Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Pressie writes:
If a dog could eventually be bred into a non-dog it would completely falsify evolutionary theory as that is the opposite of what evolutionary theory predicts.
Is that so? Please do explain.
If a reptile could be bred into a bird, would that be the opposite of what evolutionary theory predicts too? How about a single-cell organism being bred into a double-cell organism?
Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Dredge writes:
Is that so? Please do explain.
When a mommy and a poppy love each other very much . .the stork doesn’t bring them a kitten.
The basics Dredge. Maybe you should wait till you’re older than 6 to be getting mommy to type your incoherent ramblings and paste it on this forum?
Dredge writes:
If a reptile could be bred into a bird, would that the be the opposite of what evolutionary theory predicts too?
Yip. Populations evolve. Individuals don’t.
The basics Dredge. Maybe you should wait till you’re older than 6 to be getting mommy to type your incoherent ramblings and paste it on this forum?
Dredge writes:
How about a single-cell organism being bred into a double-cell organism?
Where does evolutionary theory predict that? Why would a single cell organism evolve into a double-cell organism? Populations evolve. Individuals don’t. Even after that; where does evolutionary theory predict that populations of unicellular organisms must evolve into double-cell organisms?
The basics Dredge. Maybe you should wait till you’re older than 6 to be getting mommy to type your incoherent ramblings and paste it on this forum?
Okay, let's simplify things - imagine that I decided to ditch my theory of aliens and like you, accepted Darwinism as the best scientific explanation for the fossil record. Although I accept Darwinism as the best scientific theory, I still wouldn't believe it, because
A. Accepting a scientific explanation as the best available at the time is not contingent on believing that explanation is the truth. For staters, I would be aware that the "best scientific explanation" today may not be the "best scientific explanation" tomorrow.
B. I believe that a certain non-scientific explanation for the fossil record is a better explanation than the scientific one
C. I believe the non-scientific explanation in B is the truth.
You are still not getting the point.
What makes your 'scientific' theory (which you have been promoting for some 70 pages now even though you don't believe it and can provide no mechanism), better than my scientific theory (which I accept on the basis of evidence and has a known mechanism).
Do you really think that you are adopting a scientific approach to your 'scientific' theory? Have you any familiarity with the word 'credibility'? Sorry but it all adds up to trolling.
With respect to evidence of aliens: "Lucy" - for example - might be the remains of one of the very aliens I'm talking about.
And what is the evidence that Lucy conducted genetic engineering experiments?
If you lack the intelligence and imagination and scientific aptitude and humility to accept my teachings, whose fault is that?
Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Dredge writes:
Tanypteryx writes:
Why do you think macroevolution is related to breeding?
Er ... because if animals don't breed, there will be no evolution at all, let alone macroevolution.
Animals don't breed, animals mate. Breeding is a human activity that involves selecting organisms with specific traits to be bred in hopes of enhancing those traits in offspring.
The only part of the breeding process that is similar to evolution is both require sex.
The process of breeding (artificial selection) reduces genetic diversity in an attempt to produce uniform purebreds. There is a target phenotype and any offspring that deviate are culled.
Evolution increases diversity, with some phenotypes producing more surviving offspring than others.
Dredge writes:
You don't seem to know anything about macroevolution.
NO ONE knows anything about macroevolution - including you. You haven't got a bloody clue how you would go about breeding a winged-insect from a non-winged-insect, for example ... you wouldn't even know where to start!
Well, YOU DON"T KNOW ANYTHING about macroevolution. I know all sorts of things about macroevolution, that you do not.
And you are correct about one thing, I don't know how to breed a winged-insect from a non-winged-insect. I am puzzled why you think biologists are breeders?
I might not be able to breed a winged insect from a non-winged insect, but I can change a caterpillar into a butterfly, simply by feeding it the right food.
Dredge writes:
Tanypteryx: "We already know how macroevolution occurs". HA HA HA! What a joke!
Yep, and the joke is on you. We know what macroevolution is AND how it occurs, while you don't even know what macroevolution is.
