Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Collapse of Darwinism
edge
Member (Idle past 1707 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 16 of 68 (97664)
04-04-2004 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by mike the wiz
04-04-2004 9:47 AM


Re: non-evolving animals?
Just lurking here, but a couple of observations:
quote:
Thanks Andya, I guess normalizing selection would probably explain it somewhat.
What do you mean 'probably' and 'somewhat?' AP has explained things quite precisely. Or is it 'proof' that you want?
quote:
Yes, you are right, I suppose the species doesn't have to change mophologically.
A good observation.
quote:
I would like to hear more about the possibility of there being an animal which has never evolved, ...
But it was just explained to you. And you agreed that the explanation made sense. Are you just being argumentative for the sake of argument? It sounds to me like you wish to acknowledge the facts, but then just want to ignore them.
quote:
...but I fail to see how you could say such a thing unless you removed abiogenesis.
Please explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 04-04-2004 9:47 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by mike the wiz, posted 04-04-2004 11:57 AM edge has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 17 of 68 (97667)
04-04-2004 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by mike the wiz
04-03-2004 8:53 AM


Change
Surely some natural Selection must have taken place. Why is there no change in such a vast amount of time?
There are a couple of points here:
1)It is a misunderstanding of the mechanisms of evolution that would make anyone think that a "living fossil" is any problem at all. If the niche in which a creature lives doesn't change (including competition) then the selective pressures would be the same that helped form them in the first place. It should be clear that natural selecion (NS) can hold a form reasonably constant if that is what 'works' best.
Clearly some lines change much less rapidly than others. The sharks have been a similar form for hundreds of millions of years but not, as far as I know, the same species in all that time. Turtles, some fish, nautilus and some shell fish are, I think, other examples of similar but not identical forms.
2)I am not aware of any species at all that has been shown to remain unchanged over anything more than a few million years. The fact that we only have a fossil may mean that what we see is unchanged but that leaves other changes that are not fossilized. It is, of course, possilbe that an actual species has survived much longer than the average species duration of a handful of millions of years but I'm not aware of any examples. Could you supply one or three?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 04-03-2004 8:53 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by mike the wiz, posted 04-04-2004 12:04 PM NosyNed has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 18 of 68 (97669)
04-04-2004 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by edge
04-04-2004 11:16 AM


Huh?
Edge, I am not being argumentative, as I wasn't clear in my post to Andya. All I mean with regards to the un-evolved animal, is that - if there was an animal that had never evolved, well - wouldn't that remove abiogenesis? That's not argumentative and it isn't meant to be, it might be another topic maybe, but it is just an inquiry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by edge, posted 04-04-2004 11:16 AM edge has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 19 of 68 (97671)
04-04-2004 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by NosyNed
04-04-2004 11:38 AM


Don't misunderstand me guys
It's okay Ned, I honestly do understand this now, as I know the selective pressure wouldn't be the same as a species that was say, struggling to survive.
It is a misconception that I am being argumentative, as I even offered my own evolutionist-like response. So basically, I think you and Andya have refuted me sufficiently. Maybe Edge has mis-judged my intentions here. It's just that on the documentary it shown three or four fossils next to species living today. I myself, have no examples of un-evolved species, as I only mentioned this when I observed the video. Normalized selection suffices, my new question about abiogenesis shouldn't be confused with the previous question.
[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-04-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by NosyNed, posted 04-04-2004 11:38 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 04-04-2004 1:22 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 20 of 68 (97681)
04-04-2004 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by mike the wiz
04-04-2004 12:04 PM


The videos
Thanks Mike, you do learn pretty quickly.
The topic here are the videos. The "living fossil" junk is hardly the worst of what is in there.
Is there any part you think is worth much? I didn't listen to all of them but all that I saw was pretty much unmitigated junk.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by mike the wiz, posted 04-04-2004 12:04 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by mike the wiz, posted 04-04-2004 1:40 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 21 of 68 (97683)
04-04-2004 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by NosyNed
04-04-2004 1:22 PM


