65
   

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

 
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2017 02:29 am
@brianjakub,
What a moron. You are the one talking about "doing it in order . . . right time . . . right place . . . right type of tissue." Apart from demonstrating, once again, your complete failure to take on board the implications of natural selection, to understand at all what it means and the very simple mechanism--show me that there is any such thing as a "right time," a "right place" or a "right type of tissue." Really, you've been a liar and an idiot in all of your posts--you're a typical christian denier of science. Why should anyone show you anything? You're the poster child of invincible ignorance, I certainly don't care if you wallow in your ignorance. You have chosen to hide from the world in the superstitious stupidity of a bronze age religious scam, and you're welcome to it. I do pity any children whose fate is so screwed that you would be responsible for their education.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2017 04:07 am
@Leadfoot,
I couldn't care less what you want, now. I gave you a chance and you blew it. Misunderstand away!
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2017 04:51 am
I thought it was god and his Magic 8 ball in charge of stuff.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2017 06:54 am
@Setanta,
Could you quote my lies please? If you want to question my character please quote the lies.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2017 07:30 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
I couldn't care less what you want, now. I gave you a chance and you blew it. Misunderstand away!

Now you sound like a rejected evangelist.

Funny that it is Setanta, Gbag, you, etc. bringing up God & religion. It was just us 'misguided ones' trying to discuss the scientific merits of ID and the lack of them in abiogenesis and macro evolution.

But you've committed the unpardonable sin of being boring now, so have a good day and see you down the road on some other thread.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2017 07:47 am
@Leadfoot,
Im back.
I try to stay away from these "its religion, NO ITS NOT" crap. I like to lean back on Bird's successful rgument that he used to try Edwards v Aguillard. (Contains a very hefty leglistic argument of where science begins). Ive mentioned this before in trying to get into discussions about hard v soft "evidence"



Howd you make it through the storm?? We have some relatives at Flagler Beach nd they suffered some losses from a sharknado.Were heading down next Tuesday to help with some Amish builders down there to help reconstruct their barn and some out buildings on the "ranch"
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2017 08:46 am
@brianjakub,
Quote:
Random mutations on the other hand are easy to model. We know how many genes there are, we know how many combinations there. We know which combinations can be mutated to and which ones can't. It's a numbers game.


For someone who claims to be associated with evo/devo theory, you seem to lean primarily toward a super intelligence role. You ignore, in your modelling discussions ,

1 the RATES OF REACTION at which mutations occur

2Genetic variability tht DOES NOT involve mutation

3 Genetic expression

Djever notice , from the fossil record, that whenever "species explosions" occur (usually as a result of some environmental occurence), many related "coousin"species seem to getcaught in the medium (Like the ceratopsians that overran the late K). So many of these fossil species displaying a wealth of variability are seen in the K rocks ( protoceratops, einiosaurids, psittcosauroids,chasmosaurs,styrachosaurs,pentaceratopsians diceratops etc etc), then -boom, all gone.

Sqme times there were about 8 to 12 orders of mammals, today, weve got 3 left. most of the egg layers became prey to carnivorous birds and advancedmammals.


0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2017 08:48 am
@brianjakub,
Quote:
I can't create intelligence in something that has none.
would you call peptide linkage, or oxidation , or surface chemical reactions (like AD- sorption or desorption)
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2017 09:27 am
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2017 10:40 am
@farmerman,
Welcome back farmer, I missed ya.

You have me at disadvantage on that case, I'll have to look it up. I casually watched the case in Texas where the anti ID guys recently (April, 2017) won. Here's the result below. My objection is, how do you get 'creationism' from a curriculum that allows or requires students to "evaluate scientific explanations for the origins of DNA and the complexity of certain cells"? I sure don't want creationism taught in public schools but this sounds like ' protesteth too much'.
There was no mention anywhere about religion, God or creationism in the guidelines.
Quote:

The Texas State Board of Education tentatively voted to remove language in high school biology standards that would have required students to challenge evolutionary science.

Currently, the curriculum requires students to “evaluate” scientific explanations for the origins of DNA and the complexity of certain cells, which some have argued could open the door to teaching creationism. Wednesday's vote, which had been preceded by a lengthy and contentious debate in recent months, would change how science teachers approach such topics in the classroom. (Update, April 21: The State Board of Education took a final vote Friday to approve the edited biology standards, agreeing to exclude the word “evaluate.”)

