Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Darwinism is wrong
Clark
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 305 (204805)
05-03-2005 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by TheNewGuy03
05-02-2005 11:26 PM


Re: Yeah.
off-topic, sorry.
It is definitely a distant possibility that one species can become another over long periods of time, but, of course, one would have to assume that there was "a long period of time," and frankly, that has been observed by no human.
Is 13 billion years long enough?
APOD: 2004 March 9 - The Hubble Ultra Deep Field

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-02-2005 11:26 PM TheNewGuy03 has not replied

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


Message 77 of 305 (204811)
05-03-2005 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by TheNewGuy03
05-02-2005 11:26 PM


Species arising
It is definitely a distant possibility that one species can become another over long periods of time, but, of course, one would have to assume that there was "a long period of time," and frankly, that has been observed by no human.
You are forgetting that new species have been observed to arise. This is part of the reason that many creationist sources now wish to define "kind" at some level higher than species. It is not longer tenable to say that speciation does not occur.
As for the observation of long periods of time; that would be out of place in this topic. I suggest that if you don't agree with the accepted time spans that you take your argument to one of the more recently updated "Dates and Dating" threads. Your idea of "observation" is hopelessly inadequate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-02-2005 11:26 PM TheNewGuy03 has not replied

Arkansas Banana Boy
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 305 (204816)
05-03-2005 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by TheNewGuy03
05-03-2005 1:52 PM


primate fossils
Actually science does ' continue to find this stuff'. Fossils from lucy's genus and our own have been discoverd for more than a hundred years. Recently another in our genus, Homo floreiensis, was announced to science. In the thread http://EvC Forum: Homo floresiensis -->EvC Forum: Homo floresiensis Razd brings them to our attention.
I suspect that more finds will come about as more people search more places.
ABB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-03-2005 1:52 PM TheNewGuy03 has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 79 of 305 (204989)
05-04-2005 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jianyi Zhang
04-26-2005 11:57 AM


Your notion seems to be some cutting between these two charts of Wallace formerly at Cornell published from a talk in Syracuse in the late 60s edited by Richard Lewontin "Population Biology and Evolution".

but I really only see sprial possibility(below) not an indeterminately bifurcating one which is the one I think if I understand your work correctly is what you would have to remand if prooved true in a future.
If all you are trying to do is set up a structure for evolutionary theory and await proof as Gould luckily did finish before he passed then I can have no more critical comment but I think this way of proceeding in biology is going away not towards what society outside the small groups otherwise pursuing thier own research do do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 04-26-2005 11:57 AM Jianyi Zhang has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 05-04-2005 9:35 PM Brad McFall has replied

Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5815 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 80 of 305 (205022)
05-04-2005 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Jianyi Zhang
04-29-2005 8:36 PM


