Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Empirical Evidence for Evolution
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 60 (1004)
12-20-2001 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by joz
12-20-2001 8:34 AM


Yes joz, limits as we observe in nature. Those would be the limits of a body builder; the limits of a runner; the limits of birds in flight; the limits of man above sea level by 26,000 ft.
Also as Fred has pointed out- the cost that mutations bring with them. Then we have the 3D protein structure. How many different shapes can one protein take before it no longer binds to other proteins?
joz:
what are the limits on NS and RM?
John Paul:
OK joz- Please, name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations.
I know Larry is unimpressed with the fact that after millions (if not billions) of generations of bacteria not even one 'evolved' into something other than bacteria. The same for a virus. Yet we are supposed to believe (according to the ToE) that great transformations (whale evolution for example) can occur in less than 1 million generations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by joz, posted 12-20-2001 8:34 AM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by joz, posted 12-20-2001 9:55 AM John Paul has replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 60 (1006)
12-20-2001 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by John Paul
12-20-2001 9:05 AM


The limits you state are not relevant so if you are aware of any that are please state them, I suspect you dont because you cant....
If you cant show there are limits why insist they exist? I have a feeling that maybe it is because if you once conceded that if there is no evidence for something it is pointless to stipulate its existence you would have to reassess your position on the existence of God (moving to a "God is possible but with no evidence it cannot be claimed he definitely does exist" position presumably)...
So do you have any relevant examples or is it another case of "I think this so it is necessarily true"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by John Paul, posted 12-20-2001 9:05 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by John Paul, posted 12-20-2001 10:06 AM joz has replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 60 (1009)
12-20-2001 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by joz
12-20-2001 9:55 AM


joz:
The limits you state are not relevant
John Paul:
Just saying so doesn't count. Each example was of a living organism. Also please explain why the cost argument and protein structure argument are not relevant.
joz:
so if you are aware of any that are please state them, I suspect you dont because you cant....
John Paul:
I stated them and you only response was a non-response.
joz:
If you cant show there are limits why insist they exist?
John Paul:
Then if there are no limits why do ALL our experiments show differently?
joz:
So do you have any relevant examples or is it another case of "I think this so it is necessarily true"?
John Paul:
I gave relevant examples. I am waiting for any evolutionist to provide evidence that random mutations culled by natural selection can lead to the great transformations required if the ToE is indicative of reality.
And I see you conveniently avoided this:
John Paul:
OK joz- Please, name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations.
So far all you have is argument from personal incredulty- not quite science now is it?
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by joz, posted 12-20-2001 9:55 AM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by joz, posted 12-20-2001 11:06 AM John Paul has not replied
 Message 37 by mark24, posted 12-23-2001 11:10 AM John Paul has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 60 (1019)
12-20-2001 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by John Paul
12-20-2001 10:06 AM


quote:
Also as Fred has pointed out- the cost that mutations bring with them. Then we have the 3D protein structure. How many different shapes
can one protein take before it no longer binds to other proteins?

