|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: WTF is wrong with people | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Faith writes: Anyone who can look at that chart Coyote put up and hallucinate genetic descent over millions of years from one to another of those cute little drawings, has no right to bother about the specific meanings of words. It's fair to say that with this chart......
...... which is Darwin's original sketch of common descent - you're looking at an idea - not a proven theory. But when you're looking at a chart like this one - which is the family tree of all living birds - you're looking at something quite different. That's chart is just an infinitesimal part of roughly 150 years of research has proved that original idea to be correct. Well it does for everyone except a few religious loonies that is.
First ever family tree for all living birds reveals evolution and diversification - Archive - News archive - The University of SheffieldLife, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
Coyote writes: Ignorance is sad. Willful ignorance is disgraceful! And I think that adequately summarizes the spirit of the original thread, as proposed by frako when he asked 'WTF is wrong with people'? The answer appears to be self-evident. They are both willfully ignorant and display a level of zealotry that borders on insanity."Our future lies not in our dogmatic past, but in our enlightened present"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I know you don't care about anything I've said and probably haven't even read most of it, and certainly you haven't given any of it a moment's thought, so you require me to answer you with more of the same:
1. "Observed instances of new species forming."Yes, what evolutionists call "speciation" and new "species" do in fact occur, but they are misnamed. As I've repeatedly said it is artificial to call them new species, it's really a form of question-begging. What the ToE claims is that you can get some COMPLETELY new creature from an old, and really the term "speciation" should be reserved for that event, which of course has never occurred in observation but only in theory. All those cases of the formation of new "species" you have listed for lizards, mice, seagulls etc., are nothing but new varieties or breeds of their original Species that have for whatever reason developed an inability to breed with their former population, and they should be named accordingly instead of calling them "species" so as to confuse the ignorant. In other words this is just another case of normal variation, i.e. "microevolution" being co-opted by the ToE. This is a typical case of word magic, that is, the reification of a concept by the mere manipulation of words. 2. "Observed instances of new genetic material(information) arising"From your descriptions I have to ask whether these supposed instances of "observed" mutations have actually been observed; most of them sound like the usual case of discovering a novel sequence already in existence and CALLING it a mutation, because, as I've said, that's what the ToE requires, therefore that's what it MUST be. But actually observed, not in some of the cases you describe at least. Look, nobody denies that mutations occur, or even that what they do could be called the formation of a new "gene," or to be more precise an allele for a gene, because after all we're talking about a sequence of chemicals along the DNA strand and mutations alter that sequence, as does normal sexual recombination from generation to generation. But as Coyote affirmed, most such mutations ARE deleterious, many others do nothing that anyone can determine for sure, and very very very few can be said to have any beneficial function. Now you are giving a supposed list of beneficial mutations here. I have to suspect more word magic myself. The question is whether these new "genes" ARE of any real use to the creature. Like that man you mentioned whose X chromosome had acquired a whole bunch of new "genes." How can that be of any benefit? Such claims as this list of yours are NOT convincing, sorry. 3. Then -- *sigh* -- you give us a list of "Observed instances of beneficial mutations" ALL of which apparently describe nothing but the usual variation within the given genome and not anything novel at all. In other words, the usual "microevolution." ADAPTATION is NORMAL VARIATION, it is NOT the result of mutation. 4. "Observed instances of large morphological changes."But there is nothing on this list that suggests anything more than the usual "microevolution," or adaptation by natural selection through the normal variability of the genome of each creature. 5. "Observed evolution of novel organs and features." Well, let's combine this with 6. "...a multicellular organism", and 7. "endosymbiosis" because all these are equally mystifying claims. You can assert anything, and scientific articles are always claiming something to support the ToE, which usually turns out to be the usual case of microevolution, the expression of a pre-existing genetic function being erroneously called a mutation, or a deleterious mutation that they convince themselves is useful etc. If there is anything at all to the titles that claim more, there is no way to tell it from a mere assertion, which of course has no value except as a tool of mystification in the service of your bias. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
But as Coyote affirmed, most such mutations ARE deleterious, many others do nothing that anyone can determine for sure, and very very very few can be said to have any beneficial function. The deleterious mutations are generally flushed out of the population, while the beneficial ones are generally retained. That makes quite a difference. And it is not "very very very few." It is enough to provide genetic diversity and, aided by natural selection, speciation.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Huh? Your chart is supposed to demonstrate what? The relatedness of various varieties of birds? But I have no reason to doubt that most birds ARE related to each other by descent. They're all BIRDS, after all, it's not a claim for descent from a reptile is it? IN OTHER WORDS, this is just MICROEVOLUTION charted, and that is not a subject of controversy for a creationist. [Assuming, of course, that genetic descent IS reflected in that chart, which of course IS open to question since knowledge of such descent would be very very hard to come by, and this fact is in fact discussed by Darwin himself, do I have to dig up the quote for you?]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The deleterious mutations are generally flushed out of the population, while the beneficial ones are generally retained. That makes quite a difference. If it were real it might, but this is sheer theorizing, this is NOT something you know, merely something you assume.
