Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   WTF is wrong with people
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 136 of 457 (707891)
10-01-2013 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Faith
10-01-2013 3:57 PM


Re: Back on topic
then what does it have to do with TRUTH?
Science is not concerned with TRUTH. Facts and evidence only.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 10-01-2013 3:57 PM Faith has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 137 of 457 (707892)
10-01-2013 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Faith
10-01-2013 5:24 PM


Re: Back on topic
Yes, I thought I was clear that I'm objecting to that definition
But we are talking about science and using science terms, not The Utterly Ridiculous Dictionary according to Faith. You don't get to come up with your own definitions.
I haven't called scientists liiars and deceivers.
No just deluded and dishonest.
I spent thirty years believing in evolution and made some attempts to verify it, all of which left me with the sense that the supposed evidence really didn't support what it claimed to support.
You cannot even use the word Theory correctly, how would you know evidence if you saw it. Do you not believe in germ theory because you cannot see germs? How about the Theory of Gravity? Do you think it is backed by evidence?
Of course IF you could SHOW me via your time machine that it actually happened I'd have no choice but to change my beliefs again
So forensic evidence is bunk? People should only be convicted of things that there is a recording of them committing the crime?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 10-01-2013 5:24 PM Faith has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 138 of 457 (707893)
10-01-2013 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Faith
10-01-2013 5:24 PM


Re: Back on topic
No, I do not have to accept evolution if I accept mutations. I only accept mutations as being events that occur as mistakes, certainly not as viable new genes; that's just something you guys believe. Sorry, if the environment, such as malaria, is what it takes to make a mutation viable, that's not normal genetics, that's a disease process compromise.
Look if i where born with a mutation that makes you the smartest person in the world an IQ in the tens of thousands but no woman would have you or have your children because being smart is not sexually attractive. Would that be a beneficial mutation or a hindering mutation.
Its the evniormnet that selects what is a good mutation and a bad mutation. The goal of life is to reproduce if a mutation helps you get to the point of reproduction its good if it does not its bad.
IF you want to see viable new gens
when you argued against part 3 of my statment the second line said
Yeast adapts to a glucose limited environment via gene duplications and natural selection
yes an EXTRA NEW GEN viable and really useful
I also then point out that this new population exhibits the very reduction in genetic diversity I've been talking about, which is a trend AWAY from what would be required if the ToE were true because it makes further variation LESS possible, not more. And again, since you are going to want to throw mutations in here to claim that this reduction is not inevitable, if its genetic diversity DOES increase then you will lose the breed/race/variety/species and the whole idea of speciation that supposedly is evolution's springboard to further speciation.
Given that i have shown you that new gens are possible can this new species get new gens when reproducing thus increasing its Genetic diversity??
Yes, I thought I was clear that I'm objecting to that definition, not that I'm not aware of it. It's a tendentious question-begging definition that obscures the fact that you still have the same genome and therefore the same species, not a new species in the sense you would have to have to validate the claims of the ToE. All that has happened in most cases is that you get a very small population that has become reproductively isolated and inbred over many generations, and the inbreeding over those many generations of this group with severely reduced genetic diversity does lead to genetic incompatibility with the original population. It's still the same species nevertheless and the term "speciation" only serves to obfuscate that fact. I refer to it by that name anyway, but every time I do I have to append all these caveats and qualifications.
But our species has basicly the same genome as Chimps and Bonobos there is only a few % difference. And the our second chromosome being a fusion of 2 chromosomes in chimps and bonobos we have seen fusion happen. We have seen mutation happen new gens arising, old gens being deleted, retrovisruses incorporating themselves in genomes and such. Are we then the same species?
I also then point out that this new population exhibits the very reduction in genetic diversity I've been talking about, which is a trend AWAY from what would be required if the ToE were true because it makes further variation LESS possible, not more. And again, since you are going to want to throw mutations in here to claim that this reduction is not inevitable, if its genetic diversity DOES increase then you will lose the breed/race/variety/species and the whole idea of speciation that supposedly is evolution's springboard to further speciation.
But you see when you increase genetic diversity in that new species its done by RANDOM mutation so it can never become more similar to the pervius species it drifsts further away.
This is silly. I've never said I WANT you to see any such thing, I'm emphasizing that you CANNOT, that all you have is SPECULATION about anything in the unwitnessed past, it's all inferred from the ToE. And again what I've been describing MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR IT TO HAPPEN AT ALL ANYWAY.
What would you need to see i have been asking for a while now i want to know what piece of evidence could convince you
I have no idea what you are ranting about in response to my saying that adaptation is normal variation. It is. Normal variation under selection or other form of reproductive isolation. It does not require mutations.
The second line clearly stated GEN DUPLICATION an extra gen sure a copy of an existing one but not present before MUTATION not variation.
Since what "large morphological change" means was not given, all I can do is assume it's built into the genome and was selected.
Yea one would need to go and decipher their whole genome and the genome of the parrent species to se what actually changed.
Sorry, I did not find your lists convincing. Of course you are going to scream that they are.
But what would convince you i need to know so i can find it and show it to you, or tell you that that is not what evolution predicts. For all i know you want a chimp to give birth to a human to convince you while in fact that would convince me that evolution is wrong.
I spent thirty years believing in evolution and made some attempts to verify it, all of which left me with the sense that the supposed evidence really didn't support what it claimed to support.
It does i just dont think you understand what the evidence shows and what the theory of evolution says.
Of course IF you could SHOW me via your time machine that it actually happened I'd have no choice but to change my beliefs again, wouldn't I? Of course that is not what your time machine would show, if it was an honest time mchine.
U sure you wouldn't just call it a lying time machine.
Nevertheless I went on "believing" in evolution until I became a Christian and eventually discovered creationism which made sense of all that nonsense
Yea creationism makes no sense to me and it does nothing to further advance our knowledge. But thats because its Religion and not science.
But if i got it right Young earth creationism says about 6000 years ago god made all the animals the planet the universe and humans.
for that hypothesis to make its way to Theory it has to be tested. we test its predictions.
Prediction nr 1 the earth is no less then 6000 years old.
Radiocarbon dating says its older, we use the same knowlage as we use in radioactive dating methods in :
Nuclear power
Commercial technologies: Smoke detectors, Betavoltaics ....
Medical aplications: radiation therapy, medical radiography, Positron emission tomography. ...
Industrial aplications: Gauges, Electrostatic control, Radioactive tracers, Oil and Gas Exploration, Road Construction.
And much more if the dates using radiocarbon datin are wrong then that technology cannot function.
Thermoluminescence dating
A dating technique that can be used on inorganic materials such as clay pots. It can tell us when was the last time that object saw sunlight, or the last time it was heated. The dates conform with radiocarbon dating where applicable, and it works on a different principle.
There are around 30 dating techniques that all conform where applicable, and all point to an old earth.
So that part of YEC hypothesis hasto be scratched out.
Prediction nr 2 all animals created at the same time
God supposedly made all the animals at roughly the same time to support this claim you need to find modern animals together with tetropods, or dinosaurs. OR dinosaurs with tetropods. Whitout such evidence the claim that all the animals where created at the same time is as valid as they sky is blue because blue dragons are blowing blue fire in to the sky.
Without some evidence like that that claim has to be scratched out of the hypothesis as there is no evidence to support it.
You can prove evolution wrong in the same way
In its basic evolution basicly says
RANDOM MUTATION + NATURAL SELECTION = DIVERSITY OF LIFE
IT seems simpler but it has way more predictions and logical consequences, so it should be simple to find A SINGLE prediction wrong. Debunking the whole theory.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 10-01-2013 5:24 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 139 of 457 (707895)
10-01-2013 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by New Cat's Eye
10-01-2013 3:47 PM