First how does the fact that most mutations are bad work as an example here? NS solves this by breeding the "bad" mutations out....
Second protein structure we have proteins, bacteria have different proteins, both sorts work, you have not identified any mechanism that prevents "small changes adding up" to change from one to the other.... This example could quite possibly be used to constrain the types of organisms possible but not to refute the concept that types of organisms can evolve into different types....
So that would make all of those examples irrelevant...
Back to you...
[This message has been edited by joz, 12-20-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by John Paul, posted 12-20-2001 10:06 AM John Paul has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 36 of 60 (1116)
12-22-2001 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by John Paul
12-20-2001 8:22 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:
[B]Larry:
The larger problem is you misrepresent the evidence for common descent of chimps and humans from a common ancestor. You simply cite the 99% common genetic code. This isn't really the best evidence of common ancestry. The best evidence is the shared pseudogenes and retroviral insertions. The common nature of such genetic material without any function shared within a nested hierarchy of species is quite compelling.
John Paul:
Common mechanism can also explain shared retro-viral insetrtions and pseudogenes.[/QUOTE]
I already responded to this, but here it is again:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html
"Prediction 21: Nonfunctional molecular evidence - Endogenous retroviruses
Yet another nonfunctional example is given by endogenous retroviruses. Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral
sequences. Retroviruses (like the AIDS virus or HTLV1, which causes a form of leukemia) make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host.
Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.
Confirmation:
In humans, endogenous retroviruses occupy about 1% of the genome, in total constituting ~30,000 different retroviruses embedded in each person's genomic DNA (Sverdlov 2000). There are at least five different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, and this number is sure to grow as both these organism's genomes are sequenced (Bonner, O'Connell et al. 1982; Dangel, Baker et al. 1995; Svensson,
Setterblad et al. 1995; Kjellman, Sjogren et al. 1999; Sverdlov 2000).
The Felidae (i.e. cats) provide another example. The standard phylogenetic tree has small cats diverging later than large cats. The small cats (e.g. the jungle cat, European wildcat, African wildcat, blackfooted cat, and domestic cat) share a specific retroviral gene insertion. In contrast, all other
carnivores which have been tested lack this retrogene (Futuyma 1998, pp. 293-294).
Potential Falsification:
It would make no sense, macroevolutionarily, if certain other mammals (e.g. dogs, cow, etc.), had this same retrogene in the same location."
Now, respond to this.
The mechanism of retrovirus gene inserion is well-understood. There is no "magical mystery" mechanism waiting in the wings.
quote:
When talking about transitional fossils all you have are conceptual precursors but no physical precursors.
Please explain what you would accept as a transitional fossil?
quote:
Please, name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations.
I've done this already, too, but here it is, again:
"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
quote:
us- Created Kinds (unknown but the research is ongoing)
Please define "kind".
quote:
us- limits exist, just like we observe in nature.
Science does not predict that there are no limits to evolution. Evolution is limited by the environment and physical law. Perpetual motion will never evolve, for example, nor will free energy.
Creationists, however, claim that there is a limit which somehow prevents speciation, yet they are never specific, as in providing positive evidence, testable predictions, nor potential falsifications, in support of this vague claim.
What is your evidence that this is the case?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by John Paul, posted 12-20-2001 8:22 AM John Paul has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 37 of 60 (1141)
12-23-2001 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by John Paul
12-20-2001 10:06 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:

John Paul:
Common mechanism can also explain shared retro-viral insetrtions and pseudogenes.

1/ Given 6,000 years in which to do it, how?
2/ & just how?
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by John Paul, posted 12-20-2001 10:06 AM John Paul has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 38 of 60 (1337)
12-27-2001 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lbhandli
08-22-2001 3:05 PM


I make the claim whether as a creationist or a finished study in taught evolution that maintainence of evolution theory by a theory of forces as some philosophy proposes is false and that ecological genetics must get beyond simple criticism of neutral evolution. ToE does not because some of the math in the alternative or rather purely would need be subjectively adhered to which could as an applied mathmetician be taken prima facie against the reinging interpretation of natural selection. Balanced selection need not be refuted howsomeever but examples of programs in nature would need some manifestation (information theory applied to biology) without other changes that may nonetheless be latent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lbhandli, posted 08-22-2001 3:05 PM lbhandli has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by nator, posted 12-27-2001 11:06 PM Brad McFall has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 39 of 60 (1339)
12-27-2001 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Brad McFall
12-27-2001 9:19 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Brad McFall:
I make the claim whether as a creationist or a finished study in taught evolution that maintainence of evolution theory by a theory of forces as some philosophy proposes is false and that ecological genetics must get beyond simple criticism of neutral evolution. ToE does not because some of the math in the alternative or rather purely would need be subjectively adhered to which could as an applied mathmetician be taken prima facie against the reinging interpretation of natural selection. Balanced selection need not be refuted howsomeever but examples of programs in nature would need some manifestation (information theory applied to biology) without other changes that may nonetheless be latent.
OK, I am finally going to reply to you and say what I have been wanting to say all along since reading your several posts.
I consider myself to have a rather good command of the English language, and to be frank, what you write most of the time strikes me as very similar to post-modern literary criticism, in which the more complicated language one uses in their writing, the more impressed everyone seems to be with the writing.
However, I don't understand what you are trying to say most of the time.
At all.
You will get more replies if you make an effort to explain yourself clearly, without using a lot of jargon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Brad McFall, posted 12-27-2001 9:19 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-27-2001 11:24 PM nator has not replied
 Message 41 by Brad McFall, posted 12-27-2001 11:48 PM nator has replied
 Message 42 by mark24, posted 12-28-2001 2:57 AM nator has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 40 of 60 (1340)
12-27-2001 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by nator
12-27-2001 11:06 PM


