|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 7607 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Teaching evolution in the context of science | |||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Interesting how the group of people who created the concept, and who base their work on it, can know so little about it.
[QUOTE][b]The most amazing thing is that most PhDed biologists also know almost nothing about macroevolution. In fact, the scientific literature has very little in it on genuinely macroevoltionary topics. I'm serious. [/QUOTE] [/b] Maybe that is because what creationists call macro-evolution is nothing but what creationist call micro-evolution-- and everyone else calls just plain evolution-- over large time frames? The distiction is a means for the creationist to get around the fact that evolution can be demonstrated in a lab. If you want macro vx. micro to be taken seriously you need to demonstrate that the two are fundamentally different. And you can't. Just call that a challenge.
quote: What is the crux, TB? ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]John 99.5% (stat plucked out of the air) of PhDed biologists do not work on evoltuion John!
[/QUOTE] [/b] What field of biology does not deal with evolution of some level? .5% (stat plucked out of the air)?
[QUOTE][b]I define macroevoltuion via studies on the origin of novelty and there is very, very little of this in the literature.[/QUOTE] [/b] I looked up novelty/evolution on Google and got 62,000 results.
quote: Granted, but it really sidesteps the point, which is that there isn't a lot of difference between the two - micro and macro-- except scale. The lines beetween the two are not clearly demarcated. And this despite the abstract you cited, which may or may not support your position. The abstract contains not enough information.
quote: How is it that I can sit at my desk here at home and find 13,200 results about the origin of novelty (Google-- evolution origin novelty), yet evolutionists hardly address the issue? Take care ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Well that's a wee bit more specific than 'even most scientists know very, very little about evolution' or 'most biologists don't work on evolution' Now it has become 'most biologists don't work on parts of evolution that are incompatible with creation'
quote: But many work with the concept and that requires some understanding of it.
quote: I never said that protein folds change in this manner. Why should I? Protein folds don't evolve, the organisms carring the genes for those proteins do. That is, bad protein==dead organism... this would be natural selection. Good protein== reproductive organism. How is this different from textbook evolution? And how does it make micro and macro fundamentaly different? I think that you have so completely equated protein folding and macroevolution that you can't see past yourself. oh... all I ever do is read Google results. That's what I do. Take care. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]John You sound like a black box person from that post- you believe evoltuion in faith.[/QUOTE] [/b] Potent retort TB. You sound like someone who can't answer a straight question.
[QUOTE][b]Molecular evolutionists propose that proteins originated via duplicaiton and drift. Our point is, becasue of the folding problem, that you may as well start from random to get each fold.[/QUOTE] [/b] Fine. You still haven't answered the questions I asked. And how about some citations? Something like this Molecular Biology Citation Weird, all about protein evolution. Who knew? Appeal to authority is still appeal to authority even if that authority is you.
quote: I suggest that you say something substantial. This could be interesting but I can barely hear you yelling down from that pedestal. I suggest that you stop implying that I don't research my subject matter. I do. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by Admin, 07-02-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 'k
[QUOTE][b]A protein can't typically change from one fold to another without being non-functional for most of the transtion time.[/QUOTE] [/b] I think you may be overemphasizing protein folding as this article suggests to me. Secondly, a protein doesn't evolve. The organism carring that protein survives or doesn't, and the population evolves. I can't shake the feeling that you are treating proteins as if they are directly evolving, or directly selected selected for and against independent of the rest of the organis and the poulation. Evolution doesn't require the typical case. 1 in several thousand or ten-thousand is adequate.
quote: "This is consistent with the view that the two proteins arose from a common ancestor protein (say CRP) via a gene duplication event ... and that they have been evolving and diverging since." http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/ma/esgi2001/probs5.html quote: Change a gene and it becomes a new gene. I don't know how you can defend the distiction.
quote: I can't make out what you mean.Genes bear no resemblance to other genes? Systems bear no resemblance to genes? Fold families bear no resemblance to genes? Fold families bear no resemblance to systems? quote: I'm not buying it. Can you cite something supporting this assertation? Proteins and protein folds are ancient in many cases. 403: Access Method Forbidden - Alert: Error - Stanford University School of Medicine">www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by Admin, 07-02-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I know that. The point was to suggest that you over-emphasize the protein folding. But I wonder if you pay attention....
quote: Thanks for the biology lesson. I missed that in high school, and of course, I was drunk and tripping all through college. I'm getting the feeling that you are being reductionistic, or myopic with reguard to protein folding.
quote: Sure, but not impossible.
Minor Shuffle Makes Protein Fold U. of Arizona Boston U. And this sometimes is all it takes.
quote: This was a question, TB. Calm down.
quote: I can't tell what this paper concludes since I only have the abstract. I wish you wouldn't post links to things that require memberships. But I can't find anything making a similar claim online, except for creationist sites.
If you can't trust Cecil..... quote: Big deal! You need to link protein folding inexorably with speciation. This is your micro/macro diff, yes? If you can't do so, then what you are arguing collapses. Correct me, please, if I've got your argument wrong. From what I've read, this can't be done, or at least hasn't been done. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: TB: This is just silly in light of what I have been able to find on the subject.
quote: Does this make sense to you?
quote: You're joking!!!! Ever heard of, 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing'? Abstracts may be useful for browsing, but not for constructing arguments.
quote: Clear that that is what the author argues, but not how it is argued. The later is the important bit. I remember seeing something like this once before. It turned out to be nothing it claimed to be.
quote: Huh? ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Didn't this start out with a discussion of the difference between micro and macro-evolution? And didn't you point me to mainstream literature to prove that the difference is recognized in mainstream biology? I looked it up and stand corrected on the terminology, though you've still not shown a hard-line of demarcation between the two. Mainstream > macro > speciation Now you've redefined macro to not be speciation per se.
quote: ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Do you depend upon the nebulous nature of your ideas? If not, please post a detailed rundown of your theory tying this all together-- macro/micro, novelty, protein folding, etc. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Well, yes, I was getting an idea of what you proposed; but this is much more clear.
[QUOTE][b]So we simply see the created kinds as genomic stock, distinguishable primarily by ultimately cellular novelties that are nevertheless frequently evident anatomically.[/QUOTE] [/b] For example....? One genomic stock whould be ________, another would be _______; and the cellular novelties would be _______?
quote: How does one determine resemblance? How does one determine a gene family within this scenario?
quote: But not all? So folding isn't the primary determinant?
quote: What determines the potential of a fold?
quote: Sorry, still foggy about exactly where this line falls as far as real world critters. New folding/function marks the edge of a family (although you seem a bit hedgie about that-- new folding would be an undebatable hard line but new function is much more subjective), but how does this apply to animals. Your theory should be easily testable. Has it been? Do these criteria line up with genus/species lines or family/genus or order/family? Take care. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: In particular, no; but no argument.
quote: Really, I wanted something a bit more precise. This is too loose to be useful, the way I see it.
[QUOTE][b]Cellular novelties? Origin of life issue of course invovles all systems. After that: Multicellularity. Respiratory proteins. Immune system proteins. Plant unique metabolic. Animal unique metabolic. Etc.[/QUOTE] [/b] Again, not very precise. Abiogenesis does NOT involve all systems, as has been addressed on this forum before. There are organism that skirt the boundary between multicellular/single cell organism. Someone else can take the proteins and metabolic issues, or perhaps I will later.
quote: ... but the change didn't happen in one jump, or are you arguing that it did? ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: That puts us in with chimps, gorillas, and orangutans; as well as a string of extinct creatures. This is ok by me, but....
quote: Just doubting that you can make a case for your faith using these gene families/novelties/system. So far you haven't. Take care. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Nope. I looked it up.
Hominidae ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: The page I cited implies that the change was within the past ten years or so. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024