Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Southstar's thread

Posted: Dec. 07 2011,10:41

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 07 2011,09:57)

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 06 2011,13:03)

Perhaps this recent example?

Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

Quote

“Our data shows that evolution of novel structures can occur on extremely short time scales. Cecal valve evolution probably went hand-in-hand with a novel association between the lizards on Pod Mrcaru and microorganisms called nematodes that break down cellulose, which were found in their hindguts.”

Hi,

The objection made to this article is that there is no proof of novel genetic material in the study. Actually in all fairness it does state "Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste."

So one could assume that the mutations are only induced by the enviroment and are not genetic based?

another thing I have replied to this saying that the development of the Cecal valve which is only been developed on the lizards of one island can only be produced with an increase of the amount of genetic material. Would this be correct?

Or would it be possible that these genes were somehow latent and were only expressed when the animal turned to a heavier herbivourous diet?

Thanks
Marty

One argument is that there is no such thing as 'novel genetic material'. Almost all genetic material is Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, or Thyamine... and the methylations thereof.

So in that respect, you can't have novel genetic material. I guess what they are referring to is the sequence.

But a quick glance at a couple of sentences shows that very novel changes to the meaning of the system can be made with very minor changes to the sequence of letters. For example:

The quick, brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.
The quick, brown fox jumped over the lady dog.

One change to one letter changes most of the meaning of the sentence.

So 'novel' changes to the sequence are NOT required for the resulting protein to have a very different structure... and likely function.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Dec. 07 2011,11:11

Quote

The objection made to this article is that there is no proof of novel genetic material in the study.

You have to realize by now that even were you to show that novel genetic material was created then they'd simply drop back to "you can't explain the origin of the original information" and "it's easy to make new genetic material from existing genetic material, you have to explain the origin of genetic material full stop".

And in any case, if they'll accept evolution if it can be shown that evolution can generate novel genetic material that's an easy example to show.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......lyploid

Quote

So one could assume that the mutations are only induced by the enviroment and are not genetic based?

I don't understand the question. A mutation is a mutation, however it was induced. Even when (as just discussed) the environment is static mutations continue to occur. And a mutation must always be "genetically based" as that's what's mutating!

So perhaps they are trying the front loading angle?

Quote

another thing I have replied to this saying that the development of the Cecal valve which is only been developed on the lizards of one island can only be produced with an increase of the amount of genetic material.

Not necessarily. As Ogre notes changing a letter does not change the length of a sequence but can substantially alter the "meaning". Perhaps it had an increase, perhaps it did not. See Lenski.

Quote

Or would it be possible that these genes were somehow latent and were only expressed when the animal turned to a heavier herbivourous diet?

Anything is possible but only science will tell you what actually happens. It's more then possible there is much more detail on this specific topic by now, that article was fairly old as these things go. Perhaps check to see if there was any follow up research?

What's their exploration for the valve in question? Did the designer notice that it was needed and reach in and add it? Can they even begin to state an answer? If not, why don't they accept yours until they can come up with a better one, that's the key question.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

OgreMkV

Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

Posted: Dec. 07 2011,12:08

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 07 2011,11:11)

Quote

Or would it be possible that these genes were somehow latent and were only expressed when the animal turned to a heavier herbivourous diet?

Anything is possible but only science will tell you what actually happens. It's more then possible there is much more detail on this specific topic by now, that article was fairly old as these things go. Perhaps check to see if there was any follow up research?

What's their exploration for the valve in question? Did the designer notice that it was needed and reach in and add it? Can they even begin to state an answer? If not, why don't they accept yours until they can come up with a better one, that's the key question.

That looks like a front-loading tactic... or maybe forastero's brand of epigenetics.

Either one can also easily be defeated.

Front Loading doesn't help ID

One of the requirements for epigenetics is that it is reversible. So we just need to find a modern organism that has reverted to its ancestral state, while keeping exactly the same gene sequence. That's about the only thing that would prove epigenetics at that level.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Dec. 07 2011,14:32

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 06 2011,19:04)

Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 06 2011,18:20)

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 06 2011,12:54)

Hi,

I've been looking for some example of gain-of-function mutation that has derived from speciation.

