Jump to content


Photo

Living Fossils Refute Evolutionist Methodology


  • Please log in to reply
103 replies to this topic

#21 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 24 October 2009 - 12:29 AM

I dont really why you say that... that is the nature of science.  Nobody expects to prove a theory.  No scientific theory will ever be proven.

View Post


Better watch how wide your net is cast.

Many theories have been proven and are no longer theories. Flight was only a theory at one time. Or, are they still guessing it could happen?

#22 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 October 2009 - 06:31 AM

I see your point with your analogy... I misinterpreted it as thinking you were saying the piston driven airplane was more advanced, because the jet-engine powered plane couldn't be used efficiently as a crop duster.  The piston driven airplane just does the job better, because it's slower... It's who's better designed for the niche applied.

Also I have something to say about no Scientific Theory being proven.  The only reason Scientist say this is because they do not believe in Absolutes.  This idea originated by a friend of Albert Einsteins.  This friend was Kurt Godel.  Kurt is the man who defined the Scientific Theory as we know it today as being unprovable.

Ah, but I do not agree with Kurt Godel... who was not an Atheist by the way... I believe in absolutes.  I would like you to know this.  Either something is true, or something is false.

I would also like to say, greeting's Taikoo.

View Post



Hi Scott!

Regarding my analogy, the point of it is that just because some more advanced structure in a living thing is useful to this animal, doesnt mean it would ba an advantage to another.

There are blind cave fish for example, or burrowing rodents that are nearly blind. Why "invest" the energy in good eyes that will never be used?

if something works, and is more successful as is than if it were changed, then its going to stay the same.


i dont really know what you mean by absolutes. Perhaps you could explain. people mean different things when they use words.

so I dont know if i agree or not with what you said about scientific theories.
The very nature of science,tho, is to make observations, to conduct experiments if appropriate and make observations on what happened.

The only "facts' are the data points. "it is a fact that this is the data i got".

A theory ties it together. A theory is ALWAYS open to being falsified. Period; thats how it works.

it may be getting off into metaphysics or something when we talk about 'truth"

2=2=4... that is truth, far as I could say.

The thing about scientific theory tho is that there is no way to ever know if what one has theorized is the final underlying reality. or if it is 99% true and workable, but hre is an exception or a flaw.

There is not going to have been one man who determined that would be how to understand science.


You are probably right that either some is true or its false. I guess the difference between theist and atheist is that theists think they know the truth, or that there is some final arbiter of Truth out there. Atheists dont think there is any way to ever really know.

#23 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 October 2009 - 06:39 AM

Better watch how wide your net is cast.

  Many theories have been proven and are no longer theories.  Flight was only a theory at one time.  Or, are they still guessing it could happen?

View Post



Rather than me trying to explain why you are wrong, i will refer you to a site that explains it better than I can.

Your theory about theories is mistaken, so you will argue more effectively when you have this clear, dont you think so?

http://www.don-linds...on/falsify.html

And of course, there are other sources of info in case you want to study it some more.

#24 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 24 October 2009 - 08:22 AM

Hi jason777

I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that natural selection doesn't operate at all? Because in a static niche with natural selection operating, deleterious mutations will tend not to accumulate, because individuals with them will be less likely to have children.

Also, regarding human evolution, I'm not aware of any evolutionist that proposes humans diverged from ape-like ancestors whilst occupying exactly the same niche. As you rightly point out, this wouldn't make much sense. I believe evolutionists propose the ape-like ancestor population split up to occupy different niches, and then the divergence occurred.

If you have the chance to read over the article I quoted on cephalopod evolution, I believe you may find there are very reasonable, evidence-based conclusions about the long-term evolution of that class of marine invertebrates. So I don't see that the evolution story is just confined to major verterbrates.

Regards
SeeJay

View Post

There are different kinds of deleterious mutations--which are you talking about? Sickle cell is deleterious yet remains in the population. It is an evolutionary dead-end mutation/adaptation in response to malaria.

The point is even though sickle cell is deleterious and shortens life if it is inherited from both parents, it allows people to reproduce. How would these dead end mutations be a step in the pathway of beneficial macro evolution?