Breeding is not enhanced evolution and any idiot should be able to tell the difference just by comparing at the end results.
Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
Okay, let's simplify things - imagine that I decided to ditch my theory of aliens and like you, accepted Darwinism as the best scientific explanation for the fossil record. Although I accept Darwinism as the best scientific theory, I still wouldn't believe it, because
In science we don't talk about believing theories, we talk about accepting them.
A. Accepting a scientific explanation as the best available at the time is not contingent on believing that explanation is the truth. For staters, I would be aware that the "best scientific explanation" today may not be the "best scientific explanation" tomorrow.
Indeed, and that is why we talk about accepting the theory, tentatively, contingent on
the theory explains all the known evidence
at any time new evidence could be found/discovered that is contrary to the theory (ie tomorrow)
B. I believe that a certain non-scientific explanation for the fossil record is a better explanation than the scientific one C. I believe the non-scientific explanation in B is the truth.
You are free to believe whatever you like, however in science we deal with facts and objective empirical evidence rather than belief. Beliefs have a very poor record of altering or explaining reality, and are highly susceptible to individual bias.
The problem with belief in the scientific world is with the (in)ability to change when evidence shows it is false, and if you don't discard false beliefs, in the face of evidence that it is false, it is known as delusion:
The fewer conflicts between your personal belief system and the objective empirical evidence of reality, the closer the personal belief system (world view) is to reality. This is the only known way to test the validity of beliefs that I am aware of.
Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Dredge writes:
Ah, so if you know how macroevolution occurs, you shouldn't have any trouble telling me how you would go about breeding a bird from a reptile, for example ...
Due to the contingent nature of evolutionary histories, we shouldn't observe modern reptiles evolving into birds. If you understood how evolution works, you would already know this.
or a non-fruit fly from a fruit fly.
All descendants of fruit flies will be fruit flies. Again, if you understood how evolution works you would already know this. Chimps and humans are both primates, as was our common ancestor. Bears and humans are both mammals, as was our common ancestor. Trout and humans are both vertebrates, as was our common ancestor. You don't evolve away from your ancestry.
What about a double-cell organism from a single-cell organism?
Already happened:
quote:
Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella. Observed Instances of Speciation
You stated in message 1162 that "genetic engineering can produce any pattern of similarities and differences" - I presume this includes the same pattern that evolution produces. So it's possible that, what looks to you like the "fingerprint" of evolution in the fossil record, could actually be the fingerprint of genetic engineering.
When you see evidence that is consistent with a natural mechanism you don't invent a supernatural mechanism that just happens to look exactly like the natural mechanism.
quote:
For, be it observed, the exception in limine to the evidence which we are about to consider, does not question that natural selection may not be able to do all that Mr. Darwin ascribes to it: it merely objects to his interpretation of the facts, because it maintains that these facts might equally well be ascribed to intelligent design. And so undoubtedly they might, if we were all childish enough to rush into a supernatural explanation whenever a natural explanation is found sufficient to account for the facts. Once admit the glaringly illogical principle that we may assume the operation of higher causes where the operation of lower ones is sufficient to explain the observed phenomena, and all our science and all our philosophy are scattered to the winds. For the law of logic which Sir William Hamilton called the law of parsimony”or the law which forbids us to assume the operation of higher causes when lower ones are found sufficient to explain the observed effects”this law constitutes the only logical barrier between science and superstition. For it is manifest that it is always possible to give a hypothetical explanation of any phenomenon whatever, by referring it immediately to the intelligence of some supernatural agent; so that the only difference between the logic of science and the logic of superstition consists in science recognising a validity in the law of parsimony which superstition disregards. --George Romanes, "The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution", 1882
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution, by George J. Romanes, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.
Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Believe it or not, macroevolution sort of needs organisms to breed in order for it to happen.
No, Dredge. You got it wrong yet again. No surprise.
Microevolution needs organisms to breed. Once you have that then macroevolution just naturally happens. You keep forgetting that macroevolution = microevolution + time.
Macroevolution sort of needs microevolution in order for it to happen.
... and why genetic disasters place a limit on how far the dog genome can be "stretched".
Forced inbreeding is not "stretching" a specific dog genome but greatly limiting it. It forces the exclusion of the great genetic diversity available within the larger canine species population genome.
You cannot breed non-dog from dog. In a million years whatever new species may develop from Canis lupus familiaris will be within the nested hierarchy of Canis lupus and further within the new nested hierarchy Canis lupus familiaris.
Just like dog is a daughter species from wolf (dog is wolf) so the daughter species from dog in the future, call it a rennie, will still be dog (rennie is dog) which means it also is wolf (rennie is wolf) and it also is carnivore (rennie is carnivore) and it also is mammal (rennie is mammal).
But then again you cannot acknowledge the reality of nested hierarchies since they destroy your religious fantasies.
Oh look, a petulant insult - the last resort of the clueless. Classy stuff.
I'm so glad you liked it. I did it just for you. I'm happy it wasn't wasted.
Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Sorry, but your breeding program tells me nothing about how to breed a synapsid from an amniote.
What part of leave them alone for a few million years do you not understand? That is a breeding program that has already worked for every organism on this planet today. It may tell *you* nothing but that’s because you know nothing from the start. Can’t build a foundation of knowledge on a mental vacuum.
If someone asked you how to breed a sausage dog from a wolf, for example, and you said "put them in a nice (warm) place and let chemistry work its majik", they would rightly conclude that you know ZILCH about dog breeding.
Why would I want to breed a dachshund from a wolf when nature has already done that?
Well, nature did the wolf-to-dog part. Only took about 40 million years. After that man did the hundreds of generations of inbreeding to go from the various domestic dog strains to what we today call a dachshund.
It seems that your so-called knowledge turns out to be nothing but blind faith - "Gee, I dunno ... evolution done it!"
Is it possible for you to get anything right?
Yes, evolution done it, but we *do* know how it worked . in detail. We have the fossils. We have the genetic code.
Yes, I realize you cannot see the data. Regardless of your religious blinders and your closed little mind the processes are well known and demonstrable. Your personal incredulity will not change these facts.
Okay, let's simplify things - imagine that I decided to ditch my theory of aliens and like you, accepted Darwinism as the best scientific explanation for the fossil record. Although I accept Darwinism as the best scientific theory, I still wouldn't believe it, because A. Accepting a scientific explanation as the best available at the time is not contingent on believing that explanation is the truth. For staters, I would be aware that the "best scientific explanation" today may not be the "best scientific explanation" tomorrow. B. I believe that a certain non-scientific explanation for the fossil record is a better explanation than the scientific one C. I believe the non-scientific explanation in B is the truth.
Reality doesn't care what you believe. It's kind of strange that way. Once you realize that reality does not conform to what you believe, perhaps you could start having a science based discussion with us.
If you lack the intelligence and imagination and scientific aptitude and humility to accept my teachings, whose fault is that?
If you had intelligence, imagination, and scientific aptitude you could show us a genetic comparison between two dog breeds that shows the same genetic divergence as that seen between humans and chimps, which is about 2%. You claim that dog breeding should be able to produce the genetic differences seen between separate species, so let's see you back it up. Where's the data?
Re: Progressive Creation and Aliens (oh my) - no predictive ability - take 2
Meddle writes:
, "Where did I come from?" Well it could have been something like Keretsa brutoni which dates to 555 Ma
The articles says, “Keretsa shows similarities with arthropods, including antennalike appendages, but lacks distinct trunk limbs and, probably, genuine bilateral symmetry” (the “antennalike appendages” claim sounds rather optimistic, btw) This critter sounds a long way from a trilobite, which features genuine symmetry, distinct articulated trunk limbs, compound eyes, very distinct antennae, gut and brain.
Wikipedia (Trilobite”) says, “Early trilobites show all the features of the trilobite group as a whole; transitional or ancestral forms showing or combining the features of trilobites with other groups (e.g. early arthropods) DO NOT SEEM TO EXIST.” (emphasis added)
(But wait! Wiki then goes on to say, “That trilobites share a common ancestor with other arthropods before the Ediacaran-Cambrian boundary is still reasonable to assume.” Well, of course it is - what else would you expect a bunch of “blind faith” evolutionists fanatics to say?!)
Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Taq writes:
Synapsids are aminotes
Fine. Tell AZPaul3 - he was the one who “informed” me that synapsids evolved from amniotes (#1149).
The one trick they haven't tried is to allow dogs to breed in large populations over millions of years to get rid of the harmful mutations and accumulate much more genetic variation
Hmmm, what should I believe? A mountain of empirical evidence based on thousands of years of dog breeding, or your pseudo-scientific speculations based on wishful thinking?
Humans and chimps differ by 2% at the genetic level. Can you show me two dog breeds that differ by 2% at the genetic level?
Huh? You’re comparing the genetic differences between two genera (humans and chimps) to the genetic differences within one genera (dogs)?
All descendants of dogs will be dogs. What can change is the variety and number of dog species.
I already know that, because thousands of years of dog breeding has demonstrated that there are limits to how far the dog genome can be stretched - ie, thousands of years of empirical evidence that falsifies the Darwinian explanation for the fossil record.
Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
vimesey writes:
Yep - we do spend a lot of time raking over the world's troubles on these pages, but it's good to remember we've come a long way, (even if there is still a long way to go).
A good start to solving the world's problems would be to eradicate feminism - it's demonic, anti-life, Marxist poison.
How do you slowly but surely destroy a civilization? Simple - you inject it with the insanity-inducing, life-destroying poison of feminism. The subsequent low-birth rates are guaranteed to eventually bring down even the most advanced civilizations. But really, a civilization that's too stupid to even reproduce in sufficient numbers doesn't deserve to survive.
This vile, hateful post should be a clear sign that Dredge is here for one reason. To troll. How about we try to stop feeding him. Especially when he tries to veer the conversation from the topic, like this crap. His post should be removed since it is so totally off topic.
If you want to discuss the topic, present an OP to start a new topic.
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.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
Re: Progressive Creation and Aliens (oh my) - no predictive ability - take 2
The articles says, “Keretsa shows similarities with arthropods, including antennalike appendages, but lacks distinct trunk limbs and, probably, genuine bilateral symmetry” ...
So it has similarities with trilobites along with some more primitive aspects.
And how does this disqualify it as a possible transitional fossil?
(the “antennalike appendages” claim sounds rather optimistic, btw)
Thank you for your opinion, but 'antennalike' is what we might expect as a precursor feature for antennae.
This critter sounds a long way from a trilobite, which features genuine symmetry, distinct articulated trunk limbs, compound eyes, very distinct antennae, gut and brain.
Yes, it looks less developed, does it not? But isn't that exactly what we would expect for a creature living millions of years prior to trilobites?
Wikipedia (Trilobite”) says, “Early trilobites show all the features of the trilobite group as a whole; transitional or ancestral forms showing or combining the features of trilobites with other groups (e.g. early arthropods) DO NOT SEEM TO EXIST.” (emphasis added)
(But wait! Wiki then goes on to say, “That trilobites share a common ancestor with other arthropods before the Ediacaran-Cambrian boundary is still reasonable to assume.” Well, of course it is - what else would you expect a bunch of “blind faith” evolutionists fanatics to say?!)
You left out this part:
quote:"Evidence suggests that significant diversification had already occurred before trilobites were preserved in the fossil record, allowing for the "sudden" appearance of diverse trilobite groups with complex derived characteristics (e.g. eyes).[1][20]"
Do you see the word "evidence" in there?
So your opinion is noted but I suggest that it is colored by the blind faith of a YEC/ID fanatic who has little familiarity with science or the concept of evidence.
™ Version 4.2
(1)