Oldest vertebrate fossil found in Australia, scientists say

ebrown_p wrote:

I don't get why this post is still going on.

Me neither, but it's kind of entertaining.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

:What criteria do you use to pronounce something as pseudo science.

I already answered that. I stated that when I used the term "psuedo-science".

ican711nm wrote:

I condemn psuedo-science: science that claims a theory is true and accepted until one or more of its implications are proven false.

farmerman wrote:

:You seem to agree that evolution is a fact.

Seem to agree Question

I agree, period Exclamation

farmerman wrote:

: Your only point that splits from the road is that you feel its directed, because you feel that there hasnt been enough time to have evolution occur by random mechanism.

My hypothesis is that there is a 2nd Influence in addition to random mutations.

My intuition is that that 2nd influence possesses some intelligence. But that intuition is not part of my hypothesis.

farmerman wrote:

: to this point Ive asked for some rationale about how you get to know whats on the mind of the Universal plan maker, and you keep dodging by trying to make a number of us refute your claim even though theres NOTHING THERE TO REFUTE.

I do not understand this statement. Confused

I do not believe I have ever asserted to you that I know there is a Universal plan maker, much less about what is on its mind.

farmerman wrote:

Ive given you all kinds of examples and evidewnce from fossil records, this has no weight with you. ... ... ... then you semi-deftly try to dismiss your points by a wee bit a smoke and mirrors.

I don't understand any of this!

farmerman wrote:

Ive presented evidence ... ... ... that simpler forms that accomplish the same task of HOx transformation are occuring through time (Cohn 1997)

I'll print out and study that part of this that makes zero reference to me.

0 Replies

Piffka wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
I don't get why this post is still going on.

Me neither, but it's kind of entertaining.

I joined this forum originally because I thought it would provide me a highly productive way to get some information I wanted. Boy was I naive. I feel like an inexperienced dentist: it's like pulling teeth. To get the information I seek I am either required to debate whether or not I really think what I say I really think, or whether or not I'm merely trying to make some one look bad, or whether or not I'm merely trying to make myself look good.

But, I have obtained some good information that is thus far worth all this trouble to get.

0 Replies

Quote:

I joined this forum originally because I thought it would provide me a highly productive way to get some information I wanted. Boy was I naive.

What, simple answers about the accumulated body of work of thousands upon thousands of scientists over the past century and a half, work that still barely begun? Ayup, looks like that might take a little effort, and a little faith in the people who dedicate their lives into studying and digesting this stuff for the rest of us.

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

Ayup, looks like that might take a little effort, and a little faith in the people who dedicate their lives into studying and digesting this stuff for the rest of us.

"and a little faith" Question

Yes, I guess I don't qualify.

I'm too skeptical.

Besides, "this stuff" is not a religion yet, or is it? Confused

0 Replies

Its no more religion than are papers on nanno chemistry or colloidal reactions.
eBrown-- on the contrary7. This argument is just heating up. In Ohio the Creationists have won a significant battle by forcing the state to require teaching Creationist doctrine in Biology classes. The next battlefield is in Virginia. Im staying in because Ihelp a little in the presentations on behalf of the professional geologists groups. we are a pro-bono group (unlike the well funded and very slick Creationists). To declare a winner and just walk away is going to evolve a science curriculum that we wont recognize in the next 20 years. It would be a great embarrasment to many of us to not get on the record that most science has put the debate to bed and that the fundamental rule of modern biology is the Darwin/Wallace theory with many updates that are data based.
The arguments using time, thermodynamics, error bars is radiochemistry, errors in geophysics all have to be attacked and presented in robust theory by7 the Creation ists . In most states, theyve lost because the very SCIENTIFIC METHOD, weve been talking about is the very weak spot of Creationism and Intelligent Design.

I personally dont think that ican fits into any of those groups. He truly is a skeptic. His arguments, however, are classical Creationist dogma, because the Creationists and IDers, dont accept Discovery of field data and interpretation of the entire quilt. They feel that its a Godless Plot to DeChristianize with Darwinian/Marxist views.

ican, I have to go into the field in N Pa , and we wont fly with these wind conditions .... Ill be back on Sat sometime. I will be interested in your views

good Friday all

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

CURRENT HYPOTHESIS

My current hypothesis is that life on this earth evolved by random mutations of procreating genomes plus a 2nd influence of some kind plus natural selection. Henceforth, I'll refer to that hypothesized 2nd Influence as 2ndI.

Hi Ican,

Just a couple of points on the hypothesis above: Variation occurs for more reasons than just mutation. It's also gene flow, sexual mixing and crossover, etc. All of which are still random factors. It's important to recognize the range and versatility of variation in order to estimate its effects on the system.

At the moment, natural selection is the only non-randomizing factor in the standard theory, and that's very important. The fact that there *is* a non-randomizing factor alters the propabilities for things greatly.

Also, I tend to agree with you that there are more contributing factors to the evolutionary process than we currently recognize (your 2ndI factor). However, I fully expect that any missing elements, once discovered, will all be natural effects, not supernatural.

My personal favorite possible 2ndI relates to the question of whether there is a trend toward complexity. A good site for information on this is here: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MST.html

ican711nm wrote:

There is alleged to be a 300 gene difference between mouse and human genomes.

I think that there is probably a greater gene difference than that between the genome of the common ancestor of the genomes of mice and humans, and the genome of humans. I'll call that common ancestor genome, CA.

I don't follow the logic of the statement above. The genetic difference between CA and the human genome, would be less, not more. Why do you think it would be more?

Also, as far as probability calculation goes, I'm sure you're very good with numbers, but before those numbers can make sense, you have to understand the details of the genetic process very well. And I'm not sure modern science has at this point, a sufficient understanding of the interaction of genes to the protein synthesis to be able to make the calculations you are attempting. Because I believe this to be the case, I am as yet, unimpressed with your *numbers* as evidence for the *2ndI* factor you have proosed. Not only that, but you haven't proposed what *2ndI* is... you've just used unsubstantiated calculations to argue the presence of an unknown factor.

I could argue that there's an unknown factor without any calculations at all. I could just say it, "I think there's an unknown factor", but so what. At least if I say my view of an unknown factor is an inherent tendency toward complexity, then we have something to shoot at.

Best Regards,

0 Replies

Quote:

"and a little faith"

Yes, I guess I don't qualify.

I'm too skeptical.

Besides, "this stuff" is not a religion yet, or is it?

Oh! I said faith! Well string me up!

Seriously, you don't demonstrate anything like the understanding of evolutionary theory you need to critique it. Neither do I, for that matter, which is why I'm willing to put a certain amount of FAITH in the researchers doing the work, many of whom I have met and are startlingly intelligent people.

So read and be humble. Otherwise, don't think you can topple a whole body of work with a little bit of conjecture and some numbers you pull out of your ass.

Or, to refer you to your own tag line:

Quote:

Certainty is impossible and probability suffices to govern belief and action. Get over it!

I have no more patience with people who say that the evolutionary model is, as it stands, absurd, only to suggest their own model which is more absurd and, more to the point, without basis than I do with people who take a quick glance at quantum physics and say, "Well, that's it, then; we'll never know anything."

0 Replies

Quote:

Also, I tend to agree with you that there are more contributing factors to the evolutionary process than we currently recognize (your 2ndI factor). However, I fully expect that any missing elements, once discovered, will all be natural effects, not supernatural.

Thanks, rosborne, for putting that so simply.

0 Replies

Rosborne, I suspect the trend towards complexity, and ican's 2nd or X factor is nothing more than inertia. If there is nothing to contradict the trend then it will simply continue and if that trend is complexity, species will continue to get more complex. If the conditions change the trend towards complexity will cease, as they did in Lenski's flasks (see NYT Science Times post above) . As pateodog pointed out, by losing a gene the bacteria in those flasks became more energy efficient, so it would seem that in those flasks the trend as been reversed and inertia now favors simplicity over complexity.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Its no more religion than are papers on nanno chemistry or colloidal reactions.

Scientists should not treat their theories as truth, until and unless the major implications of their theories have been demonstrated true. Otherwise those theories, regardless of their age and regardless of who and how many advocate them, are faith-based.

farmerman wrote:

In Ohio the Creationists have won a significant battle by forcing the state to require teaching Creationist doctrine in Biology classes.

What is that Creationist Doctrine? Is there any scientific basis for it at all, or is it all faith-based?

farmerman wrote:

I personally dont think that ican fits into any of those groups. He truly is a skeptic. His arguments, however, are classical Creationist dogma. ...

Ok, now I finally have a glimmer of understanding why you previously perceived me aligned with Creationists. Please help me fix that by explaining how my arguments parallel Creationist dogma. My horror over that possibility is derived from my fear of any group attempting to foist its faith based doctrines on public school curriculum.

Here's my Rolling Eyes

grand solution Rolling Eyes

to this entire faith based debate. Smile

I define God to be identical to our observable/inferable universe.
I define our observable/inferable universe to be identical to God.
Whatever are the true attributes of our observable/inferable universe, these are the true attributes of God.
Whatever are the true attributes of God, these are the true attributes of our observable/inferable universe.
God exists if our observable/inferable universe exists.
Our observable/inferable universe exists if God exists.
I bet our observable/inferable universe exists. ...

Now, how does the evolution process really work? :wink:

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

I don't follow the logic of the statement above. The genetic difference between CA and the human genome, would be less, not more. Why do you think it would be more?

Let's start with BA. It is alleged that according to the fossil record, the organisms that co-existed with BA were far less complex than those organisms that have evolved since then and coexisted with CA. CA is alleged to have been shown by the fossil record to be more complex than BA. The mouse genome is alleged to be more complex than CA. Certainly, the human genome is more complex than both CA and the mouse genome. It is also alleged that the mouse genome is remarkably similar to the human genome.

So, because the difference between the mousegenome and the human genome is alleged to be 300 genes, I conclude that there was more than a 300 gene difference between BA and CA, between CA and Mousegenome, and between CA and humangenome.

Does that constitue a proof? NO! First, we must show these allegations are true:

1. BA=>CA=>Mousegenome, where the difference => is greater than or equal to 300 genes.

2. BA=>CA=>>Humangenome, where the difference =>> is greater than or equal to 300 genes.

3. Mousegenome=>>>Humangenome where the difference =>>> is 300 genes.

rosborne979 wrote:

Not only that, but you haven't proposed what *2ndI* is... you've just used unsubstantiated calculations to argue the presence of an unknown factor.

Yes, that's all I've done.

Before deciding to invest one's time and treasure in searching for or characterizing 2ndI, I think it prudent to first determine what is the probabily that 2ndI exists.

For example, there are speculations about how the human brain thinks. Various mechanisms have been hypothesized for explaining how the human brain thinks. Some of these hypothesized mechanisms have not yet been found to exist. But the search is on, nonetheless. Why? Because we know there is a high probability that the human brain thinks (with the possible exception of poltician brains Laughing

).

rosborne979 wrote:

I could argue that there's an unknown factor without any calculations at all. I could just say it, "I think there's an unknown factor", but so what. At least if I say my view of an unknown factor is an inherent tendency toward complexity, then we have something to shoot at.

Yes, you could do that. I recommend you not do that until you first show that your unknown factor probably exists. Then commence the search for it in earnest.

0 Replies

Acquiunk wrote:

Rosborne, I suspect the trend towards complexity, and ican’s 2nd or X factor is nothing more than inertia.

Possibly youre right. How would you guess that inertia would promote genome evolution to more complex forms?

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

don't think you can topple a whole body of work with a little bit of conjecture and some numbers you pull out of your ass.

In my lifetime, I have learned more from challenging the conventional wisdom, than I have learned from adopting the conventional wisdom based on faith. All those hard workers who created the conventional wisdom did it by challenging older conventional wisdom..

Quote:

Certainty is impossible and probability suffices to govern belief and action. Get over it!

I think the evolutionary model probably needs some improvement, but is probably not absurd.

0 Replies

It's just tha to me you seem awfully quick to jump from "perhaps it's not random" to "there's a guiding influence." It's definitely not random, particularly on a local scale, and particularly in higher species. Sexual selection (quite apart from environmental pressures) sees to that.

Sorry about the tone of the post, but the numbers you're making up really are coming out of thin air and don't describe anything except the model your making based on your own conjecture. In other words, I think you are begging the question.

0 Replies

Hi Acquiunk,

Acquiunk wrote:

Rosborne, I suspect the trend towards complexity, and ican's 2nd or X factor is nothing more than inertia.

I'm not familiar with the idea of "inertia" in evolution. And I'm not sure I understand your reference to a "trend"

Acquiunk wrote:

If there is nothing to contradict the trend then it will simply continue and if that trend is complexity, species will continue to get more complex.

How can there be a "trend" in evolution? What mechanism would support such a thing?

Is there a "trend" toward complexity? If so, why? Is complexity an advantage over simplicity?

Tough questions... I know Wink

0 Replies

And what is complexity? Genome size does not always translate to morphological complexity.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Let's start with BA. It is alleged that according to the fossil record, the organisms that co-existed with BA were far less complex than those organisms that have evolved since then and coexisted with CA.

Not necessarily. Some organisms change very little over time.

You could say that *some* of the organisms which evolved since BA *seem* to be more complex (must define "complex" in this reference) than others at the time of CA. But this is a very different statement, frought with variable possibilities.

ican711nm wrote:

CA is alleged to have been shown by the fossil record to be more complex than BA.

You need to be careful here. You have moved from talking about numbers of genes to complexity in a general sense, and the two are not comparable.

ican711nm wrote:

The mouse genome is alleged to be more complex than CA.

Not true. It's alleged to be different than CA, and in this particular case, it may also have more genes (by number). I'm not trying to split hairs here, these definitions are important.

ican711nm wrote:

Certainly, the human genome is more complex than both CA and the mouse genome.

No, that's not certain by any means. Many genetic sequences, even from some seemingly simple organisms, are larger than the human genome. If pure numbers are your measure of complexity, then we are not the most complex creatures.

Here's another thing to consider. Genes activate and affect other genes, so there is a feedback effect in the system. One gene might activate several others in relative functionality, and each of those might activate many other groups. So pure numbers of genes doesn't tell us much, especially with all the "junk" DNA floating around in there. Many pieces of "junk" may be turned in to active non-junk by an accidental mutation in a different gene.

Likewise, there is feedback in the macro level of the evolutionary process itself. Organisms are strong contributors to their own Environment, making it common for selection to occur based on interaction with closely related species.

Feedback mechanisms change equations dramatically, and make it very difficult to draw conclusions from numbers.

You started by claiming to be able to calculate to the mooglth degree that it was impossible to evolve a human genome within the known timeframe for the Universe (much less the Earth's lifespan).

Are you still arguing your original case, or would you prefer to restate your position with the more specific terminology now available?

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

And what is complexity? Genome size does not always translate to morphological complexity.

Exactly. What *is* complexity? I've started several threads along these lines on A2K and on Abuzz years ago. It's a very interesting (and complex Wink

) topic.

0 Replies

As to useful mutations: I think there may be some rough index of potential for "evolution" -- that is, chance development of useful biological materials as the result of mutation -- within a genome. Something to do with the number of duplicate genes, such as the one that led to the development of a third cone (color-sensitive photoreceptor in the eye) in old world primates and not in new-world primates. Might just be someting somebody proposed to me at some point, though. Definitely is a mode of evolution, though, and not one that's left entirely to change -- at least not once the duplicate gene has made it into the genome.

0 Replies

Oldest vertebrate fossil found in Australia, scientists say

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know