That seems backwards to me. Mutations, including gain-of-function mutations in specific, are the stuff of which speciation is made, not so? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to ask for examples of speciation derived from gain-of-function mutation, rather than the other way around?

Most speciation is not driven by natural selection, but by accumulation of genetic differences.

This dichotomy is false. A genetic difference involved in reproductive isolation can be promoted by selection. In fact, that has been show to be the case for most genes causing reproductive isolation (and that's for species pairs where hybrid deficiency isn't environment-dependent. For the others, the contribution of natural selection to speciation makes no doubt).
On the other hand, there is very little evidence for speciation by genetic drift.

Regarding the issue of "gain-of-function derived from speciation", I'm not sure what that means. Speciation is not the motor of genetic novelty, it's an outcome. (EDIT: as Cubist said).

It's also unclear what "gain-of-function" means. In ecological speciation, an ecological trait diversifies, which enhances reproductive isolation. For instance, feeding on seeds of a different sizes. Is that a new function?
Speciation takes place between populations that are initially similar, and species don't grow new organs often.
Sure there might be physiological/biochemical functions that may bot be externally visible. Whether they contribute to reproductive isolation is hard to tell. The genes causing reproductive isolation remain largely uncovered (they're identified in a handful of species).

Here's an example of what may be qualified as gain of function: http://www.pnas.org/content....38.long
An aphid species has acquired some venom as a result of the duplication of a protease gene. I'm not sure this has anything to do with speciation though, and this may not be testable.
There's the famous example of Heliconius butterflies that mimmic other butterfly species. Wing patterns are also involved in reproductive isolation (a case of ecological speciation). Would a new pattern (e.g. red stripes, derived from a uniform color) be considered as a gain-of function?

Verbena

Posts: 27
Joined: Nov. 2011

Posted: Dec. 07 2011,16:13

Hi, sorry to barge in but with reference to the original question (on mechanisms of evolution) ((I'm guessing for non-evolutionists)) has anyone seen this? The Evidence for Evolution in 100 Pages

--------------
Twitter: @evolutionaryfem
https://www.facebook.com/group.p....4842234
http://dispatchesfromtheclaphamomnibus.blogspot.com/....pot.com

qetzal

Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

Posted: Dec. 07 2011,21:03

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 07 2011,09:57)

The objection made to this article is that there is no proof of novel genetic material in the study. Actually in all fairness it does state "Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste."

So one could assume that the mutations are only induced by the enviroment and are not genetic based?

Mutations are genetically based, by definition. And the DNA analysis did not confirm the the lizards were genetically identical. It only confirmed that the PM lizards were genetically indistinguishable from the PK lizards by the method employed. The test was only designed to show that the lizards collected on PM were, in fact, descendents of the original 5 pairs of PK lizards that were introduced to PM. That test was not designed to identify possible mutations in the PM lizards that might account for the observed physical differences.

Quote

another thing I have replied to this saying that the development of the Cecal valve which is only been developed on the lizards of one island can only be produced with an increase of the amount of genetic material. Would this be correct?

Or would it be possible that these genes were somehow latent and were only expressed when the animal turned to a heavier herbivourous diet?

Thanks
Marty

No, I don't think you can't say the the development of cecal valves could only occur with an increase in the amount of genetic material. Remember that these lizards are descended from a total of 10 original lizards. So, any particular gene locus could have been present in multiple different versions (alleles) in the founding population. As the population expanded, those alleles would have reassorted into many combinations that weren't present in any single founding lizard. In addition, most traits are influenced by combinations of lots of genes and loci. So the appearance of cecal valves might not involve any new mutations. It might just involve new combinations of alleles that already existed individually in the founding population.

The fact that these traits appeared in only ~ 30 generations suggests to me that reassortment and selection of existing alleles is probably a significant factor here, though it's possible there were novel mutations as well.

Note that this is not really the same as saying that the genes were somehow latent, though your anti-evolutionist acquaintences may try to claim as much.

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Dec. 08 2011,01:05

I wouldn't rule out new mutations.
We tend to consider that the adapted phenotype was some target, and that mutations were unlikely to have affected the right genes at the right nucleotides in such a short amount of time. But this vision is biased.
Consider the whole genome of the lizards. Probably, mutations appeared in each descendent, and some (few) may have to increased their reproductive rate. It's not impossible that they affected the phenotype we see.