Re: The videos
Well Ned, the music was allright . I guess I thought the part about life being an example of design was good. However, some stuff was just attacks on Darwin and his Theory, by means of Natural Selection. I tend to disregard this. AIG also insists on demoting Darwin's efforts. Again, an unreasonable thing to do, and unnecessary.
Apart from the query I mentioned which you and Andya resolved, I can't even remember the rest of the vid much. It said something about evo's having to add "mutation" to Natural Selection in order as to provide an extra mechanism. It also said that the human "transitionals" infact have totally human skeletons. I guess I am not informed enough to make a judgement on those things. Apart from that, the vids are not enough to refute evolution as you guys usually have answers to the questions. I think the vids are a bit too "simple" to be satisfactorily convinced that evolution is untrue but again, many topics were raised, and I can't remember them all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 04-04-2004 1:22 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 04-04-2004 4:42 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 22 of 68 (97705)
04-04-2004 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by mike the wiz
04-04-2004 1:40 PM


Re: The videos
You need to be careful about human skeleton similarities for a couple of reasons.
The 3.2 million year old skeleton of the Australopithecus afarensis
known as "Lucy"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do74lu.html
shows very human skeletal structure to the average person, while a specialist will know that some bones are longer in proportion to others.
The other is a bit of circular reasoning -- if the skeleton is what defines the species as human ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by mike the wiz, posted 04-04-2004 1:40 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by joshua221, posted 05-30-2005 10:52 PM RAZD has replied

  
batman
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 68 (100532)
04-17-2004 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Andya Primanda
04-01-2004 2:32 AM


No need to import...
I've had contact with the people in the Yahya network, and this is THEIR OWN idea. They are Islamic creationists. FYI

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Andya Primanda, posted 04-01-2004 2:32 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Denesha, posted 04-20-2004 5:13 AM batman has replied

  
Biophysicist
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 68 (101136)
04-20-2004 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by mike the wiz
04-03-2004 8:39 AM


Re: This is da bomb!
Sorry I took so long to get back to this thread.
Well, I am a caucasian male if that's what you mean. If you wish to define "race" as "child of the first or last Adam" well I don't classify myself that way. Scientifically, I'm obviously a human being.
I am not well versed in hominid fossils, but I believe homo erectus was very similar to modern humans although discernible differences do exist between the fossils. The video would have done better to say "hominid." Instead, they insist that the fossils are pureply human, with no features that depart significantly from modern humans. Perhaps some of the paleontologists here (if any) can help me on the particulars of the distinctions.
My original point was more to draw a distinction between these folks and otehr creationists like AIG/ICR. Creationism is really a fragmented, hydra-headed thing, although creaitonists will insist that evolutionists are always "changing their theories" and fighting amongst themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by mike the wiz, posted 04-03-2004 8:39 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Denesha
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 68 (101141)
04-20-2004 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by batman
04-17-2004 1:24 AM


Re: No need to import...
Dear Batman,
Does it change something if they are islamic creatos?
The video is funny to watch, like a Pokemon cartoon movie. My seven age nephew will love that.
Thanks Harum Yahya for this divertisement.
Denesha

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by batman, posted 04-17-2004 1:24 AM batman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by batman, posted 04-20-2004 3:06 PM Denesha has not replied

  
batman
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 68 (101240)
04-20-2004 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Denesha
04-20-2004 5:13 AM


Re: No need to import...
No, it doesn't matter that they are Islamic. What matters is the perception that creation material was allegedly imported from the USA - it wasn't. I was merely attempting to correct what appears to be a mistaken perspective. The message I was responding to stated:
"The site is part of the Harun Yahya network. Empirical proof that creationism makes a great import commodity.
I'd like to sue US creationists for dumping their creationist material to unsuspecting Islamic countries. Especially Turkey."
US Creationists did *NOT* "[dump] their creationist material to unsuspecting Islamic countries..." The Islamics in these countries came up with it all on their own without any help. If you read their material, you'll see that it is Islamic at its core.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Denesha, posted 04-20-2004 5:13 AM Denesha has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Ediacaran, posted 05-31-2004 11:02 AM batman has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 27 of 68 (105023)
05-03-2004 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by mike the wiz
04-03-2004 8:53 AM


