Jump to content


Photo

Do You Understand Evolution Quizzes


  • Please log in to reply
98 replies to this topic

#81 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 26 June 2017 - 07:39 AM

"i resent being called an atheist dude, and don't call me that again"
 
What would you prefer? an Atheist dudette? or an Atheist babe?
 
ANYWAY,  my post was meant for people who mock Creationists because they believe in "Magic" because they
believe that God created everything in 6 days.. I guess if the shoe fits, then you might consider wearing it as well..

you have to admit that i have a fairly open mind when it comes to ID vs "a natural occurrence".
but the question isn't about how it got here, which is certainly important, but one of how does it works.
a mechanic isn't concerned about which assembly line a car is manufactured at, but how it works and why.
yes, god could have created all life, but that does not negate the questions of how it works.
this is what evolution should attempt to address.

#82 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 624 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 26 June 2017 - 08:36 AM

"i resent being called an atheist dude, and don't call me that again" What would you prefer? an Atheist dudette? or an Atheist babe? ANYWAY,  my post was meant for people who mock Creationists because they believe in "Magic" because theybelieve that God created everything in 6 days.. I guess if the shoe fits, then you might consider wearing it as well..

you have to admit that i have a fairly open mind when it comes to ID vs "a natural occurrence".but the question isn't about how it got here, which is certainly important, but one of how does it works.a mechanic isn't concerned about which assembly line a car is manufactured at, but how it works and why.yes, god could have created all life, but that does not negate the questions of how it works.this is what evolution should attempt to address.


"but the question isn't about how it got here,"

It isn't?? I thought it was.. Silly of me.



"that does not negate the questions of how it works.this is what evolution should attempt to address."

But as you have been clearly shown here, "Evolution" cant "Address" ANYTHING because it is a non existent myth, a Science Fiction Novel about long ago and far away that has no basis in reality whatsoever.. It is not seen today, it is not seen in the "fossil record" and it is worse than a comic book as no one can even make cartoon drawings to show an ORDER for our vital organs.. In fact I think that the name of this website you are on right now describes it perfectly..


"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extant that it's been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious a hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."

(Malcolm Muggeridge)

#83 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 26 June 2017 - 02:08 PM

"but the question isn't about how it got here,"

It isn't?? I thought it was.. Silly of me.

uh blitz, you forgot the qualifier which is, "which is certainly important, . . ."

"that does not negate the questions of how it works.this is what evolution should attempt to address."

But as you have been clearly shown here, "Evolution" cant "Address" ANYTHING because it is a non existent myth, a Science Fiction Novel about long ago and far away that has no basis in reality whatsoever.. It is not seen today, it is not seen in the "fossil record" and it is worse than a comic book as no one can even make cartoon drawings to show an ORDER for our vital organs.. In fact I think that the name of this website you are on right now describes it perfectly..

it certainly no myth that the cell is pulling off feats of "genetic engineering"

Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious a hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."

(Malcolm Muggeridge)

oh, it has help, in the form of contrived evidence, and the outright dismissal of valid competing evidence.
keep in mind i'm basically referring to darwinism, and more specifically to the modern synthesis.

#84 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 624 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 26 June 2017 - 06:12 PM

 

"but the question isn't about how it got here,"

It isn't?? I thought it was.. Silly of me.

uh blitz, you forgot the qualifier which is, "which is certainly important, . . ."

"that does not negate the questions of how it works.this is what evolution should attempt to address."

But as you have been clearly shown here, "Evolution" cant "Address" ANYTHING because it is a non existent myth, a Science Fiction Novel about long ago and far away that has no basis in reality whatsoever.. It is not seen today, it is not seen in the "fossil record" and it is worse than a comic book as no one can even make cartoon drawings to show an ORDER for our vital organs.. In fact I think that the name of this website you are on right now describes it perfectly..

it certainly no myth that the cell is pulling off feats of "genetic engineering"

Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious a hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."