Southstar

Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

Posted: Dec. 08 2011,08:12

Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 07 2011,21:03)

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 07 2011,09:57)

The objection made to this article is that there is no proof of novel genetic material in the study. Actually in all fairness it does state "Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste."

So one could assume that the mutations are only induced by the enviroment and are not genetic based?

Mutations are genetically based, by definition. And the DNA analysis did not confirm the the lizards were genetically identical. It only confirmed that the PM lizards were genetically indistinguishable from the PK lizards by the method employed. The test was only designed to show that the lizards collected on PM were, in fact, descendents of the original 5 pairs of PK lizards that were introduced to PM. That test was not designed to identify possible mutations in the PM lizards that might account for the observed physical differences.

Quote

another thing I have replied to this saying that the development of the Cecal valve which is only been developed on the lizards of one island can only be produced with an increase of the amount of genetic material. Would this be correct?

Or would it be possible that these genes were somehow latent and were only expressed when the animal turned to a heavier herbivourous diet?

Thanks
Marty

No, I don't think you can't say the the development of cecal valves could only occur with an increase in the amount of genetic material. Remember that these lizards are descended from a total of 10 original lizards. So, any particular gene locus could have been present in multiple different versions (alleles) in the founding population. As the population expanded, those alleles would have reassorted into many combinations that weren't present in any single founding lizard. In addition, most traits are influenced by combinations of lots of genes and loci. So the appearance of cecal valves might not involve any new mutations. It might just involve new combinations of alleles that already existed individually in the founding population.

The fact that these traits appeared in only ~ 30 generations suggests to me that reassortment and selection of existing alleles is probably a significant factor here, though it's possible there were novel mutations as well.

Note that this is not really the same as saying that the genes were somehow latent, though your anti-evolutionist acquaintences may try to claim as much.

The problem here as I understand it:

There is a basic claim that the creationists make (well actually they are to scared to make a real claim) that evolution cannot "produce new information".

The example of the P.siculae lizard is brushed off as being a mix of adaptation And epigenetics:
According to the original paper, approximately 1 percent of reptiles include cecal valves meaning that there are around 80 species of reptile with cecal valves , including some Lacertid lizards besides Podarcis sicula. This suggests then that the genes that code for cecal valves may in fact be in all lacertid lizards, except the genes are not expressed, or turned "off". In the Pod Mr?aru population, adaptive pressures from the environment (i.e., lack of insects) triggered the expression of these genes.

No genetic testing hase been done on the lizards as far a sI can tell so we have no real way of saying that there has been a gain of function or a increase of genetic material in the new lizards.

Incidentely the claim of epigenetics is also called into question to explain what Lenski found in the CitT.

The argument is that it is impossible that millions of nucleotide sequences were generated in 30 years.

So the line is the following:
There are so very few examples of novel genetic material and most of them are deleterious to the organism anyway. (the examples so far are just twisted examples of very simple epigenetics). No new information is ever added. As Behe's study on "evolutionary law" showed most are loss of function or at best M.

The main tactic is as follows:
They do not argue that these mutations don't exist and they do not argue that microchanges are natural but just that 99% of these are loss of function and the 1% is mostly deleterious, the remaining slice is positive, but it's so little and so rare that it isn't enough to drive evolution. Therefore evolution is false. They do not (at this moment) indicate that there is a designer anywhere along the line but simply that the theory is a hoax.

Furthermore all examples of speciation are in line with their spiecies according to spiecies model, and none of them have any novel genetic material, or at least such a few have that it is neglegeble.

As further evidence of the impossibility of evolution there is the recent finding of ancient microbes that share 98% of the dna with modern versions. This is proof that the microbes are unable to evolve even in millions of years.

I wish I could find a knowlegble biologist willing to debate over there.

Thanks
marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Dec. 08 2011,08:21

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 08 2011,08:12)

but it's so little and so rare that it isn't enough to drive evolution.

The question to ask them is what is the number that's required to allow evolution to operate?

