor".... The fact that organisms have different amounts of chromosomes would beg to differ.

Furthermore the definition of species is indeed undetermined hence why I question why you would worry about such semantics of DNA not being a part of the concept, it could well be, we just don't realise it yet.



So does changes in the represntation of alleles on the same loci turn a fish into a human? You've totally missed my discussion about gene functions. Each gene can have different representations of itself(alleles)- ie- skin colour gene can have different colours, HOWEVER it is still a skin colour gene, that is its function. Hence superficially changing the allele frequency may arrive at different colours however the fundamental function will stay the same. Hence no change in function = no evolution of new organs/ limbs / whatever.

This is a fundamental point and I ask that you read this over and over till you understand, please don't skip over this.




Claiming it isn't relevant shows how long a bow you're taking... You do realise that as part of Darwin's case for evolution he rhetorically considered natural selection with human selection. The only differences that are evident between the two concepts is

i) human selection is many times stronger since there is TOTAL control over every aspect- (especially in the farm I worked at, we controlled pretty much everything and recorded everything about their performance)
ii) natural selection is based on enviromental pressures.

Artificial selection also selects for viability, and you are kidding yourself if you don't think so. Who would want to breed a pig that has a lower lifespan than the rest? Or won't provide the most offspring or higher birth weights, your logic is irrational in this respect. In fact artificial selection would be stronger for viability since only the BEST stock are allowed to breed, whereas in nature it is 100% chance (except for mating systems however rape does occur, contributing to less than 100% control- not like artiificial selection which has 100%), some of the weaker animals can survive when stronger die solely due to bad luck or life circumstances. Obviously you need to think about these a bit more.



Ah yes post 17.. Your "refutation" of IC was posting up some links. I was asking for comments FROM YOU with a few links, not just a few links since that is elephant hurling.

Just because I ask for evidence doesn't mean you can just post links and then claim I asked you to, (that is dishonest). Asking for evidence in a debate is asking for more than just a link-
what part of the link are you refering to? add a quote
what point / points of the quote are you using and how does it fit in? add in explanations.

I had assumed this was self-evident, perhaps I shouldn't assume that.

#47 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 20 February 2012 - 08:46 PM

There is no definitive definition of species... However you are totally missing my point (are are attempting to debate semantics).

Maybe you should use words properly then.
Anyway the following completely ignores my very simple question of how one gene turning into two different genes (not two alleles; if I had meant two alleles I would've said two alleles. Two genes. In different loci) over a few generations isn't a new gene or new information, so I'll ignore it too.

Claiming it isn't relevant shows how long a bow you're taking... You do realise that as part of Darwin's case for evolution he rhetorically considered natural selection with human selection.

Yes. It isn't relevant in the specific context of the specific limit you're talking about, but it's relevant in tons of other contexts. Just no this one.

Artificial selection also selects for viability, and you are kidding yourself if you don't think so. Who would want to breed a pig that has a lower lifespan than the rest?

If it meant it yielded more meat, tons of industrial farmers. And you seem to have already forgotten the bit back when I first responded to your farming example, where I pointed out that artificial selection can perfectly well select for viability too. But that kind doesn't result in the kind of horrors you brought up as a limit to evolution.

Ah yes post 17.. Your "refutation" of IC was posting up some links. I was asking for comments FROM YOU with a few links, not just a few links since that is elephant hurling.

Wrong. Those links were preceded by this :
Irreducible complexity and the increase of information in DNA aren't theoretical problems with evolution – the mechanisms of evolution allow irreducibly complex systems to evolve and “information” in DNA to increase. And I don't know which observed cases of limitation to change you're thinking of. There's a theoretical limit on the amount of change we can expect of observe directly, and that's the amount of time and generations we've been looking. If any other limitations have been reported I'd be glad to look them up.

That said for every specific systems some people bring up as being irreducibly complex and thus “unevolvable” - such as the bacterial flagellum, or the immune system cascade – there are papers out there looking at how those systems could have or did evolve :


Which wasn't a refutation of ID, it was an explanation of why there aren't papers specifically devoted to refuting ID alone - and links that refute ID interpretations of specific systems. Because you'd asked :

I would prefer to see studies done that actually tackle the PROBLEMS with evolution, not to fuss over some semantic detail, and then have countess studies verify the original study (hence it continues on and on).


Problems like-

Irreducible complexity- (cellular systems to organ systems to whole organisms)


i.e. : not a request for a refutation. A question about whether there are studies addressing ID and if not why not.

Just because I ask for evidence doesn't mean you can just post links and then claim I asked you to, (that is dishonest).

You asked to see studies. You asked me to cite some papers. In a thread that was purportedly about scientific publications

I'm done here.

#48 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 20 February 2012 - 09:03 PM

1.Maybe you should use words properly then.

2. Anyway the following completely ignores my very simple question of how one gene turning into two different genes (not two alleles; if I had meant two alleles I would've said two alleles. Two genes. In different loci) over a few generations isn't a new gene or new information,

3. so I'll ignore it too.


4. Yes. It isn't relevant in the specific context of the specific limit you're talking about, but it's relevant in tons of other contexts. Just no this one.


5. If it meant it yielded more meat, tons of industrial farmers. And you seem to have already forgotten the bit back when I first responded to your farming example, where I pointed out that artificial selection can perfectly well select for viability too. But that kind doesn't result in the kind of horrors you brought up as a limit to evolution.


