|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9189 total) |
| |
Michaeladams | |
Total: 918,912 Year: 6,169/9,624 Month: 17/240 Week: 32/34 Day: 4/6 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do you define the word Evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9564 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: They don't know that, tangle. There's this segment of the gene that has the order of a transposon, which leads to the assumption that it was originally a mutation. Not evidence, assumption. You live in your own little bubble don't you? A reality distortion field. If a scientist that's been working with molecular genetics for tens of years publishes a paper in Nature that's peer reviewed by the best scientists in their field in the world tells me it's a mutation, then it's a fucking mutation until someone with similar qualifications says otherwise. Not an armchair creationist with absolutely zero knowledge or qualifications in the subject. Your arrogance has to be a sin.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1633 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm hardly the only creationist who thinks such things. The prevailing bias is in favor of a mutation, and that looks to me like all that is going on there. Peer review would see it the same way, because it's the prevailing understanding. But there isn't anything in the facts you gave that actually proves it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9564 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: They don't know that, tangle. There's this segment of the gene that has the order of a transposon, which leads to the assumption that it was originally a mutation. Not evidence, assumption. quote: THAT is a research finding. It IS a mutation and it IS evidence. It's a change in gene structure - one bit stuck into another bit - the wrong bit in the wrong place. An error. They can even date the mutation event. It can't possibly get clearer than that.
quote: Maybe someone with access to the actual paper and some real knowledge of genetics can give it to you in detail. I don't know Faith, we're now at the point where absolutely no evidence is good enough. I know that's your position but it's still impossible to watch and believe it's happening. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2431 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
The carbonaria mutation was in fact a "jumping" piece of DNA, called a transposon, which had inserted itself into a gene called cortex. These odd sequences more often have a damaging effect when they disrupt an existing gene. It probably did have a damaging effect in that it disrupted normal control of melanin production resulting in overproduction and hence a dark coloured moth. This could have been beneficial so long as soot was making trees darker. Another case of a damaged gene having a beneficial effect is adult lactose tolerance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2517 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
CCR, amazing that after all these years, evolutionists are trying to say that the Lords' variability, in genetics, is a sign or proof of evolution.
I heard about these dark moths adapting for survival maybe twenty years ago.... or was it thrity years ago, before becoming a full time missionary...and that dementia of evolutionists is still being touted as a proof of evolution. Give us a scientific break. Desperate evolutionists will twist anything. Chaleleons change colour via their oringial design, all sorts of animals are given the ability to blend into their environment, (Which came first the flounders eyes on only one side or their method of hiding in the sand at the bottom.... The Lord created them in one go, they did not evolve by shifting their eyes to one side, they didn;t evolve their colours, they were GIVEN. Moths that get darker, are still moths. Color is not an evolution. Races are not different because of their color. They are ALL people, all human.. The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK. .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 2130 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
...before becoming a full time missionary... Well, that figures.
I heard about these dark moths adapting for survival maybe twenty years ago.... or was it thrity years ago, before becoming a full time missionary...and that dementia of evolutionists is still being touted as a proof of evolution. Give us a scientific break. Desperate evolutionists will twist anything. Chaleleons change colour via their oringial design, all sorts of animals are given the ability to blend into their environment, (Which came first the flounders eyes on only one side or their method of hiding in the sand at the bottom.... The Lord created them in one go, they did not evolve by shifting their eyes to one side, they didn;t evolve their colours, they were GIVEN. Moths that get darker, are still moths. One thing I've learned is that, in general, the more emotionally-laden a post is, the most vacuous it is in terms of intellectual content. You have a fervent outpouring of emotion in each post, but you don't take the time to step back and think. You're proselytizing here, instead of openly engaging in a discussion. You need to learn how to listen. We have, on the one hand, independently converging lines of evidence for the theory of evolution. The moth example demonstrates how fit alleles can become fixed in a population; extended over multiple generations, this means that phenotypes can emerge which are radically different from the original, ancient parent population. We know that this happens, because of the concordance of molecular phylogenetic evidence, paleontology, and more. We know from population genetics that new alleles can arise as a result of mutations, and that each allele has a degree of fitness; alleles with sufficient fitness get fixed in the population. And the process is repeated over time. You need to calm down, and get to work and show me exactly where my thinking is wrong. But no, all you can do is preach, preach, preach -- like the missionary you are. That's fine for proponents of Western colonialism, but if you're going to talk about biology and science, then you need to adopt a communication framework that goes beyond preaching and missionizing.