If they don't know then on what basis do they say it's "too little"?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Tracy P. Hamilton

Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

Posted: Dec. 08 2011,10:06

[quote=Southstar,Dec. 08 2011,08:12]

Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 07 2011,21:03)

The main tactic is as follows:
They do not argue that these mutations don't exist and they do not argue that microchanges are natural but just that 99% of these are loss of function and the 1% is mostly deleterious, the remaining slice is positive, but it's so little and so rare that it isn't enough to drive evolution. Therefore evolution is false. They do not (at this moment) indicate that there is a designer anywhere along the line but simply that the theory is a hoax.

marty

Since most mutations are neutral, it is hard to cram that probability in between the alleged 99% loss of function and 1% mostly deleterious. They don't know enough about how genotype affects phenotype to have a sensible conversation.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

Southstar

Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

Posted: Dec. 08 2011,11:06

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 08 2011,08:21)

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 08 2011,08:12)

but it's so little and so rare that it isn't enough to drive evolution.

The question to ask them is what is the number that's required to allow evolution to operate?

If they don't know then on what basis do they say it's "too little"?

Okay well they could just answer well whatever the number is, the one that you got isn't enough, as the super scientist dr. Behe has clearly shown. Gain of function is just to rare to justify evolution in the time frame that we have.

If you have a better number with a wider study prove it.

Playing devils advocate
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Dec. 08 2011,11:10

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 08 2011,11:06)

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 08 2011,08:21)

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 08 2011,08:12)

but it's so little and so rare that it isn't enough to drive evolution.

The question to ask them is what is the number that's required to allow evolution to operate?

If they don't know then on what basis do they say it's "too little"?

Okay well they could just answer well whatever the number is, the one that you got isn't enough, as the super scientist dr. Behe has clearly shown. Gain of function is just to rare to justify evolution in the time frame that we have.

If you have a better number with a wider study prove it.

Playing devils advocate
Marty

make them do the math anyway.

At some point you have to cut your losses.

Dr Behe has shown no such thing. What paper did he publish that has this information you should ask.

EDIT: Lenski.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

OgreMkV

Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

Posted: Dec. 08 2011,12:30

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 08 2011,11:06)

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 08 2011,08:21)

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 08 2011,08:12)

but it's so little and so rare that it isn't enough to drive evolution.

The question to ask them is what is the number that's required to allow evolution to operate?

If they don't know then on what basis do they say it's "too little"?

Okay well they could just answer well whatever the number is, the one that you got isn't enough, as the super scientist dr. Behe has clearly shown. Gain of function is just to rare to justify evolution in the time frame that we have.

If you have a better number with a wider study prove it.

Playing devils advocate
Marty

What would be even better is to ask them for the number that their notion PREDICT. Then you just patiently wait for the research to be done (it won't be done by creationists, that's for sure, which is another thing to tweak their noses about).

Remind them that a theory must not only explain why things are the way that they are, but it must predict future results. For example, the prediction made by Shubin about where he could find a fossil that was transitional between fish and amphibians.

So, remind them that this is an opportunity to use their notions to make a prediction based on those notions. Then, in the future, we can actually see which notion is correct.

I'll give you a thousand to one odds, that they won't take you up on the offer. Continue to remind them that this is how real science is done and that, very simply, are not doing science.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

qetzal

Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

Posted: Dec. 08 2011,16:29

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 08 2011,08:21)

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 08 2011,08:12)

but it's so little and so rare that it isn't enough to drive evolution.

The question to ask them is what is the number that's required to allow evolution to operate?

If they don't know then on what basis do they say it's "too little"?

It would be interesting to go back to Behe's paper, count up all the things that even he concedes are "gain-of-function" mutations in lab experiments, and calculate how many organisms evolved through how many generations to get that number. Then roughly extrapolate how many new functions you'd expect from an entire Earth full of organisms evolving over several billion years.

Even with very conservative assumptions, I guarantee the number will be staggeringly high. I'm sure Ioseb and his ilk would find a way to object, but it might take them aback temporarily.

Not that I think such calculations would have any real relevance. But that's what Ioseb et al seem to value, and I doubt they realize what their own approach would show.