6. Wrong. Those links were preceded by this :
Irreducible complexity and the increase of information in DNA aren't theoretical problems with evolution – the mechanisms of evolution allow irreducibly complex systems to evolve and “information” in DNA to increase. And I don't know which observed cases of limitation to change you're thinking of. There's a theoretical limit on the amount of change we can expect of observe directly, and that's the amount of time and generations we've been looking. If any other limitations have been reported I'd be glad to look them up.

That said for every specific systems some people bring up as being irreducibly complex and thus “unevolvable” - such as the bacterial flagellum, or the immune system cascade – there are papers out there looking at how those systems could have or did evolve :


Which wasn't a refutation of ID, it was an explanation of why there aren't papers specifically devoted to refuting ID alone - and links that refute ID interpretations of specific systems. Because you'd asked :

I would prefer to see studies done that actually tackle the PROBLEMS with evolution, not to fuss over some semantic detail, and then have countess studies verify the original study (hence it continues on and on).


Problems like-

Irreducible complexity- (cellular systems to organ systems to whole organisms)


i.e. : not a request for a refutation. A question about whether there are studies addressing ID and if not why not.


You asked to see studies. You asked me to cite some papers. In a thread that was purportedly about scientific publications

I'm done here.


1. Dude, there is no clear definition hence there is no "proper" use of it, as I said this is a distraction from my main point. YOU were the one who started worrying about the definition of species etc.

2. Its not my job to show how new genes came about, you are the evolutionist not I. I'm just showing you how life works and operates and that you do need new DNA to have new functions.

3. Not unlike before, since I need to keep repeating myself

4. How so, just saying it is so doesn't make it so. Darwin compared the two, so can I.

5. .... So you admit that you've contradicted yourself?

"And you seem to have already forgotten the bit back when I first responded to your farming example, where I pointed out that artificial selection can perfectly well select for viability too."

"Natural selection selects for viability. Extreme artificial selection for a few superficial traits doesn't. Therefore, natural selection doesn't result in non-viable individuals the same way artificial selection can. Thus, that particular limit applies to thoughtless artificial selection but not to natural selection." post #46

You do realise that the "superficial traits" imposed are those of selecting for viability, (which is what I said before... another thing you may have ignored), numbers born, total birthweight, average birthweight, number of teats available (for rearing), body mass, body structure- leg structure (bent for better leaping for mating, but not too bend as leads to leg problems), other body structure traits, etc etc etc.



6. yes I know you said stuff.. But as you acknowledged it wasn't pertaining to what I was asking for. Saying why there are no papers isn't showing any arguments, nor is citing papers with no reference to what you want out of them.

As I said it is "hurling elephants", do you expect me to waste my time going through an entire paper for a few paragraphs you could have easily have posted on here with a short summary as to why you feel it is a good refutation etc. Or perhaps draw from a few papers and make up your own logical conclusion, that is what science is all about, looking at evidence and drawing conclusions.

It is also a good way to make people representative of what they claim, if I had went through those papers and found flaws you can easily back away stating that you didn't know and that you didn't write that. Getting you to actually write things means that you are accountable for what you write and claim

#49 Nash

Nash

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Harare

Posted 21 February 2012 - 03:25 AM

I doubt if proving that there IS actually a creator will change the evolutionist pov. Evolutionists have ALREADY made up their minds about what they consider truth.

#50 Nash

Nash

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Harare

Posted 21 February 2012 - 03:26 AM

I doubt if proving that there IS actually a creator will change the evolutionist pov. Evolutionists have ALREADY made up their minds about what they consider truth.

#51 jason

jason

    Member

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

Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:15 AM

I said "a single revolution of Pluto around the Sun". i.e. Pluto completing a full turn around the Sun. That has never been observed. Mostly because there hasn't been one since Pluto's discovery. We know it does go around the Sun, and we even know its trajectory and how long it takes to do so, because we have a good underlying theory of how heavenly bodies move and we can extrapolate its whole orbit from a few observations and some maths.
Similarly we've got maths that show that under most conditions alleles either reach fixation or die out, and being advantageous, neutral or deleterious merely changes the odds of that happening. Those maths don't require "macro evolution", by the way.


Actually that's exactly what I'd call inference so I'm a bit confused here. People observed wobbles in the orbit of Uranus, and deduced from those observations and pre-existing theory (here, Newtonian mechanics), that there must be another planet out there. If that isn't inference I don't know what is. And in fact that inference was wrong; they were right when they did that inference and discovered Neptune, but then when there was still an unaccounted-for wobble in Uranus' orbit they looked for a new planet, and when they found Pluto they thought that was the one but it turned out its mass is way too small to affect Uranus that way. In the end it turned out they'd gotten Neptune's mass wrong.

You know they did the same thing with Mercury; there was an anomaly in its orbit, and they inferred there must be another planet inside its orbit too. Except there wasn't, in that case it was Newton's theory that was wrong.

no, with the toe its look at the evidence from a its already fact, whereas this is lets see we see an effect and what caused it and hypothesised and then tested it to be true

darwin said it best for giblo to counter..

if my theory can be shown by the fossil reccord to have support then it will fail. that isnt science,the fossil record show this pattern and therefore this is the best explanation.darwin already believed his books instead of stating that he believed what the evidence pointed too.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users