Races are not different because of their color. Race is a social construct, not a meaningful biological method of taxonomy and classification. Do you know what empirically confirmed this? Evolutionary genomics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I don't see any of those people denying that small amounts of evolution constitute evolution, because they are not insane.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1213 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
Yes a hundred or more new ones in every generation I understand? A few of which get passed on to the next generation. But that doesn't make them viable alternatives that further variation, since most of them are "neutral" which really means only slightly deleterious, not at a level to be weeded out by natural selection.. Clearly we're using these words in different ways. 'Viable' means 'capable of living and reproducing'. If organisms are living and reproducing with certain alleles, then these can make viable organisms. As for furthering variation, this seems tautological. If generation 1 has alleles A and B, to which mutation adds a third allele C in the following generation, then generation 2 has more variation. I'm not entirely clear what alternative you're proposing.
You need to show 1) that these are actually mutations and not naturally occurring variants We just covered that a minute ago. There are hundreds of known alleles of this gene. Adam and Eve can have had at most four.
and 2) if mutations, you need to show that all the variants actually DO something, since most mutations are neutral, not affecting the organism, to mildly deleterious, accumulating over time toward something undesirable. Well that's why I chose this example, as it's one where we do have clear evidence that these variants are doing something - sorry if that wasn't clear. Some of the variants common amongst Tibetans have been demonstrated to protect against health problems associated with high altitude. Some lead to the production of more red blood cells; others have more complicated mechanisms that are a bit beyond my understanding of biochemistry (since overproduction of red blood cells can carry its own problems) - an example here if you wanted to have a look.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1633 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes a hundred or more new ones in every generation I understand? A few of which get passed on to the next generation. But that doesn't make them viable alternatives that further variation, since most of them are "neutral" which really means only slightly deleterious, not at a level to be weeded out by natural selection.. Clearly we're using these words in different ways. 'Viable' means 'capable of living and reproducing'. If organisms are living and reproducing with certain alleles, then these can make viable organisms. Sorry if I'm not being clear, not sure exactly what this is about. The hundred I mentioned aren't "viable" then, occurring in individuals where they can't be passed on, but supposedly might do something undesirable in the person's body?
As for furthering variation, this seems tautological. If generation 1 has alleles A and B, to which mutation adds a third allele C in the following generation, then generation 2 has more variation. I'm not entirely clear what alternative you're proposing. The idea is that most of the mutations are in the individual's body but don't get passed on, those mutations we are all said to accumulate, most of which don't get passed on.
You need to show 1) that these are actually mutations and not naturally occurring variants We just covered that a minute ago. There are hundreds of known alleles of this gene. Adam and Eve can have had at most four. The question is what each of those alleles actually does. I accept that there are all these variations in the sequence, defining them as different alleles, but what exactly do they DO? How many of them just do what lots of others also do? We're talking about different versions of a particular gene, right? Presumably different versions, diffrerent alleles, exist to vary what the gene produces. If it's a gene for hair color one allele may be for brown, another for black, another for red and so on. If you have hundreds of such alleles, what does each of them do? In other words, why would more than four in a population be useful anyway? Especially when there may be a number of genes for the same trait that also have different alleles/versions, that combine with the other genes toward a particular effect in the organism.
and 2) if mutations, you need to show that all the variants actually DO something, since most mutations are neutral, not affecting the organism, to mildly deleterious, accumulating over time toward something undesirable. Well that's why I chose this example, as it's one where we do have clear evidence that these variants are doing something - sorry if that wasn't clear. Some of the variants common amongst Tibetans have been demonstrated to protect against health problems associated with high altitude. Some lead to the production of more red blood cells; others have more complicated mechanisms that are a bit beyond my understanding of biochemistry This raises all kinds of questions in my mind. How can such "mutations" really be mutations if they specifically and pointedly do things that are SO beneficial to the people in this situation? How do they get selected? Even if what selection does is merely favor the reproduction of the best equipped/fittest individuals wouldn't getting such capacities established throughout the population cost an awful lot of (way too many) losses on the way to getting them established? Often these stories of mutations do sound a lot like Lamarckianism, it's hard to see how mere selection could bring about such precise adaptations without far too much loss for any population to endure. ABE: BUT, there is still the question how you know they are mutations anyway, as opposed to built in variations that simply accumulate, just as the mutations would supposedly do. How do you know the SOURCE of the alleles? Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
his raises all kinds of questions in my mind. How can such "mutations" really be mutations if they specifically and pointedly do things that are SO beneficial to the people in this situation? How do they get selected? Even if what selection does is merely favor the reproduction of the best equipped/fittest individuals wouldn't getting such capacities established throughout the population cost an awful lot of (way too many) losses on the way to getting them established? You have some great questions. Now how would you find out the answers to those question? Just having questions, particularly for a person who has yet to find the scientific paper that she was willing and able to read in detail, just identifies areas of ignorance that you need to have filled. So how would you go about doing that? Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
Dr. Adequate: "If you've quite finished making a fool of yourself..."