I suspect Brad McFall has been possessed by the spirit of Dennis Miller. I read his last 4 or 5 posts, and havn't a clue of what he was trying to say.
I must assume it's all a joke.
Speaking of which: What do you get when you cross a lawyer with the Godfather? An offer you can't understand.
Moose
------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 12-27-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by nator, posted 12-27-2001 11:06 PM nator has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 41 of 60 (1342)
12-27-2001 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by nator
12-27-2001 11:06 PM


Did you read my book review in the BOOK NOOK?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by nator, posted 12-27-2001 11:06 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by nator, posted 12-28-2001 10:14 AM Brad McFall has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 42 of 60 (1344)
12-28-2001 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by nator
12-27-2001 11:06 PM


Yup, sorry Brad, I must join those who simply don't have a clue what your on about. I'm sure there should be some punctuation going on. That people spell poorly is irrelevant to me, as long as I understand them. But I have to draw the line at the induced asphyxia of a loooooooong sentence, sans commas. It's very hard to read, mate.
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-28-2001]
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-28-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by nator, posted 12-27-2001 11:06 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 43 of 60 (1347)
12-28-2001 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Brad McFall
12-27-2001 11:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Did you read my book review in the BOOK NOOK?
Yep.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Brad McFall, posted 12-27-2001 11:48 PM Brad McFall has not replied

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 44 of 60 (1349)
12-28-2001 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by lbhandli
12-19-2001 8:19 PM


quote:
Me: Regardless, you miss the point. Percy’s scenario, like so many others evolutionists propose, does not allow for error catastrophe and eventual extinction.
Lbhandli Evolution is quite capable of explaining extinction from many causes.
Yes, evolution is capable of explaining EVERYTHING, that is one reason why it is a bad theory (in fact it doesn’t even deserve theory status, at best it’s a low-grade hypothesis).
Regardless, you continue to evade the point. Percy’s particular analogy did not ALLOW for extinction. It doesn’t matter if evolution can EXPLAIN extinction. Since The fact that Percy’s analogy does not ALLOW for extinction invalidates its application to this debate.
quote:
Lbhandli: New genetic information is called a mutation. We observe them all of the time. Perhaps you need to be precise in what you are talking about.
Mutation is NOT new genetic information. If you think this is true, you need to find someone qualified in information science to support you. I assure you you won’t find anyone to come to your aid (if you do, you have done the scientific community a favor by exposing a quack).
quote:
Except the sender is the organism itself and the environment receives the code and determines with feedback if the code is adequate. You have demonstrated that you can assert there is no sender, but not eliminated the sender being the organism's genetic code.
You went off the deep end here. How does the environment receive a code? What code does the environment receive?
There is no known example in the history of man of a code originating without an intelligent sender. Not one single example. You must have an intelligent sender to create a code. Period. Information science is a dagger in the heart of NeoDarwinism. Fre Hoyle knew it, Francis Crick knows it, but many other evos remain in denial about it because if the implications. It’s 21st century Galileo-ism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by lbhandli, posted 12-19-2001 8:19 PM lbhandli has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by derwood, posted 12-29-2001 11:55 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 47 by edge, posted 01-09-2002 10:11 PM Fred Williams has replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 45 of 60 (1372)
12-29-2001 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Fred Williams
12-28-2001 6:21 PM