#25 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 October 2009 - 08:40 AM

There are different kinds of deleterious mutations--which are you talking about?  Sickle cell is deleterious yet remains in the population.  It is an evolutionary dead-end mutation/adaptation in response to malaria. 

The point is even though sickle cell is deleterious and shortens life if it is inherited from both parents, it allows people to reproduce.  How would these dead end mutations be a step in the pathway of beneficial macro evolution?

View Post


Not all mutations lead anywhere.

But in the how could dept....since we are speculating...

the sickle cell gene as i recall gives 50% of the population carrying it immunity to malaria. 25% no immunity, 25% get sick from the gene itself.

So....the advantage of carrying the gene far outweighs the disadvantage, at least, in pre medicine days.


If an organism doesnt survive at all, it cant do any evolving!
A lot of organisms are on a very narrow 'shelf' and only a slight increase in mortality could lead to its extinction.

Another thing possible is that further modification of the sickle cell gene could make it harmless.

How would a person know that something is 'dead end"? You really dont.

#26 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 24 October 2009 - 09:22 AM

Hi jason777

I agree with you, in the sense that species that go extinct tend to be those that have accumulated lots of deleterious mutations.

Nevertheless, modern observations show that natural selection does strongly weed out deleterious mutations from a population. Some experiments have to deliberately reduce the effect of natural selection to allow deleterious mutations to spread (e.g. by introducing bottlenecks, or decreasing population sizes).

That's why I asked "Are you suggesting that natural selection doesn't operate at all?" There has to be something that removes the deleterious mutations from a population, or they would accumulate at a geometric rate. I assumed that natural selection was the accepted reason for this.

See for example:
Nature 445 (2007) "Direct estimation of per nucleotide and genomic deleterious mutation rates in Drosophila"
Nature 381 (1996) "Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli."
Genetics 151 (1999) "The rate of spontaneous mutation for life-history traits in Caenorhabditis elegans."

Regards
SeeJay

View Post


Although I realize artificial selection does compare with the principles of separation in the theory of speciation as opposed to natural selection, NS is easily inferred from artificial selection in breeding. Along with that we can see close variations between species and infer phenotypical change in related organisms.

At any rate any uneducated farmer from ancient times knew the principle of breeding desired traits into his livestock. That makes natural selection and speciation possible. These observations were written down by Darwin Contemporary Edward Blythe, who wrote this paper 24 years before "The Origin of Species."

I don't think the debate is on whether NS is true, but 1)how much is NS a contributing factor to phenotypical change 2)is it possible for it to be a mechanism for macro evolution.

As for extinction, there are lots of reasons why a species could go extinct. Disease, man (hunting), invasive species, inability to adapt to changing environment, and catastrophe. To say that mutation is the sole factor is tunnel vision.

#27 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 24 October 2009 - 01:25 PM

Not all mutations lead anywhere.

But in the how could dept....since we are speculating...

the sickle cell gene as i recall gives 50% of the population carrying it immunity to malaria.  25% no immunity, 25% get sick from the gene itself.

View Post

I'm not sure on the actual percentages in the population. I do know that if you are heterozygous (Ss) you will have the trait, but if you are homozygous (SS) you will get the sickness. That is where you are getting the 25%, which should theoretically match.

Another thing possible is that further modification of the sickle cell gene could make it harmless.

View Post

Being it is an adaptive response to malaria NS should keep it in the population.

How would a person know that something is 'dead end"?  You really dont.

View Post

Right Health"The distorted red blood cells are shaped like crescents or sickles. These fragile, sickle-shaped cells deliver less oxygen to the body's tissues. They also can clog more easily in small blood vessels, and break into pieces that disrupt blood flow."

Sickle cell is another example closely related to antagonistic pleiotropy, where the genetic system basically "blows up a bridge" to keep the enemy out.

It is not an example of building a new bridge. Macro evolution requires new information to build new things--not the destruction or warping of the original information.

#28 Guest_Curler_*

Guest_Curler_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 October 2009 - 02:50 PM

Sickle cell is another example closely related to antagonistic pleiotropy, where the genetic system basically "blows up a bridge" to keep the enemy out.

It is not an example of building a new bridge. Macro evolution requires new information to build new things--not the destruction or warping of the original information.