(Malcolm Muggeridge)

oh, it has help, in the form of contrived evidence, and the outright dismissal of valid competing evidence.
keep in mind i'm basically referring to darwinism, and more specifically to the modern synthesis.

 

 

"it certainly no myth that the cell is pulling off feats of "genetic engineering"

 

YES, But you CANT have Engineering without an ENGINEER!! (Intelligence agent)

 

"The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation."

(Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology



#85 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

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

Posted 27 June 2017 - 03:53 AM

yes, i'm confident that most biologists don't believe phyla had it's own abiogenesis event, but this is apparently only an assumption.


I'm not sure what you mean by that, would you say all phylogenies are only assumptions?
 

correct, koonin says phyla arrived here radially, then proceeded to "evolve" by bifurcation.
there are some serious questions about all of this though.
first is, the cell apparently hasn't undergone much evolution since.
evolution, the acquisition of new information.
the overwhelming amount of evolution appears to be the rearrangement of information the cell already has


Right, but that has nothing to do with the question of whether different animal phyla descended from a common ancestor or independent abiogenesis events.

As an aside though, I heard recently that the ribosome varies quite a bit across life including within Eukaryotes, and its size tracks somewhat with the usually-considered-naïve view of "complexity" that humans are at the top of, which surprised me a lot for such a basic component of cell metabolism. If true that has fascinating implications for what we mean by "complexity" and the relationship between such high-level macroscopic features and the internal workings of the cells involved.

 

how can a pool be equated to a single source?


It depends on context to be sure, in this case I am talking about every member of the pool at the moment of the "Biological Big Bang event" descending from an earlier common ancestor. In the case of Koonin's hypothesis, given those events are proposed as happening in between phases of descent with modification, that is a necessary feature of the members of said pool. Otherwise the hypothesis would not match the observed phylogenetic signals (for example, animals and plants might not constitute different clades).
 

what is equally clear is, manuscripts such as koonins are often revised to remove all parallels to ID.
something for you to think about.


I don't really see the relevance of ID to this specific question; animal phyla could be intelligently designed and derive from a common ancestor or independent abiogenesis events, and vice-versa.

But are you saying that Koonin's published works aren't representative of his opinions? Are there other sources I should be looking at where he disputes the ability in principle of molecular phylogenies to relate to actual descent patterns? As far as I can tell the articles describing his BBB hypothesis rely on the validity and reliability of molecular phylogenies: they posit that a lack of tree-like pattern in molecular phylogenies is caused by a non-treelike pattern of historical descent. This argument links phylogeny to history and actual descent patterns more strongly than the "the historical tree pattern could be obfuscated by other factors in the molecular phylogeny" argument they object to does.
 



#86 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 27 June 2017 - 06:08 AM

I'm not sure what you mean by that, would you say all phylogenies are only assumptions?

no.
i meant it's an assumption that most biologists believe this.
due to the nature of what evolution has become, you can be sure most biologists will keep their mouth shut concerning such matters.
 

It depends on context to be sure, in this case I am talking about every member of the pool at the moment of the "Biological Big Bang event" descending from an earlier common ancestor. In the case of Koonin's hypothesis, given those events are proposed as happening in between phases of descent with modification, that is a necessary feature of the members of said pool. Otherwise the hypothesis would not match the observed phylogenetic signals (for example, animals and plants might not constitute different clades).

i believe a good way to sort this out would be the analysis of type 1 transposons (retro transposons)
if phyla did indeed descend from a pool of organisms, then i believe each phyla will have basically the same type 1 transposons.
if each phyla had its own abiogenesis event, then each phyla will have difference type 1 transposons.

one thing is sure, if we did arise from a pool of organisms during the BBE, then this pretty well proves epigenetics, transposons, and regulatory networks was operational at the time of eukaryote super groups.
i see no other way that BBE could happen in a short period of time.
before you start with an arguement, keep in mind that koonin says (and gives references for) that current estimates for the cambrian explosion are unreliable.
 

I don't really see the relevance of ID to this specific question; animal phyla could be intelligently designed and derive from a common ancestor or independent abiogenesis events, and vice-versa.