Re: Back on topic
Sure, I guess I can go on repeating my points since you require it of me.
As I said, the ToE is successful because it is purely imaginary and can't be effectively challenged for that reason. It is purely imaginary because it deals with the unwitnessed past which means you can make up just about anything you like about it without fear of being shown to be wrong. There's always a way to imagine yourself out of any issue. Just make a chart to "prove" yourself right.
Everything I've argued on this thread is about facts in the real world, not about the Bible and not something I made up.
I guess you can use an imaginary system to "make successful predictions" because after all the fulfillment of those predictions is entirely a matter of imaginatively interpreting something to fit the theory anyway.
Fortunately all of biology does not rely on evolutionary thinking. That too is a tenet of the ToE faith. Oh the ToE is invoked quite frequently and there's plenty of "research" done in its name, and biologists like everybody else are unfortunately steeped in the lore of the ToE so it's impossibly to avoid it, but fortunately most of that doesn't impact anything that matters in the real world. To the extent that it does impact reality, however, biology is going to start veering off into neverneverland at that point.
I have not at any point in this discussion rejected the ToE "on religious grounds." What's remarkable is that very few have bothered to address what I HAVE said, which is based on actual biological fact: You can't get new species without a reduction in genetic diversity, you simply cannot, it cannot happen; that means that reality goes the wrong direction for the ToE to be true. If you DO get increased genetic diversity for whatever reason, mutations, gene flow, hybridization, whatever, then you do not get new species, which is the other way reality goes the wrong direction for the ToE to be true. Either way reality defeats evolution. All the earnest testimonials, encomiums, paeans to "scientific method" and the wondrous success of the ToE, are belied by this simple biological fact.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-01-2013 3:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by frako, posted 10-01-2013 9:59 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 143 by Coyote, posted 10-01-2013 10:30 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 150 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-02-2013 11:56 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 140 of 457 (707896)
10-01-2013 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by PaulK
10-01-2013 3:54 PM