You would contend that natural selection is an example of evolution - therefore I believe in evolution because I believe natural selection is a fact. So in effect, I am an evolutionist. The fact that a creationist like me - who categorically rejects the theory that all life evolved from a single-cell orgaism - can nevertheless be an evolutionist is proof that the definition of evolution as (ab)used in biology is seriously flawed. What is needs is the inclusion of the theory that all life evolved from a single-cell organism. -------------------------------------------- ... which brings me to a new definition of evolution that I' m considering: evolution = biology + the theory that all life evolved from a single-cell organism
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Dredge writes: ... which brings me to a new definition of evolution that I' m considering: evolution = biology + the theory that all life evolved from a single-cell organism Which is once again wrong. Evolution is simply change over time. The Theory of Evolution is the explanation for the reality of change over time seen. The Theory of Evolution says nothing about origins. BUT Wait!!!!!! There's more. All of the evidence shows that the earliest forms of life were at most very simple, a few or even single cell organism. Not just some of the evidence but rather all of the evidence of early life. So that is a reasonable conclusion unrelated to either the fact of evolution or the Theory of Evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 1046 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
... which brings me to a new definition of evolution that I' m considering: evolution = biology + the theory that all life evolved from a single-cell organism The problem is that universal common descent is not a requirement of the ToE. If life was created 6,000 years ago in all its various "kinds", the ToE could theoretically explain how those created organisms changed from the original created species into what they are today. We all agree that species change over time and that there has been diversification since their origins (at least I think we do). The ToE is the theory that explains what forces and factors drive those changes. The problem is that persons, such as yourself, come along and suggest that the ToE is a useless theory because a) it includes universal common descent, b) it's mathematically impossible, and/or c) biological systems are too complex to have evolved. So they want the ToE scrapped for some type of creation or ID theory. However, there is no workable theory that has yet been put forth that could potentially replace the ToE. What people often fail to realize is that scientific disciplines need a framework to operate in. I work with plant pathogens and the interactions they have with their hosts. And although my work doesn't go deep into evolutionary theory, probably more like population genetics, I can't imagine how I would work without the framework that the ToE provides. I would simply have no idea where to proceed. Universal common ancestry is not a requirement of the ToE, it is an implication. If it was discovered that life arose multiple times and rather than a single, large tree, life formed more of a forest of small shrubs, it probably wouldn't change the theory much (though, the ToE would be completely incompatible with life undergoing a severe bottleneck 4,400 years ago and rapidly diversifying from that - even population genetics would be invalid). I understand why you want to propose the definition you are: because universal common ancestry is what you actually object to. But changing the definition of evolution is not the solution. The solution is to provide an alternative theory that better explains the evidence with a multiple origins hypothesis. The bottom line is this: At this point in time, the ONLY thing that will bring the ToE down is an alternative theory that explains the evidence better and makes more reliable and accurate predictions. No amount of definitional shifting, mathematical ciphering or personal incredulity will be capable of convincing scientists to abandon the ToE. The reason: because it works. It works to address all sorts of questions and problems in biology and our knowledge of how it works and how it can be used to address future problems continues to grow rapidly. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
You would contend that natural selection is an example of evolution - therefore I believe in evolution because I believe natural selection is a fact. So in effect, I am an evolutionist. I would not contend that you are an evolutionist. You are not an evolutionist.
The fact that a creationist like me - who categorically rejects the theory that all life evolved from a single-cell orgaism - can nevertheless be an evolutionist is proof that the definition of evolution as (ab)used in biology is seriously flawed. No, it's proof that your definition of "evolutionist" is seriously flawed, since you wish to apply it to anyone who acknowledges any evolution whatsoever. By your definition, all the major creationist organizations are evolutionists, since they are always ready to say that they don't dispute microevolution.
... which brings me to a new definition of evolution that I' m considering: But you don't get to define scientific terms. You can whine about them, but you can't change them. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2431 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Evolution is simply change over time. Well according to the dictionary that is correct.A melting ice cube is changing over time. Therefore it is evolving. I am older than I was yesterday. Therefore I am evolving. Perhaps, jar, you might like to come up with a definition more appropriate to this forum.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024