But are you saying that Koonin's published works aren't representative of his opinions?

yes and no.
in koonins first draft of this paper, koonin uses the phrase "ready made" in reference to the arrival of animal phyla and was called on the carpet for it because it "alludes to ID".
no, i do not believe koonin is "arguing for a god", but was simply stating the facts
the thing that concerns me the most about all of this is, we could miss a very important law of evolution by doing such things.
the facts are:
animal phyla arrived here leaving no discernable pathway to its ancestors, and the mainstream explanation remains controversial and elusive.

As far as I can tell the articles describing his BBB hypothesis rely on the validity and reliability of molecular phylogenies: they posit that a lack of tree-like pattern in molecular phylogenies is caused by a non-treelike pattern of historical descent. This argument links phylogeny to history and actual descent patterns more strongly than the "the historical tree pattern could be obfuscated by other factors in the molecular phylogeny" argument they object to does.

there is NO EVIDENCE that animal phyla descended from one another, there are NO transitionals between animal phyla.
koonin explicitly states this.

#87 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

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

Posted 27 June 2017 - 09:29 AM

i meant it's an assumption that most biologists believe this.


Okay. That still leaves my question of what "this" includes: do you think it's an assumption that most biologists believe animal phyla had a common ancestor, or is it an assumption that most biologists believe any phylogeny is valid/reflects actual historical relationships?
 

i believe a good way to sort this out would be the analysis of type 1 transposons (retro transposons)
if phyla did indeed descend from a pool of organisms, then i believe each phyla will have basically the same type 1 transposons.
if each phyla had its own abiogenesis event, then each phyla will have difference type 1 transposons.


Why transposons, as opposed to any other genetic or physical marker?
 

 

As far as I can tell the articles describing his BBB hypothesis rely on the validity and reliability of molecular phylogenies: they posit that a lack of tree-like pattern in molecular phylogenies is caused by a non-treelike pattern of historical descent. This argument links phylogeny to history and actual descent patterns more strongly than the "the historical tree pattern could be obfuscated by other factors in the molecular phylogeny" argument they object to does.

there is NO EVIDENCE that animal phyla descended from one another, there are NO transitionals between animal phyla.
koonin explicitly states this.

 


I don't see what that reply has to do with the section you quoted, and it doesn't answer the question I asked just before that paragraph that you didn't quote: Are there other sources I should be looking at where [Koonin] disputes the ability in principle of molecular phylogenies to relate to actual descent patterns?.

That goes back to the first question in this post; I haven't figured out yet whether you have a specific opinion about animal phyla but think phylogenetics are valid in general, or if you disagree with phylogenetics overall and your opinion about animal phyla follows from that. It makes a huge difference in understanding your position.



#88 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 27 June 2017 - 11:05 AM

Okay. That still leaves my question of what "this" includes: do you think it's an assumption that most biologists believe animal phyla had a common ancestor, or is it an assumption that most biologists believe any phylogeny is valid/reflects actual historical relationships?

it's simply unknown whether animal phyla had a common ancestor.
the best science has been able to do is say "there were eukaryote super groups, then there was animal phyla"
this process left no intermediates (no transitionals)
to use your words, it left no history.
 

Why transposons, as opposed to any other genetic or physical marker?

i don't think there are any other "markers" other than the 2% that make up the kernel of phyla. 

I don't see what that reply has to do with the section you quoted, and it doesn't answer the question I asked just before that paragraph that you didn't quote: Are there other sources I should be looking at where [Koonin] disputes the ability in principle of molecular phylogenies to relate to actual descent patterns?.

there is no evidence at all for the "descent" of animal phyla.
they apparently arrived simultaneously from the same source, in this case eukaryote super groups.
i have no idea what could have triggered this event.
my first thought would be a massive HGT event, and that may be pretty close.
the nucleation of eukaryotes might have been that trigger.
i haven't run across any real explanation for it.