Hello again,
Sorry about the delay in replying. I didn’t realise you had responded to my points because you added your reply by edit — I had already read the unedited post and was waiting for a second one. In future, if you are going to substantially change the content of your message then can you compose it in a separate post. I can then respond quicker .
There are a couple of things I still don’t quite understand (apologies if this is a bit of a hatchet job, I'm feeling kind of tired). For example:
Jianyi Zhang writes:
Mitochondrial study suggests there might be alone Eve, even not the Eve in the study.
I really don't know what you're trying to say here. Can you explain exactly who you think a mitochondrial ‘Eve’ is, in your own words and how you can trace the human mitochondrial line past this point without looking at chimpanzee mitochondria.
and
The estimated number depends on sample in the study, the female and male were from different samples. The study did not show only one Adam or Eve at that time, just says these man or women from one person at that time, the timing might be different, and there might be others then.
Likewise here. Are you suggesting that there is 80,000 years worth of error between the way 'Adam' and Eve' dates were estimated? Or are you agreeing with me that there is no way of distinguishing between a possible 'Super-twinning' event and one entirely due to neutral drift and natural selection? If you can't tell the difference then why present it as supporting evidence for your model?
I did not say the model has been tested. I said "every species has two Eves", I use Human Mitochondria study as my support. This is the my prediction, which can be falsified with future study.
Well you did present a set of 'Predictions' made from your model followed by supporting evidence - this implies that you think it is being tested by the evidence to some degree. However, I think that you have made the wrong predictions in the first place or have used the wrong evidence as confirmation. For example:
This is another example of a misunderstanding on your part. Your model requires common ancestry just as much as the current ToE does.
Yes, my model suggests common ancestry, how does that show my misunderstanding?
Well, if common ancestry is required then you would expect consistant molecular phylogenies, not (as you suggest) inconsistant ones. Luckily for you, they are consistant with common ancestry, unluckily this supports the current ToE as well.
Sequence a few individuals from branch new species...
Sequences from super-twins are much more homogenous than ones from otherwise.
Among other things, there is a real practical problem with these tests. How do you suggest we go about finding these 'supertwins' in the first place before you sequence them? How do you determine whether past bottlenecks are supertwinning events?
Super-twining is needed for sexual animals, it has nothing to do with asexual ones.
So in this case there is no difference between your ideas and those accepted as part of the current ToE! Why don't you state this plainly instead of trying to drag discussion of asexual organsims (evolution of mitochondria, antibiotic resistance) into the mix?
do not know what you mean.
Yep, sorry! I am guilty of not applying joined-up-thinking to my posts. I'll try and be more clear.
Earlier, you admitted that both single point mutations and large scale mutation like HGT or duplication could be classed as 'gross' mutations. As you describe a gross mutation as one capable of causing speciation, what possible mechanisms are there for stopping twins with a such a small mutation from mating with their mother?
I hope this makes sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 04-29-2005 8:36 PM Jianyi Zhang has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 05-04-2005 9:12 PM Ooook! has not replied

TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 305 (205035)
05-04-2005 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by crashfrog
05-03-2005 9:54 PM


Hello.
This could go on forever. I'll just end it, and have a more poignant discussion with someone who has solid facts.
Love,
~The Kid~

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 05-03-2005 9:54 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Andya Primanda, posted 05-05-2005 9:02 AM TheNewGuy03 has not replied
 Message 88 by crashfrog, posted 05-05-2005 11:41 AM TheNewGuy03 has replied

Jianyi Zhang
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 305 (205073)
05-04-2005 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Ooook!
05-04-2005 5:58 PM


Originally posted by Ooook!
I really don't know what you're trying to say here. Can you explain exactly who you think a mitochondrial ‘Eve’ is, in your own words and how you can trace the human mitochondrial line past this point without looking at chimpanzee mitochondria.
I copy a part of text from the website:
According to the GMCMI model, every species have two Eves. The first one is the single ancestral mother, who gave birth to a new species, the second Eve or ‘Eves is a group of females with very similar genetically structure, who are the first generation or seed of new species. In terms of human, most likely, its ancestor or first Eve was one member of ape-like animals; the second Eves was a group of mothers with identical human genetic structure and phenotype.
However, Allan Wilson's study did not show alone Eve. I do not know how to trace to single Eve(s), assuming there was one.
Likewise here. Are you suggesting that there is 80,000 years worth of error between the way 'Adam' and Eve' dates were estimated?
I do not think error a proper word, these numbers are based on sample in the study. If ones repeat the study with different sample, the number could be quite different. However, implication is similar, which is the human origin from very few seeds, if not one.
Or are you agreeing with me that there is no way of distinguishing between a possible 'Super-twinning' event and one entirely due to neutral drift and natural selection?
Super-twinning (ST) is not consistent with NS, which implies a new species arrived by a population after long term RM&NS. Super-twinning occur at individual level. In terms of neutral drift, ST can not rule out possibility for such thing. Several models are based on neutral drift, such as Robertsonian translocation, and few more. The problems are there are too many steps or assumptions. ST only has ONE assumption. Parsimony is one of major characterics of truth.
Well, if common ancestry is required then you would expect consistant molecular phylogenies, not (as you suggest) inconsistant ones. Luckily for you, they are consistant with common ancestry, unluckily this supports the current ToE as well.
Thing is that current ToE consists of everything, including instantaneous speciation and founder theory. My point is that except instantaneous model and founder(which is similar to ST in certain point), all other models are wrong, including NS, genetic drifting, geographical isolation.
Among other things, there is a real practical problem with these tests. How do you suggest we go about finding these 'supertwins' in the first place before you sequence them? How do you determine whether past bottlenecks are supertwinning events?
You have no way to find out ST in the wild. However, if you have sequences of many new-found species, they should be much more homologous than general population. If bottleneckes occur, there are signs for tremendous deaths in the same species.
So in this case there is no difference between your ideas and those accepted as part of the current ToE!
There are big differences between ST and current ToE: by ToE Darwin's RMNS is main mechanism, plus several others. ST states Darwinian RMNS wrong, all speciation or biodiverstiy occur instantaneously. I think they are hugely different.
Why don't you state this plainly instead of trying to drag discussion of asexual organsims (evolution of mitochondria, antibiotic resistance) into the mix?
Using other examples in asexual organisms is important, as it shows all biodiversity occur instantaneously, Darwinian RMNS in role of speciation or biodiversity wrong in all cases, no exception.
Earlier, you admitted that both single point mutations and large scale mutation like HGT or duplication could be classed as 'gross' mutations.
I never admitted single point mutations as 'gross mutation'.
As you describe a gross mutation as one capable of causing speciation, what possible mechanisms are there for stopping twins with a such a small mutation from mating with their mother?
ST does not have to stop mating with their mother or other non-mutated siblings. Mating between ST and mothers would have no healthy offspring or no offspring at all, this is how species defined biologically.
This message has been edited by Jianyi Zhang, 05-04-2005 09:45 PM