Let me gift this a try.
There are many species that have existed for a long, long time. Some, many in fact, have existed pretty much unchanged since the time of the dinosaur. They are among the evolutionary success stories and IMHO, play a very important part in proving the theory of evolution.
Some examples that come to mind are the crocs and turtles. There were some changes, size for example, but overall, a crocodile that most likely preyed on dinosaur would be immediately reconizable in both form and function from contempory bretheren.
But there are other examples where the record shows that there has been much change. Of greatest interest to us are the Primates.
This difference in rates of change between two groups IMHO, can only be explained by evolution. Change is random. It happens. When it happens, it may allow expansion into some new and less competitive ecological nitch.
There is no design, no plan, no purpose.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 04-03-2004 8:53 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Unseul, posted 05-31-2004 12:38 PM jar has not replied
 Message 58 by Lithodid-Man, posted 06-05-2005 2:52 AM jar has replied

  
Ediacaran
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 68 (111783)
05-31-2004 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by batman
04-20-2004 3:06 PM


Re: No need to import...
batman writes:
No, it doesn't matter that they are Islamic. What matters is the perception that creation material was allegedly imported from the USA - it wasn't. I was merely attempting to correct what appears to be a mistaken perspective. The message I was responding to stated:
"The site is part of the Harun Yahya network. Empirical proof that creationism makes a great import commodity.
I'd like to sue US creationists for dumping their creationist material to unsuspecting Islamic countries. Especially Turkey."
US Creationists did *NOT* "[dump] their creationist material to unsuspecting Islamic countries..." The Islamics in these countries came up with it all on their own without any help. If you read their material, you'll see that it is Islamic at its core.
Just to clarify some more, the Islamic creationists (aka Bilim Arastirma Vakfi (BAV - "Science Research Foundation"), the creationist group that write under the pseudonym "Harun Yahya" and is led by Adnan Oktar) have close ties to the Young-Earth Creationist organization Institute for Creation Research. However, there are important differences in the groups.
The Islamic creationists don't have any qualms about the old ages for fossils (and the age of the Earth, etc.), since the Quran is pretty vague on ages. So in addition to recycling the ICR material, they borrow freely from the "Intelligent Design" creationists which are led mostly by Old-Earth creationists (although the IDers put their differences aside regarding the age of the Earth and universe to foster their "big tent" approach). For example, they alluded to Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity" claims in the video (without explicit mention of Behe).
See http://www.ncseweb.org/...entific_creationism_12_30_1899.asp for more information about BAV and its ties to the Institute for Creation Research.
Now, about that video:
Mutation didn't have to be added as an afterthought - Darwin already included heritable variations (i.e. mutations) in On the Origin of Species.
As for Darwin not being aware of any transitionals, and hoping science would find some later: Darwin mentioned some in On the Origin of Species, so he was already aware of a few examples. Two that I recall Darwin mentioning were Basilosaurus and Prozeuglodon, IIRC. Archaeopteryx was found within 2 years after the first edition of On the Origin of Species, IIRC. And yes, those are still excellent transitional fossils, now joined by all the feathered dinosaur transitionals being discovered in China.
The Islamic creationists wheel out the old canard about no multicellular organisms before the Cambrian explosion. Apparently after so many decades, they still haven't heard of the Ediacaran fossils - ironically, they showed a Discover magazine cover with one of the multicellular pre-Cambrian fossils from the Ediacaran fossils. It appeared in the last video segment, with the Discover cover story "Evolution's Odd Experiment". See more photos of Ediacaran fossils at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com:8100/.../chapter07-4.html
The Oxnard and Zuckerman bait-and-switch is standard creationist fare. The video seems to be referring to statements they made on other species of australopithecines before the discovery of australopithecus afarensis [or, as the video misspelled it, australopitechus]. They need to read the more recent material from Oxnard, which directly refutes the creationist conclusion.
The misrepresentation of scientists abounds in the video. Of course, they present the rhetorical questions that Darwin poses in his book - they fail to mention his answers, and by their omission, the creationists try to leave the impression that these were failures of Darwin's ideas, instead of common questions that readers would likely ask, followed by Darwin's answers.
Darwin's evolutionary tree of life is supported not only by the many transitional fossils, starting with the few he mentioned in his book, but the fossil record as a whole. Darwin's ideas are further confirmed by molecular biology and genetic sequencing, despite the video's silly claims to the contrary. Darwin included one figure in On the Origin of Species, and the genetic data substantiate this phylogenetic relationship of all life in dendograms (tree-like figures). Even the genetic data from mitochondria (shown in the cutaway view of the cell as the small organelles) support evolution - one of the ramifications is that all known organisms with mitochondria evolved from single-celled ancestors.
Some of the stuff was just laugh-out-loud goofy, such as the characterization of the magazine "Earth" as "one of the leading periodicals of evolutionist literature". Of course, creationists are probably unfamiliar with the concept of peer-reviewed scientific literature, such as Science and Nature.
The Marx material was a nice propaganda touch - the video commentary was also available in Turkish, and Marxism is as good a bogeyman in Turkey as it was in the U.S. during McCarthyism.
Turkey is the most secular of the Middle Eastern countries, and the religious right there are fighting modernization and progress. The Turkish creationists have even denounced their opponents in the scientific community through the Islamic Fundamentalist newspapers, and terrorists have acted on these "hit lists". Let's hope that the ICR and the "Intelligent Design" creationists don't import that tactic from their Islamic colleagues.
Stunningly, the video may have revealed the whole problem with creationists - apparently their DNA spirals in the opposite direction than that of all other organisms on the planet. Even worse, when mutations occur in creationist DNA, instead of altering the bases or resulting in insertions or deletions (indels), some individual bases get blasted out altogether, leaving unpaired bases hanging without a partner. That would have to cause a terrible impact on their biology, particularly the neurons, so that might account for creationists asserting lies as facts.
As for production quality, the Turkish creationists should have used an English-speaking editor that could have corrected all the typos [hey, I should get one of those to read my posts before I submit them!] Of course, someone that could actually spell some of the fossils they garbled (e.g. "Zinjantrophus" [sic]) might have done some fact-checking as well, which would have left the video with very little material.
Any good things about it? The video imitated Ken Burn's documentary method of panning across a still photo, which was a good technique. The music was alright, and the narrator did a pretty good job of clearly ennunciating the creationist lies. The user interface was good, and the video ran pretty well even on my squirrel-driven computing device. All in all, it was a slick piece of creationist propaganda.
Their colleagues at the ICR would be proud.
This message has been edited by Ediacaran, 05-31-2004 10:09 AM
This message has been edited by Ediacaran, 05-31-2004 10:13 AM
This message has been edited by Ediacaran, 06-20-2004 10:50 PM
This message has been edited by Ediacaran, 07-07-2004 11:04 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by batman, posted 04-20-2004 3:06 PM batman has not replied