That goes back to the first question in this post; I haven't figured out yet whether you have a specific opinion about animal phyla but think phylogenetics are valid in general, or if you disagree with phylogenetics overall and your opinion about animal phyla follows from that. It makes a huge difference in understanding your position.

my opinion about animal phyla is that they arrived here simultaneously from a group of cells.
they did not descend from one another.

#89 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

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

Posted 27 June 2017 - 12:10 PM

 

Okay. That still leaves my question of what "this" includes: do you think it's an assumption that most biologists believe animal phyla had a common ancestor, or is it an assumption that most biologists believe any phylogeny is valid/reflects actual historical relationships?

it's simply unknown whether animal phyla had a common ancestor.
the best science has been able to do is say "there were eukaryote super groups, then there was animal phyla"
this process left no intermediates (no transitionals)
to use your words, it left no history.

 


I don't understand why you aren't answering my question. If you can't or won't answer it, can you at least tell me why?
 

 

Why transposons, as opposed to any other genetic or physical marker?

i don't think there are any other "markers" other than the 2% that make up the kernel of phyla.

 


What 2%? 2% of what? I am finding your posts increasingly difficult to understand.

Regardless, if transposons are the only things that can indicate relatedness, what is it about them that means they indicate relatedness?
 

 

I don't see what that reply has to do with the section you quoted, and it doesn't answer the question I asked just before that paragraph that you didn't quote: Are there other sources I should be looking at where [Koonin] disputes the ability in principle of molecular phylogenies to relate to actual descent patterns?.

there is no evidence at all for the "descent" of animal phyla.
they apparently arrived simultaneously from the same source, in this case eukaryote super groups.
i have no idea what could have triggered this event.
my first thought would be a massive HGT event, and that may be pretty close.
the nucleation of eukaryotes might have been that trigger.
i haven't run across any real explanation for it.

 


Again, this paragraph has no relationship that I can discern to the quote it's apparently responding to. Do you even notice? If you disagree, would you care to explain the link between the two?
I'm interested in a two-way conversation. If you cannot provide that then I won't play wall indefinitely.
 

 

That goes back to the first question in this post; I haven't figured out yet whether you have a specific opinion about animal phyla but think phylogenetics are valid in general, or if you disagree with phylogenetics overall and your opinion about animal phyla follows from that. It makes a huge difference in understanding your position.

my opinion about animal phyla is that they arrived here simultaneously from a group of cells.
they did not descend from one another.

 


Again, not an answer to the question asked.



#90 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 27 June 2017 - 12:42 PM

it is simply unknown if animal phyla had a common ancestor, it's irrelevant what biologists believe.
there is more than one interpretation to "common descent" data.

regarding transposons:
if phyla had a unique origin, then there will also be a relatively unique group of retro transposons for that group.
i believe eukaryote super groups will share the same type 1 transposons (makes sense in the light of common descent).
so will animal phyla.
IOW, if phyla "gelled" from this group, then ALL phyla will have almost the same retro transposons.

the c-value paradox seems to discredit common descent, because i believe such massive HGT events in eukaryotes is not possible.

does THIS answer your question?

#91 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 27 June 2017 - 01:10 PM

Results: We devised a computational experiment on a concatenated alignment of universally conserved proteins
which shows that the purported demonstration of the universal common ancestry is a trivial consequence of
significant sequence similarity between the analyzed proteins. The nature and origin of this similarity are irrelevant
for the prediction of “common ancestry” of by the model-comparison approach. Thus, homology (common origin)
of the compared proteins remains an inference from sequence similarity rather than an independent property
demonstrated by the likelihood analysis.

Conclusion: A formal demonstration of the Universal Common Ancestry hypothesis has not been achieved and is
unlikely to be feasible in principle. Nevertheless, the evidence in support of this hypothesis provided by
comparative genomics is overwhelming.
- Koonin and Wolf Biology Direct 2010, 5:64

in my opinion, a large part of this "overwhelming evidence" is the fact that all life is DNA based.