And it is not "very very very few." It is enough to provide genetic diversity and, aided by natural selection, speciation.
Mutations are not needed to provide genetic diversity, that is built into the genome of each species from creation. You are merely assuming mutation where there is no justification for it; it is an artifact of the ToE plus ToE bias in the interpretation of data, reading mutation where normal variation is the case among other errors. And again, natural selection, along with all the other ways you get a reproductively isolated population of any creature, such as geographic isolation and so on, produces varieties or breeds or "species" in the misnamed case by bringing about the reduction of genetic diversity. If mutations keep adding diversity you cannot get breeds or species etc., because their development depends on eliminating genetic material that competes with the formation of the traits of the breed. Natural selection reduces the genetic diversity in order to form the new variety, and a reduction in genetic diversity is the opposite of what the ToE requires to support the idea of evolution beyond the species. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Didn't even look did you? This is the heading
First ever family tree for all living birds reveals evolution and diversification The world’s first family tree linking all living birds and revealing when and where they evolved and diversified since dinosaurs walked the earth has been created by scientists from the University of Sheffield. There are, of course, hundreds of these trees for family groups and also trees that show common descent going back to bacteria - but then you know that, you just choose to un-know it from time to time.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
True, I didn't look closely at it, so apparently it IS just another fantasy chart based on sheer imagination. So much for that.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
so apparently it IS just another fantasy chart based on sheer imagination. Not at all:
quote: But that's scientists for you... you know, actually looking at data and doing work. They're no match for creationist who can make up all their bullshit at home without leaving the chair.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
That's just speculation and fantasy. To bring the claim anywhere near science, you'd have to test it.
Mutations are not needed to provide genetic diversity, that is built into the genome of each species from creation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That just proves it's a fantasy chart, CS. Unfortunately that's what scientists are doing when they conjure with the ToE. They believe the theory about fossils, and they spend enormous amounts of time organizing them according to some ToE-derived principle. Of course if the ToE itself is a fantasy, which it is, oh poor scientists, they are engaged on a fool's errand. Perhaps the genetic data collected has some validity, of course, but even that must be open to question because the ToE bias has made itself felt there too.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes, I'm merely stating the alternate theory which pre-existed the ToE. Everything I've been saying here, however, goes to support it over the ToE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
It's not an alternate theory, not a theory at all until it has been tested. What part of that do you not understand?
Yes, I'm merely stating the alternate theory which pre-existed the ToE. Faith writes:
Saying something is not support.
Everything I've been saying here, however, goes to support it over the ToE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Unfortunately for you, the Theory of Evolution is an incredibly successful theory that still works to this day. It has all the data going for it, and none of the data falsifies it.
The ToE continues to provide scientists the framework for biological research and will continue to help us in the future. Its even being used successfully outside of the realm of biology. The only reason people disbelieve it is because it goes against their religious beliefs. That's what's wrong with you people. But we do all get to have a chuckle when you show up and look at a piece of information that many scientists took 5 years to gather all the data for and just just hand-wave it away as imagination Really though, we should be feeling sorry for you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
That makes me wonder.
When a creationist looks at the following chart:
So by their logic, Noah was Australopithecus Afarensis? Not the most handsome fellow. And I somehow doubt he could build a canoe, let alone a giant wooden ship."Our future lies not in our dogmatic past, but in our enlightened present"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024