Re: Back on topic
An increase in phenotypic diversity is caused by a REDUCTION in genetic diversity ? That does not make sense.
Finally, the fact that you are NOT getting what I'm saying, and I'm sure you are representative, is coming out. Yes, to get a new phenotype requires that the genetic material for OTHER traits be eliminated from the new breed, which is a reduction in the genetic diversity of the new population, the new breed, from the former population or from the species population as a whole. Yes, that is how it happens in the wild and in domestic breeding. You are breeding angus cattle, then you cannot have alleles or whatever genetic material applies, for any other breed of cattle. Ideally purebreds have fixed loci for the traits that define the breed, or much homozygosity in the genome for those traits, which is a condition of greatly reduced genetic diversity.
Dogs as a whole have great phenotypic diversity but that involves the genetic diversity of the whole species, not that of a single breed.
The dog population as a whole does, yes, but the cutting edge of evolution is the development of new species, or breeds, and those single breeds or "species" are based on a particular genetic substrate which is a selection of alleles for its traits OUT OF the previous population or the dog population as a whole. EVERY separate single breed or species is built upon its own selection of alleles for its pecular collection of traits, which HAS to be a sharp genetic reduction from the dog population as a whole. Sometimes breeds have been formed from very few individuals, which obviously sharply reduces their genetic diversity among themselves. This is how ALL breeds or "species" form, there is no other way.
No, this is not my assumption. I do believe that mutations cannot bring about such recovery, but recovery is possible by many means. The point I have made over and over is that increasing genetic diversity can only defeat the purpose of developing varieties or breeds, or new "species."
As I have pointed out this is simply not true. There is no such purpose. There is no breeder or other force to enforce such a purpose.
I mean that if you don't get species or breeds you are not getting evolution, that's all I meant by the word "purpose." Evolution isn't happening if you aren't getting new species or breeds or varieties and to get them requires the elimination of genetic material for everything but the traits of that group. In the wild this is usually a random process, not intentional in any sense of the word, except where natural "selection" has a role, but it's still true that the development of a new phenotype, a new species, is built on the elimination of alleles or genetic material for other traits in the previous population or the species as a whole, even in the mother population from which the new "species" has migrated or otherwise become reproductively isolated. So if you have mutations or any other way gene flow is increased, that are introducing genetic diversity into a breed or new "species" you are destroying the breed, interfering with evolution.
Since to get a new "species" requires that a new set of alleles for traits characterize this population, i.e. reduced genetic diversity with respect to previous populations from which it is now isolated, adding back anything to increase diversity only defeats the "purpose" as it were of forming new species. This is absolutely contrary to the idea that the ToE is only onward and upward with the development of varieties or "microevolution," having no stopping point. What's to stop it? everybody asks. Well THIS is what stops it. You can't have a continual increase in genetic diversity along with every new speciation event. THAT idea is pure fantasy, absolutely contradicted by the reality of what has to happen to form a new species.
There's more in your post but I'd rather stick to this for now.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by PaulK, posted 10-01-2013 3:54 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by frako, posted 10-01-2013 10:09 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 144 by PaulK, posted 10-02-2013 1:21 AM Faith has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 141 of 457 (707899)
10-01-2013 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Faith
10-01-2013 9:06 PM


