Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,237 Year: 5,494/9,624 Month: 519/323 Week: 16/143 Day: 6/10 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Logic
ramoss
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 6 of 302 (313916)
05-20-2006 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by dorkfrommarn
05-20-2006 12:09 PM


Re: Need, want or curiosity
The difference between 'micro evoluiton' and 'macro-evolution' is the number of steps. The way evolution works is through many many small steps.
If there is enough small steps, the change between the 'ancestors' and the 'decendants' is enough to make them new species.
After all. you can not walk from Istanbul to Bagdad in a single step. It takes many many steps, but eventually, you go from one country to another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by dorkfrommarn, posted 05-20-2006 12:09 PM dorkfrommarn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by dorkfrommarn, posted 05-20-2006 3:36 PM ramoss has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 79 of 302 (318649)
06-07-2006 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Rob
06-07-2006 12:54 AM


This whole debate is quite testable. As you eluded to 'swc', if evolution is true, we need evidence of an increase in genetic information. We can test and find over and over in the lab that mutations cause a loss of information. But faith that they don't is rampant. The moral implications are too much for some. Even regular reproduction only causes a rearrangement of pre-existing genetic info. When the occasional accident or 'error' does occur, it almost exclusively results in death or an inability to procreate. Statistically irrelevant exceptions due occur.
Can you imagine the problem (in evolutionary terms) for the first asexual creature that evolved into a heterosexual creature? The animal would have to find (even in the case of a hermaphrodite) the ability to find compatible sexual organs and an incubation method. All by chance and necessity?
No, actually, that is not true. You don't need an 'increase in information'. That is just a strawman that is promoted by the Dembski group. You have have a 'decrease' of information,and still have it be evoluiton. The scientific defintion of biological evolution is
'The change in alleles over time'.
One example is the evolution of the tape worm. In the past, it was a more 'complicated' organism.. but it no longer needed a lot of the
functions, because it was using those functions provided the host.
Another one is the cave dwelling species. Over the years, the 'functional eyes' were a detriment, and they lost the information to
make functional eyes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Rob, posted 06-07-2006 12:54 AM Rob has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 80 of 302 (318652)
06-07-2006 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Someone who cares
06-07-2006 1:21 AM


You forgot the possibility that God created those creatures, so no evolution was needed, and nothing needed to come first.
Other than the claims of some old old books, there is no evidence of that.
Supernaturla explainations are irrelavent to science. The evidence also shows that evolution has occured. That is a fact. The model on how and why evolution occurs is the theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Someone who cares, posted 06-07-2006 1:21 AM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 9:05 PM ramoss has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 170 of 302 (319458)
06-09-2006 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Rob
06-09-2006 2:13 AM


Re: on pairs and tells
No, that is not what he is saying at all.
What he is saying is that the natural conditions of the early atmosphere will , through normal chemical reactions, create the chemistry that is the basis for life.
If we look at the moon of Titan, we can see that an atmosphere that we beleive to be similar to Earth's early atmosphere has complex organtic molecules. This would be needed if life were for form from natural chemical reactions.
It titan wasn't so far out and cold, it too might have developed life.
Home – Physics World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Rob, posted 06-09-2006 2:13 AM Rob has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 187 of 302 (319559)
06-09-2006 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Rob
06-09-2006 9:42 AM


Re: on pairs and tells
On the contrary.. peopel have listened to them.. looked at what they are saying, and found their claims to be lacking.
For example, one great new 'LAW' that dempski claims to have discovered is the law of conservation of information. This 'Law' is supposed to prove all sorts of things for the I.D. proponents.
However, it can not be tested, it can not be demonstrated. From a scientific point of view it is meaningless.
I'll tell you what though, Maybe you can come up with some scientific
experiemetns that demonstrate this 'law' of dembski's?? He hasn't been able to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Rob, posted 06-09-2006 9:42 AM Rob has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 728 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 207 of 302 (320032)
06-10-2006 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by ReverendDG
06-10-2006 4:32 AM


Re: Allow me to defend myself
I do believe that you are right that brain size (within a certain bounds) does not mean much when it comes to intelligence, but rather the size of certain sections of the brain (the area that deals with intellence was a much high percentage of the 'hobbit' brain).
HOwever, on average , the brains of blacks is slightly smaller than of whites.. The brains of asians are slightly larger. The key her is 'on average'. There is much more variation within a group that between the different ethnic groups. This goes back to the "bottleneck" event that happened 70K to 80K years ago.
Also, the difference in brain size between the different genders in the same ethnic group is greater than the brain size differnce between
the brain size of the same gender accross the ethnic group. Yes, there is a trend, but the difference is small enough to be totally irrelavent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by ReverendDG, posted 06-10-2006 4:32 AM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by RAZD, posted 06-10-2006 5:52 PM ramoss has not replied
 Message 226 by ReverendDG, posted 06-10-2006 8:19 PM ramoss 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