Isn't 'macro evolution' simply several stages of micro evolution, the accumulation of mutations leading to easily recognizable difference over time? Like domesticated plants or animals are rather different from the wild species?

In computing, a macro is just a piece of code consisting of a number of small steps, i.e. 'micro'.

What is your opinion about genetic changes like the Caucasian adaptation of light colored skin as opposed to the African black skin, to allow more UV radiation to produce vitamin D? Isn't that an advantageous genetic change?

I am not familiar with any rule that says a mutation needs to be disadvantageous - it may just as well be an advantage. Neutral or positive mutations may become fixed depending on circumstances, negative mutations most likely will be lost for obvious reasons. As far as I know, "Genetic Entropy" is a meaningless term with no scientific foundation. I'd like to know more about GE if you can point to good info about it.

To me, it sounds like a fabricated concept. the term "entropy" has a specific meaning in thermodynamics and I don't see how it applies to genetics.

#29 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 October 2009 - 03:26 PM

I'm not sure on the actual percentages in the population.  I do know that if you are heterozygous (Ss) you will have the trait, but if you are homozygous (SS) you will get the sickness.  That is where you are getting the 25%, which should theoretically match.

Being it is an adaptive response to malaria NS should keep it in the population.
Right Health"The distorted red blood cells are shaped like crescents or sickles. These fragile, sickle-shaped cells deliver less oxygen to the body's tissues. They also can clog more easily in small blood vessels, and break into pieces that disrupt blood flow."

Sickle cell is another example closely related to antagonistic pleiotropy, where the genetic system basically "blows up a bridge" to keep the enemy out. 

It is not an example of building a new bridge.  Macro evolution requires new information to build new things--not the destruction or warping of the original information.

View Post



Blowing up bridges... yes, that is generally why people die from a bacteria or virus that wasnt in itself so bad.

Yes as long as sickle cell is needed to provide immunity to malaria, it will stick around. but there is no obvious reason it could not mutate to a form that still provides immunity without the undesirable side effects.

you speak of 'information". Could you explain what you mean by that?
Also, what you mean by "macroevolution"? They dont talk aobut that in any class i ever took.

#30 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 24 October 2009 - 08:30 PM

Rather than me trying to explain why you are wrong
http://www.don-linds...on/falsify.html


View Post

I am quite familiar with what a theory is and is not. I did look at the site and it gives me no cause for concern. Perhaps you are in error? I know, you find that funny.

Nobody expects to prove a theory.  No scientific theory will ever be proven.


Everybody expects to prove a theory, or at the very least wants to. Many theories are not able to be proven at this point.

Many theories have been proven. It was theorized by many that man could fly through the air. Attempts to prove this theory failed several times. But when science caught up with our dreams, we flew. The theory is now a fact. it is not correct to say they cannot be proven, although, once proved, they are no longer theories. Same as saying that puppy can never lift that log. When that puppy was a 110 pound blonde mutt, he not only lifted it, but demanded I through it into the Colorado so he he could go fetch it.

#31 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 24 October 2009 - 08:39 PM

Blowing up bridges... yes, that is generally why people die from a bacteria or virus that wasnt in itself so bad.

Yes as long as sickle cell is needed to provide immunity to malaria, it will stick around.  but there is no obvious reason it could not mutate to a form that still provides immunity without the undesirable side effects.

you speak of 'information".  Could you explain what you mean by that?
Also, what you mean by "macroevolution"?  They dont talk aobut that in any class i ever took.

View Post

Pardon me or sticking my toe in here, I'm sure AJFcan handle the answer, but I was in the neighborood.
Micro-evolution. Lizards on an island get longer claws, toes etc. becuase the ones with them are beter able to cling to rocks in the tide. Short toed, clawed lizards eat less and their genes pool fades. Longer toes become dominant. No new lizards, just claws, toes, and any genes that were carried along with those traits into dominating the pool. Still just lizards though.

Macro-evolution. New lizard, genetic qualities never seen before. They are still working on how that might occur, but swear it does.

#32 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 24 October 2009 - 09:42 PM

Isn't 'macro evolution' . . .

View Post

To use construction as an example.
Mud was a building material. Formed on frames. Limits of construction size were great. Mud bricks replaced the framed, mud structures and could be made much larger. Micro-evolution. No new material (information)
Technology gives us many advantages over mud because we have information that did not exist, steel etc. Macro-evolution.
Evo's have not identified how this new (not previously existing) information is formed in genes. They just believe it does because we are here as proof.

#33 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 25 October 2009 - 02:16 AM

... I don't think the debate is on whether NS is true, but 1)how much is NS a contributing factor to phenotypical change 2)is it possible for it to be a mechanism for macro evolution.

As for extinction, there are lots of reasons why a species could go extinct.  Disease, man (hunting), invasive species, inability to adapt to changing environment, and catastrophe.    To say that mutation is the sole factor is tunnel vision.

View Post

Thanks AFJ. I agree with you that natural selection is pretty noncontroversial, but I wasn't sure whether others here saw it that way, because of this exchange:

SeeJay: ... in a static niche with natural selection operating, deleterious mutations will tend not to accumulate, because individuals with them will be less likely to have children.

jason777: No seejay,deleterious mutations accumulate in every species until they go extinct.

Now this seemed to me to be simply not accounting for the role of natural selection, so I said (with references): ... modern observations show that natural selection does strongly weed out deleterious mutations from a population.

I also agreed with jason777 that in species that go extinct, deleterious mutations tend to have been accumulating. I did not state or intend to imply that deleterious mutations accumulating is the sole cause for extinction; however, if that is what jason777 meant, then I disagree with it along with you.

Regards
SeeJay

#34 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 25 October 2009 - 03:06 AM

There are different kinds of deleterious mutations--which are you talking about?  Sickle cell is deleterious yet remains in the population.  It is an evolutionary dead-end mutation/adaptation in response to malaria. 

The point is even though sickle cell is deleterious and shortens life if it is inherited from both parents, it allows people to reproduce.  How would these dead end mutations be a step in the pathway of beneficial macro evolution?

View Post


Hi again AFJ

By deleterious mutation, I simply mean the common sense notion of a trait carried by an individual that impairs its ability to survive (at least to reproductive age).

Some deleterious mutations are very clear and obvious, like the inability to digest the primary food source of the population. The chance of surviving to reproduce with such a mutation is seriously reduced. Thus, such a mutation tends to be removed from the population rather than spreading through it.

The sickle cell mutation is a tricky case where there are both advantages and disadvantages to weigh up. Fortunately, it has been intensely studied, and I don't agree with you that it is unambiguously deleterious. For example, we know that heterozygotes (i.e. just carriers without sickle-cell disease) still get resistance to malaria because the gene is not completely recessive. This is a significant advantage, and very clearly explains why selection has not weeded this mutation out of populations in malaria-infested areas: see e.g Z Feng et al, Malaria Epidemics and the Sickle-Cell Gene Dynamics (2002: Georgia Inst. Tech), or T N Williams et al, Negative epistasis between the malaria-protective effects of alpha+-thalassemia and the sickle cell trait (2005: Nature Genetics Vol 27 No 11).

May I ask, what do you mean by a "dead end mutation"?

Cheers
SeeJay

#35 Guest_Curler_*

Guest_Curler_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 October 2009 - 03:08 AM

I also agreed with jason777 that in species that go extinct, deleterious mutations tend to have been accumulating.


Excuse me for butting in - but that statement caught my eye. Is that just a speculation, or do you have any references? To state my position: I am unable to see what mechanism, what factors might cause deleterious mutations to accumulate?

Isn't that a counter-intuitive idea with respect to real life? In a population, when deleterious mutations occur, will they not tend to make bearers of such mutations less successful in reproduction than average? Isn't that the whole idea of natural selection - that what's less effective disappears from the population? That, in order for a mutation to become fixed in a population, it must be of a kind that is an advantage to the population? (or at least neutral, i.e. have no or negligible impact, in which case it may remain - at least for a time.)

#36 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 25 October 2009 - 03:26 AM

Thanks AFJ. I agree with you that natural selection is pretty noncontroversial

View Post

Hello, just wanting to through my penny's worth of brain cells in here.

I agree that natural selection is not much of a controversy. It is rather evident when searched for. Micro-evolution can be witnessed over decades.
One aspect of this search that is rarely mentioned is the false concept of multiple human races. We are one race with several adapted skin organs. What a foolish thing then to calim another human inferior.