Re: Back on topic
As I said, the ToE is successful because it is purely imaginary and can't be effectively challenged for that reason. It is purely imaginary because it deals with the unwitnessed past which means you can make up just about anything you like about it without fear of being shown to be wrong.
Simply not true If you find a dinosaur from an age before tetropods evolution is clearly wrong and hasto be scraped.
If you find that there is no mechanism for evolution there was no ide what this mechanism is in the time of darwin evolution is wrong. But we found a mechanism DNA and its properties of imperfect replication, or as we call it mutation.
If you find that the timescale is too short for evolution to bring about the diversity we see, evolution is proven wrong and scrapped, at the time of darwin we had no idea of how long our earth exsisted, now we do we have time to spare.
All of this and more can or could have proved evolution wrong but it never has.
There's always a way to imagine yourself out of any issue. Just make a chart to "prove" yourself right.
We dont just pull charts out of our ar... behinds, we actualy put work in it using objective tools and objective measurements.
Everything I've argued on this thread is about facts in the real world, not about the Bible and not something I made up.
You argued that that mutations cannot increase genetic diversety even though i have shown you examples where mutations in genoms or deletions of gens, additions of new gens, or fusions of cromosomes, .... increase genetic diversety. You have one genome then you have a mutated genome that hasa difference is different from the parrent genome. Genetic diversity increased.
[qs]Fortunately all of biology does not rely on evolutionary thinking.[\qs]
Ever herd the phrase nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution. it was coined by a Russian Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky, the tittle of his essay critisizing anti-evolution and creationists.
Taxonomy the way we classify animals scientificly conforms to evolution.
the whole of biology is intertwined with evolution
That too is a tenet of the ToE faith. Oh the ToE is invoked quite frequently and there's plenty of "research" done in its name, and biologists like everybody else are unfortunately steeped in the lore of the ToE so it's impossibly to avoid it, but fortunately most of that doesn't impact anything that matters in the real world.
Evolution underlies many improvements in agriculture (e.g., the artificial selection of crop strains and livestock breeds).
A less well-known fact is that evolutionary principles were used to produce many of our best vaccines and that evolution also causes problems with the use of some of those vaccines.
The vaccine now used to immunize against the disease poliomyelitis is a live poliovirus that we eat.
This live virus does not give us the disease (except to about 1-2 in a million people vaccinated) because it is genetically weakened so that our body can defeat it.
This process of weakening is called attenuation, and it is an evolutionary process. The attenuated vaccine strains came from wild, virulent strains of poliovirus, but they were evolved by Albert Sabin to become attenuated. Essentially, he grew the viruses outside of humans, and as the viruses became adapted to those non-human conditions, they lost their ability to cause disease in people.
Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is an evolutionary phenomenon
prolonging the life of drug/chemical resistant compounds
constructing evolutionary trees
pathogen tracking
industrial production of biochemicals and other agents
Isolates of the AIDS virus with up to 15 different drug-resistance mutations are known, and the latest drugs are becoming ineffective.
Some strains of bacteria are resistant to all available antibiotics.
For multi-drug resistant tuberculosis, surgery is the only cure because antibiotics don’t work and only 50% of those infected survive.
Chemotherapy for cancer often fails because drug-resistant cells evolve during treatment.
Pesticide resistance and herbicide resistance is so common now that the financial incentive to make new pesticides and herbicides is break-even or worse.
Artificially evolved enzymes and other proteins are soon to become part of household and medical technologies.
We will have protein-based drugs that, unlike the proteins inside our bodies, degrade slowly so that we don’t need to take so much of them.
Enzymes are being evolved to work in detergents (which they don’t normally do).
And as the stuff of futuristic novels, molecules are being developed to bind anthrax spores, ricin molecules, and other potential bioterrorism agents.
and much more
To the extent that it does impact reality, however, biology is going to start veering off into neverneverland at that point.
As supposed to creation that is alredy in never never land.
You can't get new species without a reduction in genetic diversity, you simply cannot, it cannot happen; that means that reality goes the wrong direction for the ToE to be true
And i have shown you how mutations create NEW genetic diversity.
If you DO get increased genetic diversity for whatever reason, mutations, gene flow, hybridization, whatever, then you do not get new species, which is the other way reality goes the wrong direction for the ToE to be true
So both ways are the wrong way??
Look you get speciation where the news species cannot mate with its parrent species. After that when the new species reproduces it gets new genetic diversity with every generation how is this so hard to understand. Every generation is a mutant A single gen or multiple are DIFFERENT from their parrents genomes You have the parrents genome and the ofspring genom they are a bit different. While you had only one genome before thus you have increased genetic diversity. whoptidooo
Either way reality defeats evolution
No you are ignoring reality and substituting it for your own in witch what you mentioned before happens.
All the earnest testimonials, encomiums, paeans to "scientific method" and the wondrous success of the ToE, are belied by this simple biological fact.
But its not a fact i have shown you how wrong you are you just dont want to accept it.
This it what happens in reality this is fact
Genomes mutate its a fact period if you dont believe me go have your genome decoded, and the genome of your parrents you WILL find that about 4 of your gens are DIFFERENT then the ones your father or mother posses. Fact PERIOD
MOST mutations are NEUTRAL meaning no benefit or and NO hindrance. They also dont get selected by natural selection
Some mutations are bad. Natural selection weeds these out. Say a wolf has a mutation that causes blindness, a blind wolf cant survive or mate to pass this mutation on.
A FEW mutations are beneficial. Natural selection selects these. A stronger wolf catches more pray, leads the pack, fathers the packs children Grately increasing the beneficial mutation in the gen pool of the pack, because half of the new cubs will have it. Making the pack stronger possibly enough to even outcompete other packs that do not have this mutation.
ALL OF THIS IS FACT PERIOD.
When speciation does accure GRANTED THEY HAVE A LOW GENETIC DIVERSITY.
BUT EVERY NEW GENERATION IS STILL A MUTANT NEW GENS IN THE GEN POOL OF THE NEW SPECIES. FACT.
With every new mutation the differnce between the parrent species and new species also increases as MUTATIONS ARE RANDOM.
POINT TO WHAT FACT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE AND I WILL SHOW YOU AN EXAMPLE IN REAL LIFE.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Faith, posted 10-01-2013 9:06 PM Faith has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 142 of 457 (707900)
10-01-2013 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Faith
10-01-2013 9:36 PM