Still in CO but my brother tells me I only lost a couple of pieces of siding in FL. and no trees fallen on the house. The real danger comes around the 20th when the rain in s. GA makes its way down the Suwannee to my neighborhood. I live in the 100 year floodplain and may have to canoe in like in 98. GF wasn't quite as lucky, her outdoor BBQ shelter was flattened by a tree but no house damage.

The Slingshot is running again in its second life as a rat-Rod. Runs great with another 50 lbs. of useless plastic and hardware gone off the front.

Good on ya for helping the Amish, if I was going to have a religion I'd have to consider theirs. I'd miss the toys a bit though.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2017 11:02 am
@brianjakub,
Alright. One more try.

Quote:
Olivier5 wrote:
The fundamental character of evolution is incremental change, with a constant reliance on the progressive tweeking of old solution into new ones.

(You need to be more specific when you use the word 'evolution', we both agree it happened.)

When I speak of 'evolution', I mean the 'evolution' that we both agree happened: the evolution of species.

Quote:
I thought progressive tweeking is the definition of innovation. 

No. Innovation CAN start with a blank slate, as the guys who designed the iphone did.

Evolution CANNOT do so. It is ONLY capable of tweeking past organisms. That's why there's no essential difference in the DNA code over several billion years, and yet humans can invent new codes every day. Evolution is not designed in the sense that you seem to give to this word, ie actively and constantly re-engineered by a Grand Designer God. Or this god has no imagination whatsoever.

Quote:
Olivier5 wrote:
Most terrestrial vertebrate have four legs, all insects have six legs. Why? Why not insects with four legs and vertebrates with six?

Why not? I bet it would survive? Looks like a pattern?

It looks like God is cookie-cutting His creation...
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2017 11:44 am
As an illustration of how evolution always tweeks older forms, there's the well-known fact that giraffes have the standard number of neck vertebrae shared by most mammals – seven. Their evolution from shorter-necked ancestors consisted essentialky in an ELONGATION of old bits and pieces of the pre-existing basic mammalian anatomy.

Quote:
How Giraffes Became Winners by a Neck
POSTED WED, 10/7/2015

Giraffes have taught generations of students how evolution works. Not directly, of course. Communicating throughnocturnal humming is a barrier to classroom instruction. But the modern giraffe – Giraffa camelopardalis – is often used as the textbook example of why Darwin and Wallace were right and Lamarck was wrong.

The setup goes something like this. Think of a little protogiraffe gazing hungrily at some tasty leaves high up on a tree. Someone from the Lamarckian school of evolution, the argument goes, might assume that the little giraffoid would stretch its neck to grab the lowest of those high leaves and, through exertion, develop a longer neck that it would then pass on to its offspring. Repeat for best results. A Darwinian, on the other hand, would expect the protogiraffes to vary in neck length and those that just happened to have slightly longer necks would be able to reach more food, survive longer, and mate often enough to pass on that variation to the next generation, who would play out the scenario over again.

While the scenario is a bit of a caricature of what Lamarck actually thought, it’s still useful in getting at the basic evolutionary equation that Darwin and Wallace independently distilled. Yet, despite the thought experiment’s popularity, we’ve known little of how the giraffe actually got its neck. Today’s tall browsers definitely evolved from shorter-necked ancestors, but how? A new study by New York Institute of Technology’s College of Osteopathic Medicine anatomist Melinda Danowitz and colleagues now provides an answer. [...]

Truly long-necked giraffes didn’t evolve until about 7.5 million years ago. Samotherium, Palaeotragus, Bohlinia, the extinct Giraffa sivalensis and the living Giraffa camelopardalis preserve enough transitional features to let Danowitz and colleagues reconstruct how this stretching occurred. It wasn’t simply a matter of drawing out their vertebrae as if they were in some sort of anatomical taffy pull. The front half of the neck vertebrae became elongated in Samotherium and Palaeotragus, generating forms intermediate between today’s Giraffa and their foreshortened predecessors. Then, within the last two millions years or so, the lineage leading up to the modern Giraffa elongated the back half of their neck vertebrae, giving them even more reach and making them literally at the top of their class.

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/files/2015/10/F5.large_.jpg

If you could assemble all these fossil bits and pieces into a short film replaying giraffe evolution, you wouldn’t end up with the smooth transformation of a small-statured herbivore into a towering, checkered browser. There’d be starts and stops and side stories, the ending not being a goal but a happenstance..