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Dec. 09 2011,01:47

The problem is, you're not going to find gains of function in incipient species very often. Reproductive isolation is mostly caused by character states, not the emergence of new characters. These occur rarely. Plus, the notion of gains of function is somewhat subjective. In ecological speciation, a population adapts to a new niche, which usually comes with a reduction of fitness in the ancestral niche. But in some cases it doesn't. For instance, an insect adapts to a new host plant, but is still able to feed on the ancestral host. Does that count as a gain of function?
Distant taxa can have different organs/genes, with different functions. But the IDiots will claim that each taxon comes from a distinct created "kind".

What about the aphid venom example I posted previously? Do they claim that aphid species with venom come from a separate "kind"? The venom is a new function caused by a gene duplication. I suppose that counts as "new information".

Southstar

Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

Posted: Dec. 11 2011,03:49

Quote (jeannot @ Dec. 09 2011,01:47)

The problem is, you're not going to find gains of function in incipient species very often. Reproductive isolation is mostly caused by character states, not the emergence of new characters. These occur rarely. Plus, the notion of gains of function is somewhat subjective. In ecological speciation, a population adapts to a new niche, which usually comes with a reduction of fitness in the ancestral niche. But in some cases it doesn't. For instance, an insect adapts to a new host plant, but is still able to feed on the ancestral host. Does that count as a gain of function?
Distant taxa can have different organs/genes, with different functions. But the IDiots will claim that each taxon comes from a distinct created "kind".

What about the aphid venom example I posted previously? Do they claim that aphid species with venom come from a separate "kind"? The venom is a new function caused by a gene duplication. I suppose that counts as "new information".

The problem is that speciation (they don't deny speciation) is the means by which evolution occurs. It is therfore important to prove that novel genetic material is added at a somewhat constant rate at the base of speciation so as to create biodiversity.

Further it seems that loss of genetic material is more common than gain of genetic material. Which would lead in the long run to a depletion of genetic material.

To disprove their idea we would need:

1) to find at least a few clear examples of speciation that is due to creation of novel genetic material (which cannot be attributeded to genes already present which were turned on)
2) Have a specific study which shows that novel genetic material is constantly being added and selected by natural selection.
3) Have a study that shows that loss of FCT (in behe's terms) cannot swamp out gain of FCT cases.

Are these valid questions or am I missing the point.

Don't forget they are not proposing ID (for the moment) they are just saying that the theory of evolution is plainly wrong.

Thanks
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Dec. 11 2011,05:42

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 11 2011,03:49)

Don't forget they are not proposing ID (for the moment) they are just saying that the theory of evolution is plainly wrong.

Even if it's wrong if they've nothing to replace it with then it makes sense to stick with a "wrong" idea until a better idea comes along. Do they have that better idea?

I'm sure that there is plenty that is wrong about our best understanding of evolution but I think once you get to that point it's gone beyond the point where you, I or those people you are talking to could sensibly participate in the conversation.

Some here for sure. But once you get down to the details it's hard work, just pick up any textbook.

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley.....C20.pdf

And that's for students, not people on the cutting edge (where it could be "wrong") of research.

If, as they say, the theory of evolution is wrong then ask them (as presumably they've read it) what page the first factual error in "The Greatest Show on Earth" is? As that does a great job of detailing the evidence for the theory of evolution they can use that as a indicator of what's wrong specifically.

Nobody at UD ever pointed out the first factual error.

So to me science is about sticking with a wrong idea until a less wrong idea comes along. To the people you are talking to replacing a wrong idea with a better idea is not part of their mindset - their book of knowledge has been set in stone for the best part of 2000 years and they don't want it to change. They are not interested in finding out the truth, they already *know* the truth, praise the lord.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Southstar

Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

Posted: Dec. 11 2011,05:59

Quote (jeannot @ Dec. 09 2011,01:47)

The problem is, you're not going to find gains of function in incipient species very often. Reproductive isolation is mostly caused by character states, not the emergence of new characters. These occur rarely. Plus, the notion of gains of function is somewhat subjective. In ecological speciation, a population adapts to a new niche, which usually comes with a reduction of fitness in the ancestral niche. But in some cases it doesn't. For instance, an insect adapts to a new host plant, but is still able to feed on the ancestral host. Does that count as a gain of function?
Distant taxa can have different organs/genes, with different functions. But the IDiots will claim that each taxon comes from a distinct created "kind".