Re: Back on topic
Finally, the fact that you are NOT getting what I'm saying, and I'm sure you are representative, is coming out. Yes, to get a new phenotype requires that the genetic material for OTHER traits be eliminated from the new breed, which is a reduction in the genetic diversity of the new population, the new breed, from the former population or from the species population as a whole. Yes, that is how it happens in the wild and in domestic breeding. You are breeding angus cattle, then you cannot have alleles or whatever genetic material applies, for any other breed of cattle. Ideally purebreds have fixed loci for the traits that define the breed, or much homozygosity in the genome for those traits, which is a condition of greatly reduced genetic diversity.
The problem with citing cattle as your example is that their low genetic diversity is caused by artificial insemination about 75% of all cattle get artificialy inseminated. A single Bull can have up to 500 000 daughters . Greatly decreasing genetic diversity.
The dog population as a whole does, yes, but the cutting edge of evolution is the development of new species, or breeds, and those single breeds or "species" are based on a particular genetic substrate which is a selection of alleles for its traits OUT OF the previous population or the dog population as a whole. EVERY separate single breed or species is built upon its own selection of alleles for its pecular collection of traits, which HAS to be a sharp genetic reduction from the dog population as a whole. Sometimes breeds have been formed from very few individuals, which obviously sharply reduces their genetic diversity among themselves. This is how ALL breeds or "species" form, there is no other way.
Il give you that but every new generation has UNIQUE mutations of its own INCREASING GENETIC DIVERSITY.
I mean that if you don't get species or breeds you are not getting evolution, that's all I meant by the word "purpose." Evolution isn't happening if you aren't getting new species or breeds or varieties and to get them requires the elimination of genetic material for everything but the traits of that group. In the wild this is usually a random process, not intentional in any sense of the word, except where natural "selection" has a role, but it's still true that the development of a new phenotype, a new species, is built on the elimination of alleles or genetic material for other traits in the previous population or the species as a whole, even in the mother population from which the new "species" has migrated or otherwise become reproductively isolated. So if you have mutations or any other way gene flow is increased, that are introducing genetic diversity into a breed or new "species" you are destroying the breed, interfering with evolution.
No when you have those mutations you are just making every generation more different from the parrent species. Mutations are RANDOM.
Since to get a new "species" requires that a new set of alleles for traits characterize this population, i.e. reduced genetic diversity with respect to previous populations from which it is now isolated, adding back anything to increase diversity only defeats the "purpose" as it were of forming new species. This is absolutely contrary to the idea that the ToE is only onward and upward with the development of varieties or "microevolution," having no stopping point. What's to stop it? everybody asks. Well THIS is what stops it. You can't have a continual increase in genetic diversity along with every new speciation event. THAT idea is pure fantasy, absolutely contradicted by the reality of what has to happen to form a new species.
You are not adding back you are adding NEW. MUTATIONS ARE RANDOM.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 10-01-2013 9:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(4)
Message 143 of 457 (707901)
10-01-2013 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Faith
10-01-2013 9:06 PM