#92 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

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

Posted 27 June 2017 - 01:16 PM

it is simply unknown if animal phyla had a common ancestor, it's irrelevant what biologists believe.
there is more than one interpretation to "common descent" data.

regarding transposons:
if phyla had a unique origin, then there will also be a relatively unique group of retro transposons for that group.
i believe eukaryote super groups will share the same type 1 transposons (makes sense in the light of common descent).
so will animal phyla.

does THIS answer your question?

 

No, it doesn't. There were two main questions in my last post; that comment answers one of the two but not at all at the level of detail I was asking for, and doesn't answer the other one (the more important one at that) at all. I mean, I could interpret it into being an answer but I'm not comfortable speculating about other people's positions based on one possible interpretation of what they said. Not when there's a basic either/or question they could have answered that would make things much clearer.

 

It seems to me you're reading my posts too quickly or you think you already know what they're asking and so you read that into them; that or you're reading my posts, making various mental connections based on them and then answering based on those mental connections instead of what's written. I know I do that all the time so I don't hold it against others when they do the same. In this conversation in particular I'm sure I could be clearer. When I misread people in a conversation I often work it out myself after I take a deep breath, go back and make an effort to read the conversation carefully as an outsider might.

 

In this case since I'm the one claiming there's an issue and you don't seem to agree we can try and work it out together. Could you maybe write in your own words what you think I was wondering about in this sentence for example, and maybe explain how your answers addressed that:

 

I haven't figured out yet whether you have a specific opinion about animal phyla but think phylogenetics are valid in general, or if you disagree with phylogenetics overall and your opinion about animal phyla follows from that. It makes a huge difference in understanding your position.

 

That way I can see how close what you understood is to what I meant. If it turns out you did understand what I mean then I'm the one who misunderstood your answers, or they were based on mental connections I didn't follow, so your explanation of how your answer relates to the question will help me figure that out. Otherwise knowing how my question was misunderstood can help me figure out a way to rephrase it so that what I meant comes across better.



#93 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 27 June 2017 - 02:15 PM

I haven't figured out yet whether you have a specific opinion about animal phyla but think phylogenetics are valid in general, or if you disagree with phylogenetics overall and your opinion about animal phyla follows from that. It makes a huge difference in understanding your position.

like koonin said "the modern synthesis is gone", which means a large part of its nomenclature is gone with it.
natural selection/ genetic drift, population genetics, all of it.

epigenetics throws up a very big question mark in connection with phylogeny, we can essentially have a different species with a virtually identical DNA structure.
for example:
There is ample evidence showing that phenotypic variations that are independent of variations in DNA sequence, and targeted DNA changes that are guided by epigenetic control systems, are important sources of hereditary variation, and hence can contribute to evolutionary changes. Furthermore, under certain conditions, the mechanisms underlying epigenetic inheritance can also lead to saltational changes that reorganize the epigenome. These discoveries are clearly incompatible with the tenets of the Modern Synthesis, which denied any significant role for Lamarckian and saltational processes.
- Eva Jablonka; Marion J. Lamb , Genet. Mol. Biol. vol.31 no.2 São Paulo 2008

keep in mind that the above IS NOT saying a dinosaur lays an egg with a bird in it.
these changes (if it happened at all) happens over the course of very few generations.
also, the cell must maintain functionality during this process, and this is the reason i proposed the sandbox concept.
my reasoning along these lines must be correct because i rightly reasoned that the cell employs a "restart scenario" to implement these changes which later proved correct.

#94 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

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

Posted 27 June 2017 - 10:19 PM

 

I haven't figured out yet whether you have a specific opinion about animal phyla but think phylogenetics are valid in general, or if you disagree with phylogenetics overall and your opinion about animal phyla follows from that. It makes a huge difference in understanding your position.

like koonin said "the modern synthesis is gone", which means a large part of its nomenclature is gone with it.
natural selection/ genetic drift, population genetics, all of it.

epigenetics throws up a very big question mark in connection with phylogeny, we can essentially have a different species with a virtually identical DNA structure.
for example:
There is ample evidence showing that phenotypic variations that are independent of variations in DNA sequence, and targeted DNA changes that are guided by epigenetic control systems, are important sources of hereditary variation, and hence can contribute to evolutionary changes. Furthermore, under certain conditions, the mechanisms underlying epigenetic inheritance can also lead to saltational changes that reorganize the epigenome. These discoveries are clearly incompatible with the tenets of the Modern Synthesis, which denied any significant role for Lamarckian and saltational processes.
- Eva Jablonka; Marion J. Lamb , Genet. Mol. Biol. vol.31 no.2 São Paulo 2008

keep in mind that the above IS NOT saying a dinosaur lays an egg with a bird in it.
these changes (if it happened at all) happens over the course of very few generations.
also, the cell must maintain functionality during this process, and this is the reason i proposed the sandbox concept.
my reasoning along these lines must be correct because i rightly reasoned that the cell employs a "restart scenario" to implement these changes which later proved correct.

 

 

It's like pulling teeth I swear. None of this is a direct answer to any question I asked. Why do you do this? (this is also a question I would like an answer to btw).

 

Still, in combination with the previous reply I can see you might be giving an indirect answer (one that skips several steps in the conversation): can I infer that one cannot infer relatedness from a phylogenetic relationship? (because epigenetics, but I'd want to know your actual position before being told the reasons you hold it)

 

epigenetics throws up a very big question mark in connection with phylogeny, we can essentially have a different species with a virtually identical DNA structure.

 

Interesting, do you have an example of this?



#95 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 27 June 2017 - 11:16 PM

It's like pulling teeth I swear. None of this is a direct answer to any question I asked. Why do you do this? (this is also a question I would like an answer to btw).

to answer both questions, possibly because you are looking at evolution through the eyes of the modern synthesis.
evolution is a gradually accumulating paradigm, progressing from point A to point B then to point C increasing in complexity, where each succeeding organism is more fit than the last.
and it's wrong.

Still, in combination with the previous reply I can see you might be giving an indirect answer (one that skips several steps in the conversation): can I infer that one cannot infer relatedness from a phylogenetic relationship? (because epigenetics, but I'd want to know your actual position before being told the reasons you hold it)

the only "relatedness" in regards to evolution is in connection with phyla, all members of a particular phyla are related.

Interesting, do you have an example of this?

jablonka and lamb says there is ample evidence for phenotypic changes independent of DNA changes.
this was how epigenetics was discovered in the first place, because of phenotypic changes that did not involve changes in DNA.
this pretty well proves evolution is not a gradual accumulation paradigm.
further research bore out the fact that genomes often evolve with a decreasing fitness, which proves evolution isn't a progressive paradigm.

lynch comes right out and states natural selection is intellectually bankrupt.

my position?
the modern synthesis belongs in a casket at the bottom of the pacific.
there has been very little, if any, "evolution" since the time of eukaryote super groups.
in my opinion, the vast majority of evolution happened from abiogenesis to eukaryote super groups and very little since.

#96 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 624 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 28 June 2017 - 01:46 AM

 

It's like pulling teeth I swear. None of this is a direct answer to any question I asked. Why do you do this? (this is also a question I would like an answer to btw).

to answer both questions, possibly because you are looking at evolution through the eyes of the modern synthesis.
evolution is a gradually accumulating paradigm, progressing from point A to point B then to point C increasing in complexity, where each succeeding organism is more fit than the last.
and it's wrong.

Still, in combination with the previous reply I can see you might be giving an indirect answer (one that skips several steps in the conversation): can I infer that one cannot infer relatedness from a phylogenetic relationship? (because epigenetics, but I'd want to know your actual position before being told the reasons you hold it)

the only "relatedness" in regards to evolution is in connection with phyla, all members of a particular phyla are related.

Interesting, do you have an example of this?

jablonka and lamb says there is ample evidence for phenotypic changes independent of DNA changes.
this was how epigenetics was discovered in the first place, because of phenotypic changes that did not involve changes in DNA.
this pretty well proves evolution is not a gradual accumulation paradigm.
further research bore out the fact that genomes often evolve with a decreasing fitness, which proves evolution isn't a progressive paradigm.

lynch comes right out and states natural selection is intellectually bankrupt.

my position?
the modern synthesis belongs in a casket at the bottom of the pacific.
there has been very little, if any, "evolution" since the time of eukaryote super groups.
in my opinion, the vast majority of evolution happened from abiogenesis to eukaryote super groups and very little since.

 

 

 

"my position?
the modern synthesis belongs in a casket at the bottom of the pacific.
there has been very little, if any, "evolution" since the time of eukaryote super groups.
in my opinion, the vast majority of evolution happened from abiogenesis to eukaryote super groups and very little since."

 

 

 

Sounds like you are slowly coming to the same conclusion that others have been forced to come to after looking at all of the facts and evidence that we observe (Empirical Science)

 

There are Countless Atheists / AbioDarwinists ( that are now FORMER Atheists / AbioDarwinists ) that have been forced to come to the same deduction after looking HONESTLY at what

had to have happened in order for the Big Bang / Spontaneous Generation / Microbe to Man Fantasy to have occurred in reality...  The whole paradigm is a delusion that defies logic.. :kaffeetrinker: 

 

 

"Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator." R.L. Wysong,



#97 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 28 June 2017 - 06:09 AM

"my position?
the modern synthesis belongs in a casket at the bottom of the pacific.
there has been very little, if any, "evolution" since the time of eukaryote super groups.
in my opinion, the vast majority of evolution happened from abiogenesis to eukaryote super groups and very little since."
 
 
 
Sounds like you are slowly coming to the same conclusion that others have been forced to come to after looking at all of the facts and evidence that we observe (Empirical Science)

huh?
check out the very first thread i posted here.
where have you been?

just because the modern synthesis needs fried alive doesn't mean the cell is going to stop doing what it's doing.

#98 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

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

Posted 28 June 2017 - 11:01 AM

to answer both questions, possibly because you are looking at evolution through the eyes of the modern synthesis.
evolution is a gradually accumulating paradigm, progressing from point A to point B then to point C increasing in complexity, where each succeeding organism is more fit than the last.


Nope. If you were trying "to answer both questions" you failed, probably because you didn't understand them because the paradigm you describe didn't inform my questions. I wish learning that you think it did helped me understand where the misunderstanding happens so I could phrase things differently, but it doesn't.
 

the only "relatedness" in regards to evolution is in connection with phyla, all members of a particular phyla are related.


Are you actually saying that phyla are the only taxonomic group that correspond to actual relatedness? So members of a particular genus, family, order or class aren't related? Or do you just mean that "phylum" is the highest taxonomic rank that indicates relatedness?

 

Either way, what criteria do you use to find whether all members of a taxon are related or not?

 

 

jablonka and lamb says there is ample evidence for phenotypic changes independent of DNA changes.


Yes, and "phenotypic changes independent of DNA changes" are very different from "different species having virtually identical DNA structure". The latter is what you claimed existed, and what I'm interested in finding examples of. (the former I already know about, it's standard biology; insofar as there is debate it's in the impact on overall evolutionary processes and history)

I'm also curious though: it sounds like you're saying epigenetics can account for the wide variety of phenotypes in nature because epigenetics mean the same DNA leads to different phenotypes. If so, what accounts for the wide variety of genotypes in nature?

 

my position?


No, not "your position" with no qualifier, i.e. your position on any random question that passes through your head. In that particular quote I wanted to know "your position on whether phylogeny cannot imply relatedness". It's nice you did answer that question higher up (albeit in a very surprising and confusing way that just raised more questions, but that's not bad), because the rest of that paragraph describes a position on a completely different issue that does little to inform the question I was actually asking.
 



#99 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 28 June 2017 - 12:33 PM

the only "relatedness" in regards to evolution is in connection with phyla, all members of a particular phyla are related.


Are you actually saying that phyla are the only taxonomic group that correspond to actual relatedness? So members of a particular genus, family, order or class aren't related? Or do you just mean that "phylum" is the highest taxonomic rank that indicates relatedness?
 