Williams:
Yes, evolution is capable of explaining EVERYTHING, that is one reason why it is a bad theory (in fact it doesn’t even deserve theory status, at best it’s a low-grade hypothesis).
This is a prime example of the ignorance of science that runs rampant in creationist circles. Worse, it is a fabricated misrepresentation. That evolution explains things that creationism cannot is a testament to its value as a theory. Creationists often complain that the theory of evolution changes, so it cannot be a good theory. Another example of ignorance. One cannot blame them, I suppose - their preferred 'explanation' will not change in light of new evidence. It will never budge one millimeter. It cannot, lest their Faith be shattered, and that is not allowed.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lbhandli: New genetic information is called a mutation. We observe them all of the time. Perhaps you need to be precise in what you are talking about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mutation is NOT new genetic information. If you think this is true, you need to find someone qualified in information science to support you. I assure you you won’t find anyone to come to your aid (if you do, you have done the scientific community a favor by exposing a quack).
Mutation as such is not information, new or otherwise I suppose. But mutation certainly plays a role in changing and adding information.
For some inforamtion from an actual degreed scientific researcher on thsi topic, see, for exmaple:
http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/
As far as the claim that evolution cannot produce 'new information', it appears that creationists are a few decades behind the eight ball. Kimura derived equations in 1961 showing that natsel can in fact produce new information all by itself.
There is no known example in the history of man of a code originating without an intelligent sender. Not one single example. You must have an intelligent sender to create a code. Period.
I see. Then whom 'sent' the code in DNA? Tree rings? And what is the evidence for this?
Information science is a dagger in the heart of NeoDarwinism. Fre Hoyle knew it, Francis Crick knows it, but many other evos remain in denial about it because if the implications. It’s 21st century Galileo-ism.
Fred Hoyle also knew that Haldane's dilemma was a sham. In his book "The Mathematics of Evolution", he writes:
"Haldane's so-called cost principle is an illusion." (p123)
And yet, young earth creationist electrical engineer Walter ReMine uses Haldane as ne of his principle arguments against Neo-Darwinism. Therefore, ReMine's argument is an illusion (ReMine didn't like this fact - in his review of Hoyle's book at Amazon.com, ReMine gushes over Hoyle's amazing math abilities, yet claims he was wrong about the 'dilemma'...)
[This message has been edited by SLP, 12-30-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Fred Williams, posted 12-28-2001 6:21 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Brad McFall, posted 12-30-2001 12:59 AM derwood has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 46 of 60 (1375)
12-30-2001 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by derwood
12-29-2001 11:55 PM


Is this "new" information then classifiable as modern or post-modern? That is not a silly question for depending on how neutral the position effect (Sturtevant) pans Gould's "gold" out till it is never talked of at all mutation Can give new information. Even assuming we are not discussing differences of mutation that may be percieved in reading Wright's volumnes etc to Sarkar etc. etc. the subcelluar position of mutations along with how it went grammatically for organelles could give new information if macrothermodyamics (author = Gladyshev) recieves this "new" Darwinian narrative. Lane Lester would still be correct however that if ever not how that genetics looks in its eye and this way finds it's enemy. If I am still obscure Mark I did not give up when I was 24 and arrested in New Orleans for talking out loud and about the Pope 1996 saying Darwin and Creation go together. There is an illusion on the yellow brick road to the uncomditioned and the sooner more realize this the less fear of God it will take to turn the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by derwood, posted 12-29-2001 11:55 PM derwood 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