My summary
As I said, the ToE is successful because it is purely imaginary and can't be effectively challenged for that reason. It is purely imaginary because it deals with the unwitnessed past which means you can make up just about anything you like about it without fear of being shown to be wrong. There's always a way to imagine yourself out of any issue. Just make a chart to "prove" yourself right.
This is absolutely incorrect. You have let your belief overcome all reason, evidence, and logic. That's not an admirable trait. In fact, denial of what is demonstratable in the real world is foolhardy. Try denying an oncoming train and see how far you get. (Actually, you could get quite far, but you probably wouldn't enjoy it very much).
I have seen the fossil evidence supporting the theory of evolution--you haven't. I spent several years reading the literature and studying the casts of all the major specimens and many of the lesser ones while preparing for my Ph.D. exams. In this field, your opinion is based on belief, instead of evidence, and is worth nothing. You're like the apocryphal King Cnut trying to hold back the waves with nothing but words. In your case those words are made from whole cloth, as you seem to be willing to deny any evidence without even reading it and certainly without thinking about it.
Everything I've argued on this thread is about facts in the real world, not about the Bible and not something I made up.
Not so. What you are claiming is contradicted by scientific evidence from stem to stern. What you can't misrepresent from the scientific literature you just make up from your belief. If something goes against your belief you are sure it has to be wrong, and you don't much care if your claims are internally consistent, supported by any real-world evidence, or even possible. If you can make the counter claim, to you that counts as a refutation of any evidence you disagree with, no matter how silly it actually is. That may be appropriate adherence to dogma and good apologetics, but it is the exact opposite of science.
I guess you can use an imaginary system to "make successful predictions" because after all the fulfillment of those predictions is entirely a matter of imaginatively interpreting something to fit the theory anyway.
In science, a model is a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes. It is a representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process, and in so doing provide feedback on the evidence and assumptions that went into the creation of that model. Simplified, it is "If x is true, then we will see y and z under these conditions." If y and z are seen as predicted the model is supported, else it is refuted.
Expand that several thousand times and add all the data dealing with evolution. The model of evolution is supported in all relevant cases, and is not refuted in any relevant cases. When this happens the model can be elevated to the level of a theory. But that theory is continually tested against existing and new data. Unfortunately for your side, the theory of evolution has passed all of those tests and has successfully made predictions about what should be found if the theory is correct. That suggests that the theory of evolution is accurate. Your model has been found wanting, as it not only fails to make accurate predictions but also is contracted by vast amounts of relevant evidence.
You can quibble and equivocate all you want, but that changes nothing.
Fortunately all of biology does not rely on evolutionary thinking. That too is a tenet of the ToE faith. Oh the ToE is invoked quite frequently and there's plenty of "research" done in its name, and biologists like everybody else are unfortunately steeped in the lore of the ToE so it's impossibly to avoid it, but fortunately most of that doesn't impact anything that matters in the real world. To the extent that it does impact reality, however, biology is going to start veering off into neverneverland at that point.
That is your belief, but it is not supported by facts. I assume you remember the phrase, and essay, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" that I referred you to yesterday. That is still true today. And it will remain "true" until evidence is provided to the contrary. Your "what-ifs" and denials do not constitute evidence. In fact, your grasp of science, from its terminology to its methodology to its findings seems to be either remarkably weak or totally uninformed.
I have not at any point in this discussion rejected the ToE "on religious grounds."
Sure you have. No one but religious fundamentalists holds beliefs similar to yours. If one looks at the evidence, from any culture in the world, one winds up at the same findings that have been arrived at by scientists. But if one starts with certain fundamentalists beliefs, with a great deal of effort one can ignore, deny, obfuscate, misrepresent and otherwise twist the evidence to come up with your beliefs. Its not easy to do, as those beliefs have so little connection to the real world that they simply cannot be arrived at from the evidence. They can only be arrived at through religious beliefs, so your claims to be doing science are patently false.
What's remarkable is that very few have bothered to address what I HAVE said, which is based on actual biological fact: You can't get new species without a reduction in genetic diversity, you simply cannot, it cannot happen; that means that reality goes the wrong direction for the ToE to be true. If you DO get increased genetic diversity for whatever reason, mutations, gene flow, hybridization, whatever, then you do not get new species, which is the other way reality goes the wrong direction for the ToE to be true. Either way reality defeats evolution. All the earnest testimonials, encomiums, paeans to "scientific method" and the wondrous success of the ToE, are belied by this simple biological fact.
This has been explained to you a number of times, but you simply refuse to look at what happens in the real world. Look at speciation as a fork in the road (actually a "Y"). From a narrow base there is a divergence as diversity increases through time and/or distance! There is no way you can realistically claim that overall diversity decreases! Look just at the higher primates. From a single common ancestor you end up with gorillas, chimps, bonobos, orangs, and humans. That's increased diversity no matter what you claim!
But you will have to deny this because the results contradict your religious beliefs. And of course you will continue to deny, misrepresent, obfuscate, or otherwise try to hand-wave away all of this evidence, just as you do with the rest of the evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
Sure, I guess I can go on repeating my points since you require it of me.
This is where we came in. Go ahead and just hand-wave it all away. Your hand-waving means nothing in the real world.
But if you're honest you'll end each of your posts with, "Amen!" because all you're really doing is preaching.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Faith, posted 10-01-2013 9:06 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(3)
Message 144 of 457 (707909)
10-02-2013 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Faith
10-01-2013 9:36 PM