Either way, what criteria do you use to find whether all members of a taxon are related or not?

trust me, i have similar questions concerning koonins paper.
apparently there were eukaryote super groups then there was "animal phyla".
the BBE (cambrian explosion) left no history for this event.
yes, apparently animals that belong to the same phyla are related.
i have no idea what happened to the higher classification of animals, unless of course they are "manufactured" to make it appear the BBE never happened, which is a distinct possibility.
 
 

jablonka and lamb says there is ample evidence for phenotypic changes independent of DNA changes.

Yes, and "phenotypic changes independent of DNA changes" are very different from "different species having virtually identical DNA structure". The latter is what you claimed existed, and what I'm interested in finding examples of.

apparently what these 2 are saying is, there is a disconnect between DNA and phenotypic changes, the structure of DNA is not the cause.
 

I'm also curious though: it sounds like you're saying epigenetics can account for the wide variety of phenotypes in nature because epigenetics mean the same DNA leads to different phenotypes. If so, what accounts for the wide variety of genotypes in nature?

transposon and epigenetics.
by the above 2 processes it isn't hard for me to envision that the exact same DNA can give rise to a vast number of entirely different organisms, all members of that particular phyla, and do so within a very short period of time, possibly less than 200 years, maybe way less.
these 2 processes could easily explain the BBE.
my question is, what triggered it.


 

my position?


No, not "your position" with no qualifier, i.e. your position on any random question that passes through your head. In that particular quote I wanted to know "your position on whether phylogeny cannot imply relatedness". It's nice you did answer that question higher up (albeit in a very surprising and confusing way that just raised more questions, but that's not bad), because the rest of that paragraph describes a position on a completely different issue that does little to inform the question I was actually asking.

it's obvious, due to the processes mentioned above, that 2 organisms can appear to be related, but actually aren't.
also, even with the modern synthesis, phylogeny is inferred, not actually demonstrated.
this is one of the major problems with the modern synthesis, almost all of the data is based on inferences.
specifically:
As Michael Meaney (2001a: 52,58) wrote more than a decade ago: “There are no genetic factors that can be studied independently of the environment ,and there are no environmental factors
that function independently of the genome. At no point in life is the operation of the genome independent of the context in which it functions. ”
Moreover, “environmental events occurring at a later stage of development can alter a developmental trajectory” making meaningless any linear regression studies of
nature and nurture.
Genes are always “genes in context”, context-dependent catalysts of cellular changes, rather “controllers” of developmental progress and direction” (Nijhout, 1990: 444), susceptible to be reversed in their expression by individual’s experiences during development (Champagne and Mashoodh, (2009).
. . .
Paradoxically, it was exactly the completion of the Human
Genome Project that showed that the view of the gene as a discrete
and autonomous agent powerfully leading traits and developmen-
tal processes is more of a fantasy than actually being founded on
scientific evidence, as highlighted by the “missing heritability”
case (Maher,2008). The image of a distinct, particulate gene
marked by “clearly defined boundaries ”and performing just one
job,i.e.,coding for proteins, has been overturned in recent years
(Griffiths and Stotz, 2013: 68; see also Barnes and Dupré,2008;
Keller,2011).
. . .
The more genetic research has gone forward, the
more genomes are seen to “respond in a flexible manner to signals
from a massive regulatory architecture that is, increasingly, the
real focus of research in ‘genetics’” (Griffiths and Stotz, 2013: 2;
see also Barnes and Dupré, 2008; Dupré, 2012).
- meloni, published: 21 May 2014
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00309

the above completely obliterates population genetics analysis.

about genotypes:
from wiki:
The genotype of an organism is the inherited map it carries within its genetic code. Not all organisms with the same genotype look or act the same way because appearance and behavior are modified by environmental and developmental conditions. Likewise, not all organisms that look alike necessarily have the same genotype.
- wiki

the above seems to imply there is a third variable that isn't being considered.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users