What about the aphid venom example I posted previously? Do they claim that aphid species with venom come from a separate "kind"? The venom is a new function caused by a gene duplication. I suppose that counts as "new information".

Regarding the aphid study, they would point out that there is no new genetic material as the study indicates at this point:

"These results suggested an evolutionary scenario that several copies of cathepsin B genes were present in an ancestor of these social aphids, and one of them acquired a novel venom function in the soldier caste."

It is again a question of a latent gene that was not expressed until this point.

Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Southstar

Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

Posted: Dec. 11 2011,06:35

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 11 2011,05:42)

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 11 2011,03:49)

Don't forget they are not proposing ID (for the moment) they are just saying that the theory of evolution is plainly wrong.

Even if it's wrong if they've nothing to replace it with then it makes sense to stick with a "wrong" idea until a better idea comes along. Do they have that better idea?

I'm sure that there is plenty that is wrong about our best understanding of evolution but I think once you get to that point it's gone beyond the point where you, I or those people you are talking to could sensibly participate in the conversation.

Some here for sure. But once you get down to the details it's hard work, just pick up any textbook.

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley.....C20.pdf

And that's for students, not people on the cutting edge (where it could be "wrong") of research.

If, as they say, the theory of evolution is wrong then ask them (as presumably they've read it) what page the first factual error in "The Greatest Show on Earth" is? As that does a great job of detailing the evidence for the theory of evolution they can use that as a indicator of what's wrong specifically.

Nobody at UD ever pointed out the first factual error.

So to me science is about sticking with a wrong idea until a less wrong idea comes along. To the people you are talking to replacing a wrong idea with a better idea is not part of their mindset - their book of knowledge has been set in stone for the best part of 2000 years and they don't want it to change. They are not interested in finding out the truth, they already *know* the truth, praise the lord.

Hmm no you can't answer like that at all, cause they will pull you to pieces by simply stating: there you see even they don't agree with their idea, they know it's wrong, they have faith in a wrong idea. So actually what does science have to offer, a just so idea, which they agree is wrong.

It takes just as much faith to sustain such ideas as it does to sustain ID or creationism. Which they will say is sustained by a scientifically wrong idea until such time as a new and better idea comes along.

This kind of argument just get turned around against you.

Regarding the "the greatest show on earth" I haven't read it yet, but I ask can the claims posted in my previous post be used against this book?

Thanks
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

OgreMkV

Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

Posted: Dec. 11 2011,11:34

remind them of the definition of evolution

evolution = change in allele frequency in a population.

Aphids never had an allele for venom, now they do. Infinite increase in allele frequency. Evolution.

It really is that simple.

Ask them where the new function came from if it was not an increase in information and function. Of course, they have to define information and function, remind them that they have not done so in a rigorous way (I don't even have to read the threads to know that they have not done so).

You absolutely must remind them, in every single post, that they are not doing science. They are attacking something that they do not fully understand. They are not producing any level of detail about their notions. They are not allowing anyone to attack their notions (because they keep changing and/or are undefined). There is no research on their notions at all.

Remind them that this is all a game. No amount of argument on any forum anywhere in the world will actually accomplish anything to support their notions.

I've, dozens of times, offered to help ID proponents create testable hypotheses and attempt to find research that would support those hypotheses. I've offered dozens of opportunities for them to make predictions based on their notions. Not a single one has ever taken me up on those offers.

Until they do... they are just babbling. There is no science and it's purely a mental exercise for you.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Dec. 11 2011,11:44

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 11 2011,06:35)

So actually what does science have to offer, a just so idea, which they agree is wrong.

It offers the computers that they are typing on which would not exist if our understanding of physics was so badly wrong that in fact the earth could be 6000 years old.

For their ideas to be true we have to sit in a cave to discuss them seriously.

No doubt some of the people you are arguing with have flown.

They have plenty of trust in science and it's conclusions then.

EDIT: It's easy to be wrong. Anybody can do that.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

OgreMkV

Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

Posted: Dec. 11 2011,12:15

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 11 2011,11:44)

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 11 2011,06:35)

So actually what does science have to offer, a just so idea, which they agree is wrong.