Re: Back on topic
quote:
Finally, the fact that you are NOT getting what I'm saying, and I'm sure you are representative, is coming out
It looks more like YOU failed to get what I was saying. I was talking about an increase in the number of phenotypic variations found within a population. It doesn't make sense that reducing genetic variation would cause that.
quote:
Yes, to get a new phenotype requires that the genetic material for OTHER traits be eliminated from the new breed, which is a reduction in the genetic diversity of the new population, the new breed, from the former population or from the species population as a whole.
But I'm not talking about "getting a new phenotype" or a "new breed". I am talking about within-species phenotypic variation increasing, mainly because you refuse to accept variations in gene sequences as increases in genetic variation.
quote:
Yes, that is how it happens in the wild and in domestic breeding. You are breeding angus cattle, then you cannot have alleles or whatever genetic material applies, for any other breed of cattle. Ideally purebreds have fixed loci for the traits that define the breed, or much homozygosity in the genome for those traits, which is a condition of greatly reduced genetic diversity.
In other words you are talking about a REDUCTION in phenotypic variation not an INCREASE. I think that adequately demonstrates which of us is "NOT getting" it.
We can dispense with the next paragraph since it simply repeats the same error.
quote:
I mean that if you don't get species or breeds you are not getting evolution, that's all I meant by the word "purpose."
But increasing genetic diversity doesn't interfere with getting new species. Once the species has formed of course it can add new variations without losing the distinctive features we use to identify it (and if a few such features were lost they would simply be discounted as diagnostic features for identifying that species - so even that is not a problem).
quote:
Evolution isn't happening if you aren't getting new species or breeds or varieties and to get them requires the elimination of genetic material for everything but the traits of that group. In the wild this is usually a random process, not intentional in any sense of the word, except where natural "selection" has a role, but it's still true that the development of a new phenotype, a new species, is built on the elimination of alleles or genetic material for other traits in the previous population or the species as a whole, even in the mother population from which the new "species" has migrated or otherwise become reproductively isolated. So if you have mutations or any other way gene flow is increased, that are introducing genetic diversity into a breed or new "species" you are destroying the breed, interfering with evolution.
Gene flow from the parent species is a potential problem (which is why reproductive isolation is an important criterion for identifying species). An incipient species could be reabsorbed into the parent species. But once it is distinct with reproductive isolation established that cannot happen. The rest of your argument is just false. New variations created by mutation AFTER a new species has formed do not in any way threaten its existence as a species.
quote:
Since to get a new "species" requires that a new set of alleles for traits characterize this population, i.e. reduced genetic diversity with respect to previous populations from which it is now isolated, adding back anything to increase diversity only defeats the "purpose" as it were of forming new species.
You keep making that claim but you've never offered any reason to believe it. And as I say it's obviously false. Only reversion to the parental species' phenotype would "defeat" evolution and adding variations not found in the parental population will obviously not do that. To point to just one example, the short legs of dachshunds do not make them wolves rather than dogs.
quote:
This is absolutely contrary to the idea that the ToE is only onward and upward with the development of varieties or "microevolution," having no stopping point. What's to stop it? everybody asks. Well THIS is what stops it. You can't have a continual increase in genetic diversity along with every new speciation event. THAT idea is pure fantasy, absolutely contradicted by the reality of what has to happen to form a new species.
If your opinion was sufficient to settle an argument then you wouldn't need your argument in the first place. So you need more than your opinion that adding new variations to a newly-formed species somehow makes it less of a species. It is obviously absurd to say that the appearance of a new variation not found in the parent species represents a reversion to the parent species. And yet, that is what your argument seems to amount to.
Let's boil it down to that question:
We have a new species.
A new phenotypic variation appears in that species - it does not cause any of the features that distinguish the new species from it's parent species to be lost. It is not found in the parent species at all.
How does this make the new species any less a species ?
Until you can give an answer to that question that makes sense your argument fails.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 10-01-2013 9:36 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by NoNukes, posted 10-02-2013 1:46 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 10-02-2013 1:12 PM PaulK has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 145 of 457 (707910)
10-02-2013 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by PaulK
10-02-2013 1:21 AM


Re: Back on topic
t is obviously absurd to say that the appearance of a new variation not found in the parent species represents a reversion to the parent species. And yet, that is what your argument seems to amount to.
You've explained this as well as I've seen it explained, but Faith seems to think species are like show dogs. If they are a tiny bit off color, or their ears are droopy rather than floppy, they don't get ribbons.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by PaulK, posted 10-02-2013 1:21 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Theodoric, posted 10-02-2013 9:13 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 146 of 457 (707921)
10-02-2013 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by NoNukes
10-02-2013 1:46 AM


Re: Back on topic
Faith refuses to acknowledge the fact that evolution and selective breeding are not the same thing. I am not sure who she thinks the breeder is in evolution. This is just another example of her willful ignorance and lack of ability for any type of critical thinking.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by NoNukes, posted 10-02-2013 1:46 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 10-02-2013 11:33 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 147 of 457 (707931)
10-02-2013 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Theodoric
10-02-2013 9:13 AM


Re: Back to how population genetics defeats evolution
Faith refuses to acknowledge the fact that evolution and selective breeding are not the same thing. I am not sure who she thinks the breeder is in evolution. This is just another example of her willful ignorance and lack of ability for any type of critical thinking.
I know you WANT me to be that stupid but I'm not, it's just that you are not understanding what I'm saying and it suits you not to so you don't put much effort into it.
What happens GENETICALLY is the same whether in the wild or in domestic breeding, though the causes are different, usually random in the wild, and you are likely to get imperfect isolation in the wild which also affects the outcome.
But again, the basic genetic facts are the same: by either means you get reduced genetic diversity when you reproductively isolate a small portion of a larger population, which is probably the only way but at least the most common way new "species" or breeds develop either in the wild or in artificial selection. There are MANY ways this situation can occur but functionally they have the same result. For instance, natural selection reproductively isolates a portion of a population, so does migration, geographic isolation, anything that causes a bottleneck, human selection and so on. ALL these events have the same effect of isolating a small number from a larger number of individuals of a particular species, the smaller the number and the greater the isolation the greater the effect but it's the same effect in all cases.
And that effect is that you have a new population of individuals with a reduced genetic diversity that now inbreeds among themselves only, and over some number of generations their limited alleles combine together allowing a new set of traits to emerge to distinguish the population from the former population from which it diverged. This is because of the different allele frequencies contained in the new population as opposed to the original population.
The lizard example Frako gave illustrates what happens when you have a very small number of individuals that get reproductively isolated from the larger population, in that case ten lizards that get isolated on an island apart from thousands or millions left behind on the mainland. Obviously there is a sharply reduced genetic diversity in this smaller population of lizards in comparison with the mainland population, and after some generations of inbreeding they look quite different from the mainland lizards and have developed an inability to interbreed with them as well. This is of course the same kind of thing that Darwin described with the Galapagos turtles.
This is artificially called "speciation" by evolutionists who get all excited about how supposedly it really is a new species that confirms evolution, which is of course the reason Frako posted that video, and they refuse to listen if you point out that all that's going on here is "microevolution" or normal variation of the same sort that produces breeds in domesticity by artificial selection, and that the inability to interbreed with the former population is merely the result of the drastically reduced genetic diversity of the new population as it has inbred over some generations, which changes it sufficiently to interfere with genetic compatibility with the former population. This situation only took thirty years to accomplish as Frako points out at the Evolution Fairytale site, which I just read through. Thus is the evolutionist delusion maintained.
Cheers.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Theodoric, posted 10-02-2013 9:13 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Diomedes, posted 10-02-2013 11:55 AM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 148 of 457 (707934)
10-02-2013 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Faith
10-01-2013 2:55 PM


Re: Back on topic
Faith writes:
What YOU don't understand is that the ToE hasn't been "tested,"....
That's nonsense, of course. For one example, the theory of evolution by natural selection was formulated before we knew anything about DNA. The subsequent discovery and study of DNA has provided the mechanism by which mutation and the resulting natural selection works. On the other hand, the study of DNA has provided NO support for the creationist tripe about a magical "super genome".
Every discovery of new facts is a test of the theory. If creationists are so confident in their hypothesis, why aren't they looking for factual support?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 10-01-2013 2:55 PM Faith has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(3)
Message 149 of 457 (707935)
10-02-2013 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Faith
10-02-2013 11:33 AM


Re: Back to how population genetics defeats evolution
Faith writes:
What YOU don't understand is that the ToE hasn't been "tested,"....
I am curious: do you even bother to read posts by other individuals, especially when they provided references, or do you just rant?
Frako provided several examples of instances where the ToE was validated through testing. I provided an example of Prof. Lenski's groundbreaking research on Bacteria that showed how they 'evolved' the capability to ingest citrate. All of these findings are experiments; i.e. 'testing'.
But regardless of evidence presented, you just ignore it and prefer to rant. And if all you want to do is rant, I guess that is your prerogative. But if you are attempting to sway people's opinions or give credence to your views, you are doing a pretty dismal job. I would actually argue that the rants of people like yourself, Kirk Cameron, Kent Hovind, etc have done more to advance the knowledge of things like the ToE rather than detract away from it. When you present yourself as little more than the guy on the street corner with the 'End is Near' sign, you are not going to be taken seriously. Pure and simple.

"Our future lies not in our dogmatic past, but in our enlightened present"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 10-02-2013 11:33 AM Faith has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 150 of 457 (707936)
10-02-2013 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Faith
10-01-2013 9:06 PM


Re: Back on topic
No, the ToE is successful because it has great explanatory power and we have yet to see any data that goes against it. It is not purely imaginary because it is a logical inference from the vast amounts of data we have available to us.
And you can't just make up anything and the ToE can easily be falsified. There are no rabbits in the cambrian layers.
And the facts that you've brought here are misunderstood and misapplied. For example, the resulting genomes from the artificial selection of human breeding and husbandry are not a reflection of what happens in the wild with natural selection.
And the fact that after the ToE was used to predict that a particular transitional species should have existed within a particular layer, and then an example of a species like that was found in that layer, shows that it is an applicable theory and not just circular imagination.
Further, all of biology really does rely on the ToE and it really does tie everything together. Biology is not going veer off into neverland, and everyday it continues to make advancements and improvements to our world, in spite of the slander from creationists.
You really can get new species with the addition of genetic information, and without a reduction of genetic diversity. You simply can, it happens.
And regarding your argument that the process in the ToE cannot work: Eppur si muove. The animals, they are evolving and the ToE explains how so.
Repeating yourself doesn't make you less wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Faith, posted 10-01-2013 9:06 PM Faith 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