Reference:
Danowitz, M., Vasilyev, A., Kortlandt, V., Solounias, N. 2015.Fossil evidence and stages of elongation of the Giraffa camelopardalis neck.


http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/07/how-giraffes-became-winners-by-a-neck/
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2017 12:17 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
would you call peptide linkage, or oxidation, or surface chemical reactions
. I would call it surface chemical reaction. How is this relevant to the discussion about random mutations?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2017 12:19 pm
@brianjakub,
Im sorry, I hit return before I was done.My question was , whether we should consider these chemical processes as signs of intelligence in the physical world?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2017 12:50 pm
@brianjakub,
There lie is that you claim to be an "evolutionist"--when in fact you're a cheer leader for the "god did it" crowd, the IDiots. If you claim to accept evolution, but then make all sorts of idiotic statements from authority (an authority you do not possess) about "random" mutation, and then deny the possibility of speciation and macroevolution, what is left? God did it, that's all that's left.

Liar

Hypocrite
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2017 12:52 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
No. innovation CAN start with a blank slate, as the guys who designed the iphone did.
The guys' minds started gathering little bits of information the day they were born. They gathered bits about math, electronics, phones, walkie talkies, computer chips, laptops, macintosh etc. . . The whole time there mind is saving bits of information in their minds the same way DNA does. There mind would imagine new ideas by mutating an old idea they had learned during life(like random mutations, but with a better chance of creating complexity successfully). Then there mind would imagine a test run simulation to see if it would work(natural selection). If it did they would build a real working prototype introduce it to the market and get rich (survival of the fittest.). The designers of the iPhone designed and planned the iPhone from information they had "incrementally" gathered over their lifetime, which, they in turn learned from people that have been doing the same for lifetimes. All these people then wrote it down, and taught it to the next generation. That looks very similar to the process biological evolution uses. Both use biological processes to incrementally create information, store it, and build on it. But the ID model can be modeled and replicated. Can we do the same using random mutations.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2017 01:54 pm
@brianjakub,
Quote:
There mind would imagine new ideas by mutating an old idea they had learned during life

That's not the point. The point is that design implies the capacity to re-start a design from a blank slate, around a new idea. Evolution cannot do that: it always recycle past organs. Always. As if in any modern iphone you'd find a slightly modified (smaller, vestigial) rotary dial somewhere, tell tale sign that it evolved from our childhood's phones...

Of course our mind works ultimately in Darwinian ways, through trial and error applied to preexisting material. That's because our mind was not designed by the way. It resulted from a Darwinian process of evolution and it should not come as a surprise that it uses the darwinian bag of tricks and tools to make new ideas with old ideas. But nevertheless, human designers are far more innovative than your evolutionary god.

You know what else works in Darwinian ways? Your immune system; more precisely the identification of an effective antibody against a new patogen. When you develop immunity to measle or get vaccinated: that's a (complex) darwinian process in reduction. It usually takes about two weeks for your body to produce a an effective antibody. And it's done entirely by trial and error.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2017 02:29 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
should we consider these chemical processes as signs of intelligence in the physical world.
We are constantly looking for signs of intelligence from something other than human origin. (SETI). SETI is looking for signs of intelligence in electromagnetic radiation. I think they are looking for a signal that is to complex to have originated without intelligent intervention. If they started receiving a signal that could be interpreted as "Hello we are here. Where are you?" being sent over and aver again, they might consider it evidence. What would you consider acceptable evidence for SETI to provide as evidence?

These chemical processes in DNA are very complex, and self replicate large amounts of complex information extremely effectively. YES, I would consider this complexity a sign of intelligence (that is intelligence existing in the past when DNA was conceived at least). It is much more complex than "Hello we are here. Where are you?" The thing that makes both instances a sign of intelligence though is that there is underlying complexity supporting both the message in DNA and the microwave radiation signal. There has to be a living organism surrounding the DNA, and there has to be a living organism (presumably with DNA) building a transmitter and sending the signal. Do you think either one should be considered a sign of intelligence? I would consider them both as signs.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2017 03:31 pm
@brianjakub,
o can I infer that youd consider the production of nucleobases (of the kind found in CATG) from catalyzed CN , NH3, and a few other chemicals found in space, and "riding along" in outer level ureilites and C chondrites, is merely a "surface chemistry reaction"? (actually its not since it involves chemical bonding of covalent and ionic nature). So, youd say that chemical bonding is not intelligence? Id agree.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2017 03:41 pm
@brianjakub,
Nature = Intelligence (the good and bad)
The Bad includes floods, landslides, fires that destroys resources, animals, people, and damage to structures and buildings.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.2 seconds on 11/24/2024 at 09:55:35