#37 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 25 October 2009 - 03:39 AM

To use construction as an example. 
Mud was a building material.  Formed on frames.  Limits of construction size were great.  Mud bricks replaced the framed, mud structures and could be made much larger.  Micro-evolution.  No new material (information)
Technology gives us many advantages over mud because we have information that did not exist, steel etc.  Macro-evolution.
Evo's have not identified how this new (not previously existing) information is formed in genes.  They just believe it does because we are here as proof.

View Post


Hi larrywj2

Interesting example. We have, historically:

Just mud, spread on wooden frames, then dried in the sun
Dried mud cakes, occurring naturally dried in the sun, stacked up against wooden frames
Rough mud blocks, formed by hand, dried in the sun, stacked against frames, no mortar
Mud bricks, formed in moulds, dried in the sun, reduced framing, no mortar
Mud bricks mixed with dung and straw, dried in the sun, reduced framing again, no mortar
Mud/clay fired bricks, mud/clay mortar
Mud/clay fired bricks, cement mortar

Here's a question: Consider the overall change from mud spread on frames all the way to fired bricks mortared with cement. Would you characterise this as microevolution?

I believe the evolutionist theory is that one way for new information to arise in genes, is by duplication followed by mutation. If you duplicate an information-bearing code like a gene, information theory states you have increased the information content by at least 1 bit, because you at least need to record the number of duplicates (in the simplest case, 2). If one of these duplicates subsequently gets a mutation, then the two copies are not identical, and you will have increased the information content by at least one more bit to record the difference between the duplicates.

Since we know gene duplication and mutation occur, then we know that in principle the information content in genes can increase.

Regards
SeeJay

#38 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 25 October 2009 - 03:55 AM

Excuse me for butting in - but that statement caught my eye. Is that just a speculation, or do you have any references? To state my position: I am unable to see what mechanism, what factors might cause deleterious mutations to accumulate?

Isn't that a counter-intuitive idea with respect to real life? In a population, when deleterious mutations occur, will they not tend to make bearers of such mutations less successful in reproduction than average? Isn't that the whole idea of natural selection - that what's less effective disappears from the population? That, in order for a mutation to become fixed in a population, it must be of a kind that is an advantage to the population? (or at least neutral, i.e. have no or negligible impact, in which case it may remain - at least for a time.)

View Post


Hi Curler

That's a great question because what I wrote should be clarified. You're right in pointing out that natural selection will tend to eliminate mutations that are currently deleterious.

What I meant was (and this is where I agreed with jason777): In a population, mutations can accumulate and become widespread, providing they are not currently harmful. The loss of eyesight in cavefish is a good example of this. This can happen especially in populations in confined and static niches.

However, if the population's niche changes, the population can suddenly find itself with a lot of accumulated, currently harmful mutations. Imagine, for example, if some sort of geological collapse exposed blind cavefish to sunlight and new predators with good eyesight. All of a sudden their blindness mutation goes from being a tiny advantage to an extreme disadvantage.

Thanks
SeeJay

#39 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 25 October 2009 - 04:01 AM

Hello, just wanting to through my penny's worth of brain cells in here. 

  I agree that natural selection is not much of a controversy.  It is rather evident when searched for.  Micro-evolution can be witnessed over decades.
  One aspect of this search that is rarely mentioned is the false concept of multiple human races.  We are one race with several adapted skin organs.  What a foolish thing then to calim another human inferior.

View Post


I totally agree with you on that larrywj2.

SeeJay

#40 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 25 October 2009 - 05:26 AM

Hello, just wanting to through my penny's worth of brain cells in here. 

  I agree that natural selection is not much of a controversy.  It is rather evident when searched for.  Micro-evolution can be witnessed over decades.
  One aspect of this search that is rarely mentioned is the false concept of multiple human races.  We are one race with several adapted skin organs.  What a foolish thing then to calim another human inferior.

View Post


Micro-evolution has nothing to do with Natural Selection. Micro-evolution means micro-change.Natural Selection means if that change will help the surviving in nature.

No being has 100% of chance of surviving.So, randomness is more important than Natural Selection. Natural Selection works only in very deleterious mutations.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users