Jianyi Zhang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Ooook!, posted 05-04-2005 5:58 PM Ooook! has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Wounded King, posted 05-05-2005 9:44 AM Jianyi Zhang has replied

Jianyi Zhang
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 305 (205083)
05-04-2005 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Brad McFall
05-04-2005 2:58 PM


Originally posted Brad McFall:
If all you are trying to do is set up a structure for evolutionary theory and await proof as Gould luckily did finish before he passed then I can have no more critical comment but I think this way of proceeding in biology is going away not towards what society outside the small groups otherwise pursuing thier own research do do.
I do not understand what the graphs mean. I do not think speciation associated with gene frequencies. Speciation with changes of gene frequencies is the core idea of Neo-Darwinism, I do not think it any role in speciation.
I am not sure what Gould's idea of speciation mechanism is. PE is not the mechanism at all.
Truth will prevail just matter of time.
Current debate among Darwinists and Creationists is just a waste of time, and taxpayer money, which should be utilized more productively.

Jianyi Zhang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Brad McFall, posted 05-04-2005 2:58 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Brad McFall, posted 05-04-2005 9:46 PM Jianyi Zhang has not replied
 Message 85 by Brad McFall, posted 05-04-2005 9:47 PM Jianyi Zhang has not replied
 Message 90 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-05-2005 11:22 PM Jianyi Zhang has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 84 of 305 (205087)
05-04-2005 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Jianyi Zhang
05-04-2005 9:35 PM


The charts relate micro and possibly macro levels of phenomena and given your notion it would relate to density dependence as exampled by the graph together. If there is structure there other than simple spliting of information your view might fail in the future just as Gould's would but for opposite reasons, Gould's because it insists on constraints from the right (as I displayed it) and your notion from the left.
I copyed this work so as to get your relations to populations. I saw your predictions. Good luck.
Wallace writes in his discussion
quote:
The importance of density-dependent factors upon the Darwinian fitnesses of populations is clear: novel sources of premature death need not be met by a corresponding increase in the number of progeny produced. They are met, rather, by a reduction in population size. Population size not progeny size, takes up the immediate shock of both genetic and nongenetic deaths.
If there are more deaths your notions of species change must meet evidence in the first paragraph of Wallace's
quote:
Birch(1960) has given a succinct account of the central problem of ecological genetics: ecology concerns itself with numbers of animals and what determines number. Population genetics concerns itself with kinds of animals and what determines kind. Ecological genetics concerns itself with the bearing on their kinds. The models presented in Figures 9,10, and 11 deal with the last named relationships. They represent an attempt, however crude, to relate a number of observations in a meaninful manner and in so doing, they deal with the interrelations of numbers and kinds.
while Gould's need not necessarily if cell death is not the then sought for culprit etc. You might be correct about the egg however.
I will expand on this as I promised in a thread Wounded King participated in on plant mutations across a generation by suggesting how both pollen selection and RNA editing can be universally considered (possibly) with such graphs but without apriori invariants from either side later ie dependent on the recursive nature of strucutre itself and not on the division of labor of biological deparments' research.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-04-2005 10:13 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 05-04-2005 9:35 PM Jianyi Zhang has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 85 of 305 (205088)
05-04-2005 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Jianyi Zhang
05-04-2005 9:35 PM


Double post sorry.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-04-2005 09:48 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 05-04-2005 9:35 PM Jianyi Zhang has not replied

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 305 (205213)
05-05-2005 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by TheNewGuy03
05-04-2005 6:40 PM


Re: Hello.
quote:
This could go on forever. I'll just end it, and have a more poignant discussion with someone who has solid facts.
Would that mean you will come back to us evolutionists? Because we do have solid facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-04-2005 6:40 PM TheNewGuy03 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 05-05-2005 11:37 PM Andya Primanda has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 87 of 305 (205239)
05-05-2005 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Jianyi Zhang
05-04-2005 9:12 PM


ST states Darwinian RMNS wrong, all speciation or biodiverstiy occur instantaneously. I think they are hugely different.
You still seem to fail to appreciate that all mutation is instantaneous and therefore the initial origin of all biodiversity is instantaneous.
Using other examples in asexual organisms is important, as it shows all biodiversity occur instantaneously, Darwinian RMNS in role of speciation or biodiversity wrong in all cases, no exception.
It doesn't show this at all unfortunately. All it shows is that there are significant events in the evolutionary history of life which are not simply a product of simple small scale genetic mutations, but no one ever claimed this was not the case. It certainly provides no evidence that random mutation and natural selection can't give rise to reproductive isolation.
In what way is genetic variation, at any level, not a form of biodiversity.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 05-04-2005 9:12 PM Jianyi Zhang has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 05-05-2005 11:40 PM Wounded King has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 88 of 305 (205267)
05-05-2005 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by TheNewGuy03
05-04-2005 6:40 PM


I'll just end it, and have a more poignant discussion with someone who has solid facts.
What about my facts did you not find solid? Do you dispute that we observe new species? If not, where do you think those new species come from? Where could they come from, if not the old species?
If you have no rebuttal to my arguments, that's fine, but by no means will I allow you to tell lies about me. The facts support evolution, that much is obvious. The best you have in countermeasure is sophistry, and apparently even that is insufficient to hold up your end of the discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-04-2005 6:40 PM TheNewGuy03 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-05-2005 11:14 PM crashfrog has replied

TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 305 (205454)
05-05-2005 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by crashfrog
05-05-2005 11:41 AM


Heh.
I guess you don't understand the concept of creation. It isn't some guys trying to impose Christianity on people, or philosophical crap, for that matter. All it means is that the world was created, not developed by evolution and chance.
The evidence supports neither evolution nor creation. You realize what the objective here is: to take empirical facts and attempt to wedge them into our own worldviews.
With that, I will depart.
This message has been edited by TheNewGuy03, 05-05-2005 11:15 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by crashfrog, posted 05-05-2005 11:41 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by crashfrog, posted 05-06-2005 12:21 PM TheNewGuy03 has replied

TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 305 (205460)
05-05-2005 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Jianyi Zhang
05-04-2005 9:35 PM


Yes.
I agree with you, Dr. Zhang. This debate will be endless, and it is pointless. It just shows human nature in action.
The Darwinists/evolutionists do not fully understand the creationists' point of view, and the reverse also holds true.
Why don't we just settle for the facts? There are more unanswered questions in the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 05-04-2005 9:35 PM Jianyi Zhang 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