Login

Join for Free!
118911 members


Science on evolution

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby Springer » Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:23 pm

MrMistery wrote:
So what better choise do we have? We do admit that the theory of evolution does indeed have holes in it, that scientists are trying very hard to figure out, but can you come up with a better model and prove that it works? Between my model with few evidence, and your model with no evidence, i'll take mine anyday.


So, you believe in evolution because you don't believe in God? Despite the fact that it defies laws of science and makes no logical sense, you favor it over "religion" because that would be "unscientific" to consider intelligent design.

DNA is DNA... and to deny that a turnip could evolve into a rhinocerous is to deny the foundamental tenets of Darwinism.

Oh come on, that is just absurd. The turnip is a plant. It can not evolve into a rhinocerous because they are both highly specialised organisms, very well adapted to their own environment. Evolution says that a new species can be born through mutations, that take time. Whereas now on earth every organism lives with it's own fundamental and applied niche. If something goes wrong and one species dies, it's applied niche is taken over by a similar organism. The turnip could never turn into a rhinocerous because it simply "chose a different way" during the passing of time. What you are saying not only is not evolution, it is also against good old common sense


Evolutionists are constantly insisting that change is not directional, but random. After all, fish evolved into amphibians, then mammals... then they lost their legs and returned to the sea... maybe after several more million years cetaceans will develop gills and acquire a reproductive system similar to fish. AFter all, the reverse supposedly happened (i.e., whales evolved from fish through the mammal stage. Reptiles evolved into birds... then some birds lost the ability to fly. Mutations are random... everyone agrees on that point. There is no reason, according to evolutionary theory, that a turnip could not evolve into a rhinocerous. You accuse me of lacking common sense... I'm merely stating facts implicit in the theory of evolution which, of course, are always at odds with common sense.
Springer
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:20 am

Postby mith » Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:43 am

Springer wrote:
mithrilhack wrote:
Those are both very poor analogies,
Plane-changes conditions, obviously saturn is space travel not air travel

Runner-There's is a limit because your son can't run faster than in 0 mins. Where as evolution doesn't really have a defined limit. Radiation vs convergence. (limit approaching 0 vs limit approaching infinity).


The analogies are accurate because you assume that there are no limits to change. Can you prove that? Can you prove macroevolution is possible? No, you merely state that it happened. The proposed mechanisms of macroevolution are different than microevolution, so the extrapolation is baseless, just as it is absurd to assume that a plane can fly to Saturn.


Can you prove there is a limit to evolution? Can you say that there won't be any new species produced tomorrow? Granted, there are some limits that we do see;neither new phyla nor kingdoms seem to pop up every day but that doesn't mean the pre-existing organisms won't continue to branch.

And if it happened of course it's possible. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here...

And what are the differences between the mechanisms of macro and micro that make them so incompatible?

Springer wrote:
mithrilhack wrote:As for the turnip -> rhinocerous, that's the same type of statement as monkey -> human. Exceedingly fallacious.

DNA is DNA... and to deny that a turnip could evolve into a rhinocerous is to deny the foundamental tenets of Darwinism. Of course, in the evolutionary tree of life, no actual transitional species can be identified, because if such were available for rigorous analysis it would be debunked.


We already provided examples to transitional fossils(see other threads), and again read up on punctuated equilbrium. As for the turnip turning into a rhino, that would require the turnip to regress to the point where rhinos and turnips had a common ancestor and then evolving the rhino path. That's like hoping a spilt glass of milk would flow back into the jug, not entirely impossible but might as well be.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby Springer » Thu Dec 29, 2005 5:52 am

mithrilhack wrote:

Can you prove there is a limit to evolution? Can you say that there won't be any new species produced tomorrow?

Molecules to man evolution requires a progressive, sequential increase in genetic information. This has never been observed, and the complexity involved in conceiving such a thing gives one no reason to believe it is possible.

And if it happened of course it's possible. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here...


You are using evolution in an attempt to defend evolution. You are saying evolution happened, therefore it's possible.

And what are the differences between the mechanisms of macro and micro that make them so incompatible?


Antibiotic resistance in bacteria involves a loss of genetic information. Survival of such bacteria is assurred because of one sudden very obvious selective advantage. That is a far cry from such things as the evolution of a bat's wing, which required numerous successive unidirectional changes resulting in progressive increase in genetic information. Dark peppered moths surviving over white moths doesn't prove anything. In the first place, the dark moths didn't "emerge" as a result of industrial pollution... they already existed. Secondly, they had a very obvious selective advantage... nothing like the proposed mechanisms of macroevolution over millions of years.