It offers the computers that they are typing on which would not exist if our understanding of physics was so badly wrong that in fact the earth could be 6000 years old.

For their ideas to be true we have to sit in a cave to discuss them seriously.

No doubt some of the people you are arguing with have flown.

They have plenty of trust in science and it's conclusions then.

EDIT: It's easy to be wrong. Anybody can do that.

What is that saying about science... 90% of everything done is wrong.

The difference is that science can stand up and admit to being wrong and admits it is not infallible. That's a major problem for the religious who assume that their religion is infallible and can't stomach the idea of something being wrong.

Unfortunately, these kinds of people never grow, never change, never realize that it's OK to be wrong sometimes. We're people we aren't perfect.

Science is wrong sometimes. The ability to realize when science has the potential of being wrong about something (cold fusion) and when there is no possible doubt in any thinking person's mind (evolution) is a hallmark of critical thinking.

It's not skepticism to say that evolution doesn't work. It's stupidity. There is literally mountains of evidence supporting evolution (and radiometric dating). If they want to show evolution is wrong, then they have to disprove every single paper in existence regarding evolution. They'll need to get started on that.

Does science know everything? Of course not. Only an idiot would make that claim. That doesn't mean that we don't actually know what we do know.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Dr.GH

Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

Posted: Dec. 11 2011,12:32

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 11 2011,01:49)

The problem is that speciation (they don't deny speciation) is the means by which evolution occurs. It is therfore important to prove that novel genetic material is added at a somewhat constant rate at the base of speciation so as to create biodiversity.

Speciation is the reproductive isolation of populations. It is "Evolution." I still don't think your friends, and perhaps yourself, understand what a "species" really is. I suggest reading;
What is a Species and What is Not

Speciation does not occur at a constant rate, so why should anyone expect genetic change to "be added" at a constant rate. Many cellular mechanisms exist to correctly copy DNA, and so are impediments to mutation. These are impaired by 'stress' (starvation, infection, chemical toxicity), making mutation more likely. These stresses are not necessarily "constant rate."

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Dec. 11 2011,16:25

@Southstar.
Speciation is not the mean by which evolution occurs. You can have evolution without speciation.

Regarding the aphid paper, the venom cathepsine gene copy is not found in related aphid species that don't produce venomous soldiers. They're just dodging the issue.

EDIT: scratch that, I didn't remember quite well what was said in the paper. The authors don't say if the gene copy is absent in non-venomous species. However, they do show accelerated evolution of the soldier-specific gene copy. There was a duplication of the cathepsine gene in the past (may be at the origin of the venomous species clade, or before) and the soldier specific copy evolved under positive selection (that involves non-synonymous mutations). Some "new genetic material" was involved it seems, however important this might be to these IDers.

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Dec. 11 2011,16:57

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 11 2011,06:35)

Regarding the "the greatest show on earth" I haven't read it yet, but I ask can the claims posted in my previous post be used against this book?

Quote

It is again a question of a latent gene that was not expressed until this point.

What, universal front loading? In short, no. How can it be? If it were then there are consequences for that. How is the latent gene activated? Does the designer do it manually? And so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......eriment

Quote

As of February 2010, the E. coli populations have been under study for over 50,000 generations, and are thought to have undergone enough spontaneous mutations that every possible single point mutation in the E. coli genome should have occurred multiple times

Why front load at all when you can have something better....

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Henry J

Posts: 5787
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Dec. 11 2011,20:18

Quote

Further it seems that loss of genetic material is more common than gain of genetic material. Which would lead in the long run to a depletion of genetic material.

Only if the gains and losses are all in one species with no branching.

But if gains happen to be in ancestral species with lots of descendant species, that would not imply a net loss.

Speciation doesn't in and of itself imply gains of function; it simply allows subsets of a species to evolve separately from then on; this allows increase of diversity without necessarily involving any added functionality (or any added complexity either, whatever that means).

-----

Quote

Even if it's wrong if they've nothing to replace it with then it makes sense to stick with a "wrong" idea until a better idea comes along. Do they have that better idea?

I thought I was wrong once.

But it turned out I was mistaken.