  
Unseul
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 68 (111814)
05-31-2004 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by jar
05-03-2004 5:34 PM


Actually the turtles arent as apparently an ancient a species as we first thought.
The reason for the confusion is the shape of their skull, as far as i can remember it has no holes in it (many skulls have one or two holes for jaw muscle attachments). It is also the arrangement that some fossils have had (no holes was the first in the timescale, the holes started appearing later), and appeared to be extrememly similar in shape to todays turtles. However it turns out that the no holes arrangement has evolved again from i think single holed skulls (i used to know the technical names for the skull designs but ah well). And hence turtles arent as ancient a family as we thought, they just look like one.
Unseul

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....
Do unto others before they do unto you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 05-03-2004 5:34 PM jar has not replied

  
PeriferaliiFocust
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 68 (116577)
06-18-2004 8:26 PM


Just ignore the idiots and let them be filtered out of the gene pool. BUT what i was going to reply has nothing to do with the subject, except the title. What's up with this Darwinism crap? I believe in evolution, not darwinism, he was an imperfect man, why the hell do we still have to be worshiping him? (i know i'm exaggerating, sorry) The theory of evolution (as you know) would have been revealed without Darwin, not that i'm anit-darwin, just saying that i think we are minimizing our potential for the future by idling in the past. There are many improvements (events of evolution) within out knoweledge of evolution yet to come, and so i refuse to call it the science of Darwinism.

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Wounded King, posted 06-19-2004 4:18 AM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied
 Message 32 by Steen, posted 06-30-2004 12:37 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied
 Message 34 by Brad McFall, posted 05-23-2005 12:12 PM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024