We already provided examples to transitional fossils(see other threads
)

Interpretation of the fossil record is highly subjective. You only have incomplete fossilized skeletons. If evolution were operative in the past, there should be millions of transitional species, not just one or two questionable examples. Why are there no living examples out of the more than two million species of plant and animals today?

... and again read up on punctuated equilbrium.

At least some evolutionists are willing to admit that the fossil record does not support evolution... hence, the idea of punctuated equilibrium. THis is an attempt to explain away hostile evidence to evolution.

As for the turnip turning into a rhino, that would require the turnip to regress to the point where rhinos and turnips had a common ancestor and then evolving the rhino path. That's like hoping a spilt glass of milk would flow back into the jug, not entirely impossible but might as well be.

Is it any more absurd than the turnip and rhinocerous being cousins, as proclaimed by goo-to-you evolution?
Springer
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:20 am


Postby mith » Fri Dec 30, 2005 6:00 pm

Springer wrote:Molecules to man evolution requires a progressive, sequential increase in genetic information. This has never been observed, and the complexity involved in conceiving such a thing gives one no reason to believe it is possible.


You're changing the subject again, I was referring to evolution of species and have already provided examples of speciation, evidence of evolution.
You're bringing up the subject of abiogenesis again which of course hasn't been observed since we haven't been on the planet long enough and I already requested for your calculations and sources for claiming it's impossible.

You are using evolution in an attempt to defend evolution. You are saying evolution happened, therefore it's possible.

I'm still not sure what you're trying to say here. If the premise of evolution is true we would see speciation, which we do and therefore it validates it...

Antibiotic resistance in bacteria involves a loss of genetic information. Survival of such bacteria is assurred because of one sudden very obvious selective advantage. That is a far cry from such things as the evolution of a bat's wing, which required numerous successive unidirectional changes resulting in progressive increase in genetic information. Dark peppered moths surviving over white moths doesn't prove anything. In the first place, the dark moths didn't "emerge" as a result of industrial pollution... they already existed. Secondly, they had a very obvious selective advantage... nothing like the proposed mechanisms of macroevolution over millions of years.


How can antibiotic resistance be a loss of information? Where is the information being lost from? It's not as if the resistances made it weaker in other areas. Super staph for example is immune to almost every drug available and yet it still functions as well as the original staph which doesn't have the immunities. We're not seeing a loss, we're seeing an increase.

Interpretation of the fossil record is highly subjective. You only have incomplete fossilized skeletons. If evolution were operative in the past, there should be millions of transitional species, not just one or two questionable examples. Why are there no living examples out of the more than two million species of plant and animals today?

Already discussed it in another thread, fossilization doesn't occur as often as you suggested(millions of transitional). The conditions for fossilization are very specific
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/fossil/fossil.htm

Quote"If the bone is not buried or underwater within 1-2 years of defleshing, it will literally become dust in the wind. The bone fragments may persist for several more years, but they are unrecognizable as to species"

At least some evolutionists are willing to admit that the fossil record does not support evolution... hence, the idea of punctuated equilibrium. THis is an attempt to explain away hostile evidence to evolution.

There's a difference between not supporting evolution and not supporting gradualism.

Is it any more absurd than the turnip and rhinocerous being cousins, as proclaimed by goo-to-you evolution?

Very distant cousins. And using the word absurd isn't going to win you any arguments here.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby Poison » Fri Dec 30, 2005 11:12 pm

Do you really believe that you will make us deny evolution?????
It matters not how strait the gate
How charged with punishment the scroll
I am the Master of my fate
I am the Captain of my soul.
User avatar
Poison
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 12:44 pm
Location: Turkey

Postby mith » Sat Dec 31, 2005 12:53 am

If he actually provides some new evidence or research I might be inclined to disbelieve it but it seems to be the same old batch of half-truths and misunderstood "facts"(probablity, entropy, decrease in information, fossil record, irreducible complexity)
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby Springer » Sat Dec 31, 2005 5:25 am

mithrilhack wrote:
Springer wrote:

Already discussed it in another thread, fossilization doesn't occur as often as you suggested(millions of transitional). The conditions for fossilization are very specific
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/fossil/fossil.htm

Quote"If the bone is not buried or underwater within 1-2 years of defleshing, it will literally become dust in the wind. The bone fragments may persist for several more years, but they are unrecognizable as to species"


Yes, fossilization is a rare event. However, there are millions of fossils, which span a supposed evolutionary history of over 500 million years. Thus, there is no reason why there shouldn't be innumerable examples of true transitional species in the fossil record... and there aren't.

