Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Evolving the Musculoskeletal System
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 25 of 527 (577455)
08-28-2010 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Percy
08-28-2010 2:43 PM


Evidence please. Evidence must be something we can see, taste, smell or touch-and must be repeatable and predictable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 08-28-2010 2:43 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Coyote, posted 08-28-2010 10:33 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 36 by Percy, posted 08-29-2010 7:24 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 26 of 527 (577456)
08-28-2010 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by crashfrog
08-28-2010 6:52 PM


One of his questions was, where are the false starts? What you are showing here are not simple small mutations to one small part of one bone, that could start a revolutionary new trait if NS would select for it. So the examples you showed do not support the ToE, they rather contradict it, because what they show is that each time you have a gross mutation, it is damaging to the organism. Nature has lots of examples of gross damage mutations can cause-we are asking for examples of positive ones-which your theory needs quite a lot lot lot of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 08-28-2010 6:52 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 08-28-2010 10:11 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 08-28-2010 11:18 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 42 of 527 (577520)
08-29-2010 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Percy
08-29-2010 7:24 AM


Ok, so let's be perfectly clear then. You are now saying (contrary to your see, smell, taste, touch demands) that rational inference is as good as any for drawing the conclusions one wants to draw, and we really don't need to be hamstrung by the whole see, taste touch, smell evidence burden.
Instead what we can just say that RM and NS are probably happening today (no need to prove this either) and leave it at that. Please try to be consistent for the level of demand you require for evidence in the future then is the least we should ask.
But anyway, I guess you do have lots of evidence for RM and NS in todays world? It must be common as heck right? We can see it all around us, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Percy, posted 08-29-2010 7:24 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 08-29-2010 12:43 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 08-29-2010 3:07 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 44 of 527 (577526)
08-29-2010 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by crashfrog
08-29-2010 12:43 PM


Did you create a new type of organism or something? I missed that in your lofty experiment. As I recall, you simply used an agent to accelerate mutations to a bacteria. Whoaaa.
Is that the best ya got? Sorry, if I don't appear so impressed. Did any of the bacteria grow eyes, or a left toe? You might have gotten my attention a little better if that happened. Any random mutations for echolocation? A spleen?
I guess a mind like yours doesn't require much to convince it does it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 08-29-2010 12:43 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Granny Magda, posted 08-29-2010 1:12 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 08-29-2010 11:08 PM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 46 of 527 (577531)
08-29-2010 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Granny Magda
08-29-2010 1:12 PM


So why should anyone be impressed by a theory that has as its only claim for evidence, a few cases of a bacteria staying a bacteria, and then after a while staying as the exact same bacteria, and then after a zillion generations,more, staying....you guessed it, bacteria.
If all of the things that your side claims as evidence for evolution, continued to proceed in exactly the same progression as witnessed by the evidence, not a single organism would ever change into anything in a billion zillion years. That is the only rational inference anyone who is honest could make about the evidence. A bacteria is not going to stop being a bacteria just because it changes its diet.
Note: Honest doesn't include you.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Granny Magda, posted 08-29-2010 1:12 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Granny Magda, posted 08-29-2010 1:33 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-29-2010 1:37 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 51 by bluescat48, posted 08-29-2010 4:33 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 56 of 527 (577646)
08-29-2010 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Percy
08-29-2010 8:05 PM


Then I think in a fair debate, from the beginning you should just admit that there is no way to produce evidence for Rm and Ns, and be clear that any suggestion of these mechanisms is simply inference as you said.
Anyway, since that is what you are saying now, let's nail down this point so we don't keep changing goalposts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 08-29-2010 8:05 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 08-30-2010 8:35 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 59 of 527 (577668)
08-30-2010 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by crashfrog
08-29-2010 11:08 PM


So we can agree that your experiment, regardless of what you ware claiming is happening, can provide no evidence whatsoever for the development of any new system or organism, correct?
We won't get a new bacteria, or the start of a new feature to an organism, and we basically won't have any evolution at all, if all that happens is what happened during your experiment. A bacteria that changes its diet is still a bacteria. For a zillion generations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 08-29-2010 11:08 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 08-30-2010 12:22 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 62 of 527 (577676)
08-30-2010 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by crashfrog
08-30-2010 12:22 AM


I have already said that mutations happen and that natural selection happens-people smoke cigarettes and get mutations, and nature might select them either for dying, or from dying because of this condition (the funny thing is the cancer selects them for both.)
The point is not to show that these two functions might have happened, the point is to show that they actually accomplish anything meaningful towards developing life. This you, and everyone else here, and every scientists in the world, can not in any way at all demonstrate.
That makes your theory nothing more than fairy tales.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 08-30-2010 12:22 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by ICdesign, posted 08-30-2010 6:52 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 97 of 527 (577979)
08-31-2010 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Percy
08-31-2010 8:05 AM


Well, here's one reason for some incredulity; you say random mutations could have caused lubricant forming between joints, or proto-cartilage could have randomly appeared that would have caused some reproductive advantage. But we never see examples of these things happening occasionally in modern species.
We don't see sporadic examples of people born with excess cartilages in random areas, or lubricant forming between some peoples finger joints, or extra ligaments appearing in some individuals which causes some difference of their physical capabilities. So if we can never see this happening occasionally why do we just have to take your word that it did?
But more importantly, why are you constantly shifting the burden on the skeptics to just accept what you say without proof, rather than putting the burden on the one's making the extraordinary claims to provide some extraordinary evidence. Or any evidence for that matter.
You are making baseless claims that you can't verify, and asking others to just accept it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Percy, posted 08-31-2010 8:05 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Taq, posted 08-31-2010 11:37 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 99 by molbiogirl, posted 08-31-2010 11:55 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 101 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-31-2010 1:25 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 121 by Percy, posted 08-31-2010 8:36 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 102 of 527 (578010)
08-31-2010 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by molbiogirl
08-31-2010 11:55 AM


Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, maybe that's my mistake, but I thought the implication was obvious enough.
Mutations which could possibly, with even the greatest stretch of imagination, actually BENEFIT an individual in the right circumstances.
Mutations which could actually cause a different mechanical functioning. A unique physical function. I don't think a tumor counts as a unique physical ability. I am pretty sure arthritis, or pituitary abnormalities are not the origin for any new limbs-now or in the past. Or a congenital deformity that doesn't even effect the victim until later in their life.
Besides the fact that I don't believe even one of the things that you mentioned are the type of point mutations that could be carried on to offspring at a specific location.
But still, it does say a lot when your side thinks these are the examples that shows that Darwinian evolution could be true. Extraordinary really. And you still believe in your theory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by molbiogirl, posted 08-31-2010 11:55 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Coyote, posted 08-31-2010 1:55 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 112 by molbiogirl, posted 08-31-2010 3:22 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 113 by Taq, posted 08-31-2010 3:29 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 103 of 527 (578011)
08-31-2010 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Dr Adequate
08-31-2010 1:25 PM


I have asked repeatedly for you to produce the evidence, any evidence, that a random mutation caused the beginning of a new functioning limb or system.
You can't do that. Mobiogirl it seems just tried, and I don't think anyone could call that a success.
You have evidence of what you feel is common relations, you have absolutely no evidence for the mechanisms that caused complex functioning systems.
So when you lie, like you are doing right now, Dr. A, it makes one wonder what your real motive is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-31-2010 1:25 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-31-2010 1:53 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 117 by scarab, posted 08-31-2010 3:47 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 106 of 527 (578021)
08-31-2010 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Coyote
08-31-2010 1:55 PM


Your belief means nothing
I believe in adaptation, you got me there.
But since I live in Tibet, I am glad you brought this one up.
Please tell me what was the point mutation that a Tibetan got within the past 5000 years, that was then selected for over a series of generations, with those without the mutation being rejected by natural selection, until it spread to all the inhabitants of Tibet (and Qinghai). Walk me through this one if you would.
And since the topic is about skeletal systems, and the like, please walk me through how this "random point mutation" that you are going to tell me about relates to building a new skeleton, limb, or complex new trait.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Coyote, posted 08-31-2010 1:55 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Coyote, posted 08-31-2010 2:27 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 108 by bluegenes, posted 08-31-2010 2:51 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 132 of 527 (578301)
09-01-2010 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by jar
09-01-2010 10:05 AM


I give up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by jar, posted 09-01-2010 10:05 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by jar, posted 09-01-2010 11:42 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 165 of 527 (578616)
09-02-2010 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Meldinoor
09-02-2010 5:09 AM


Re: Seeking to understand basis for incredulity
Bolder-dash - please take these issues to your New name for evolution, "The Bacteria Diet" thread. --Admin
So talk us through this Melindoor, what do YOU personally think the first mutations to those primitive fish without any skeletons at all would have looked like?
Here was this soft fleshy kind of fish thing, that had no spine, and no bones of any kind. And then what do you think that very first mutation that started the whole process out looked like? Was it a piece of bone near where the spine already was? Or was it a piece of bone that started off somewhere near his belly, and then over time and many generation slowly migrated over towards his back? Do you think those early first fish with the bones near their stomach looked silly, compared to the others? Do you think the other fish laughed at him, or do you think the female fish decided he was special, and so he got a good selection advantage, and that is why more fish ended up with the bony stomach?
And then, by the time it got close to his spine, to actually protect his spine, do you think that the part near the stomach started shrinking in successive generations, because by then all the men had bony stomachs so the girl fish no longer felt it was very sexy?
And then, do you think the girls started choosing the guys with the bony back, because they knew one day they would have bony back children themselves, and they knew that that bony back would be a big plus in case they bumped their spines on some coral that was just started to form a few miles offshore? Do you think they knew about the spine protection it was going to give them, or do you think they just sensed it?
And what about back to that first guy who got the bony stomach mutation-do you think he is sort of famous throughout the entire marine world, as the guy who started off this whole darn bone race? Do you think there is an underwater Hall of Fame for the skeleton starter? Might we even find his fossil remains one day, and have him hung in the museum of stomach bones? And how often do bony stomach mutations happen these days anyway? Are they passe?
So what do you think? Do you mind painting the picture?
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Add moderation comment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Meldinoor, posted 09-02-2010 5:09 AM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Meldinoor, posted 09-02-2010 6:02 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 171 by caffeine, posted 09-02-2010 7:08 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 222 of 527 (579488)
09-04-2010 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Modulous
09-04-2010 1:00 PM


Re: colourblind...
I am trying to figure out what your color analogy has to do with anything regarding evolution? Is there something applicable between our photo receptors perception of colors, what our brains call things that look slightly similar, and what is the difference between species?
From far enough away a planet and a star look exactly the same to me, and from close enough up I can't tell the difference between a bread-crumb and some paint (and it doesn't even matter what color the paint is). I don't think we can gain much insight into evolution from this knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Modulous, posted 09-04-2010 1:00 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Modulous, posted 09-05-2010 7:42 PM Bolder-dash 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