More seriously, though, it isn't so much whether a hypothesis is wrong, as it is whether or not it is a useful approximation. Consider Newton's "laws" of motion: technical they're wrong, but they remain in use because, as long as speeds and gravity are both low enough, results are within the margin of error of the measurements; and also the space probes get where they're intended to go. (GPS, on the other hand, requires relativity calculations to work correctly, IIRC.)

-----

Quote

This kind of argument just get turned around against you.

That's when you're talking to people who don't really get how to use evidence to derive or support general principles. I think this is somewhat different from using evidence to determine specific details about one event.

Henry

Southstar

Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

Posted: Dec. 12 2011,05:32

Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 11 2011,20:18)

Okay the conversation has reached a point, where a few people have asked:

Give us the smoking gun, show us an example of evolution that:

1) Envolves a new spieces that can no longer reproduce with the parent spiecies.
2) In which the new spieces has novel DNA
3) In which the mutation cannot in any way be classed as epigenetics.

Or in any case give us an example of evolution that cannot have "other" alternative explanations. These are simple people asking this question

To this last question I would answer cetacian evolution. We have a very good fossil record that shows step by step evolution.

Your thoughts on all of this?
Marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Dec. 12 2011,05:48

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 12 2011,05:32)

Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 11 2011,20:18)

Okay the conversation has reached a point, where a few people have asked:

Give us the smoking gun, show us an example of evolution that:

1) Envolves a new spieces that can no longer reproduce with the parent spiecies.
2) In which the new spieces has novel DNA
3) In which the mutation cannot in any way be classed as epigenetics.

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......species

Quote

A classic example of ring species is the Larus gulls' circumpolar species "ring". The range of these gulls forms a ring around the North Pole, which is not normally transited by individual gulls.
The Herring Gull L. argentatus, which lives primarily in Great Britain and Ireland, can hybridize with the American Herring Gull L. smithsonianus, (living in North America), which can also hybridize with the Vega or East Siberian Herring Gull L. vegae, the western subspecies of which, Birula's Gull L. vegae birulai, can hybridize with Heuglin's gull L. heuglini, which in turn can hybridize with the Siberian Lesser Black-backed Gull L. fuscus. All four of these live across the north of Siberia.

2) How can they not hybridize and have the same DNA? I can't show that they have novel DNA, but if they are fully sequenced....

3) Can't see that's the case here at all and as such it'll likely be unpersuasive. But it's the best I can do on my coffee break!

Quote

Or in any case give us an example of evolution that cannot have "other" alternative explanations. These are simple people asking this question

There are a million alternative explanations for anything I've linked to here. Perhaps invisible pink unicorns are editing DNA in real time towards a goal only they know. Or perhaps the designer is manipulating atoms at the quantum level making "random" mutations.

It's rather about what explanations make sense given the observed data and making predictions that can be tested.

Or perhaps HIV is a good example. It has evolved considerably and there is strong evidence for that.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite....V.shtml

Quote

Evolutionary biologists can help uncover clues to new ways to treat or vaccinate against HIV. These clues emerge from the evolutionary origins of the virus, how human populations have evolved under pressure from other deadly pathogens, and how the virus evolves resistance to the drugs we’ve designed. Controlling the disease may be a matter of controlling the evolution of this constantly adapting virus.

So either evolution allows HIV to stay ahead of our efforts to treat it or the designer is helping it directly. It has to be one or the other, make them choose.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Southstar

Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

Posted: Dec. 12 2011,05:58

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 11 2011,16:57)

Quote

What, universal front loading? In short, no. How can it be? If it were then there are consequences for that. How is the latent gene activated? Does the designer do it manually? And so on.

The latent gene is activated by different ambient conditions, in the case of the lizard, different diet. The designer is not called into question.

Remember their aim is to show that evolution cannot work. by reducing the possibility of having novel genes and by showing that loss of information can outpace even the few rare examples of gain.

The designer for the moment is not called into question by them. He will be for sure, but for now they are out to disprove that evolution could work.

Their strategy is very simple:

1) Show people that evolution is faith based
2) Show people that evolution can't work using scientific peer review papers al la mr. behe's work.
3) Ask people why they put their trust on such a falascious system
4) Provide a framework for an alternative which requires just as much faith and is simpler to understand and is backed by "scientific work".
5) initiate brainwashing procedures.

marty

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006