Likewise, there is no reason why living transitional species shouldn't exist, and they don't.

There's a difference between not supporting evolution and not supporting gradualism.


All theories of evolution demand gradualism. What are you talking about?
Springer
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:20 am

Postby Springer » Sat Dec 31, 2005 5:29 am

mithrilhack wrote:If he actually provides some new evidence or research I might be inclined to disbelieve it but it seems to be the same old batch of half-truths and misunderstood "facts"(probablity, entropy, decrease in information, fossil record, irreducible complexity)


So, you think that I'm using the same old arguments? Perhaps it's because there's never been an adequate answer to them. You cannot defend evolution with known laws of probability. There is no evidence that any organism can increase in information by evolution. The fossil record is conspiciously lacking in transitional fossils. No one can explain how irreducibly complex organs can spontaneously evolve. You just accept evolution on faith... and assume that someday all the answers to these questions will somehow be solved within the framework of evolution, never considering that the entire theory of evolution is devoid of any empirical evidence.
Springer
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:20 am

Postby 2810712 » Sat Dec 31, 2005 10:59 am

A religion is composed of many thoughts. all the people belonging to one religion are not alike in all their activities and thinking . So a group of people belonging to some religion as a hole may or may not be a fit population. Inheritance of religion is not predominantly genetic, i think. It is mainly after birth developement that give us these thoughts. If thinking about post-death life makes someone fitter and moreover it is , by some means, inherited then this may be evolution of some kind. Note that psychology plays very imp. part in atleast human life and the 'fitness' of progeny today. Just the presence of cures for diff. health probs doesn't help until it is accompanied by a +ve psycho backing.


One can't neglect mathematical proofs , probability laws as using them physics and chemistry we are doing many things that are working in the real world. When exceptions are detected, we try to improve our law statement to make it more applicable in observed situations. This is a cycle that might never end.

hrushikesh
2810712
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:19 pm

Postby mith » Sat Dec 31, 2005 2:48 pm

Again, show me your calculations or sources, and punctuated equilibrium does not require gradualism.

Also answer my original question on antibiotic resistance and information increase. At least make an attempt to show some evidence, don't just recant your previous statements.

Of course probabilities are always right, but where do the calculations come from? Assumptions. What everyone has been trying to show you all along is that some of your assumptions are unfounded or sensible but wrong. Why do you assume loss of information? Why do you assume the need for linear, gradual evolution? Why should there be millions of fossils? Simply saying sensible isn't going to work. You need better arguments than that(evidence perhaps or some scientist's work?)

Have you heard of the birthday problem? In order to have two people with the same birthdays in the same group, you just need 23 people to have over 50% chance of that. Sensible? Intuitive? Math calculated here
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.birthdayprob.html

As for transitional fossils, where does the transition end? As stated already in other threads, there are numerous examples of transitions, but you said they were subjective and incomplete. How many transitions should be there and why should there be that many(the number) transitions?

And you are right, I do believe evolution on faith because I have never personally done these experiments nor met the people who have. But they way you stated it, its as if believing in evolution is the same as believing in a religion. Believe it or not, there is a difference!

As for why these questions keep getting asked...I don't know why. I feel the answers provided here and elsewhere are more than adequate. Perhaps springer is too lazy to do his own research j/k :D
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby catfishjim » Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:22 pm

Springer wrote:Likewise, there is no reason why living transitional species shouldn't exist, and they don't.


How can you say there are no living transitional species? You just don't recognize them because you can't look 10 million years into the future.
catfishjim
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:30 pm
Location: Austria

Postby alextemplet » Thu Feb 02, 2006 1:46 am

I remember reading about some miracle drug that came out about ten years ago that was supposed to kill HIV. It was engineered to attack every single strain, so that the entire disease could be wiped out in one great inoculation. If what Springer says is true, that drug resistance depends on genes already present in the population, then this drug should've killed the virus immediately, since it attacked every single variety. However, within a few weeks of the drug's introduction, the virus mutated to evolve resistance, and within six months or so the drug was completely useless. The conclusion? That drug resistance doesn't depend on genes already present in a population; it can be evolved after the introduction of a drug. Springer is wrong.

And to answer your question, mithril, the reason those questions keep getting asked is because some people try to distort their religions into something it was never meant to be, and then insist that they're right even though there's mountains evidence against it. Some people honestly believe that the earth is the center of the universe because of what's in the Bible. This is a very grave insult to religion and, as a Catholic, I have very little tolerance for it.
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests