RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (58) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   
  Topic: Evolution of the horse; a problem for Darwinism?, For Daniel Smith to present his argument< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
George



Posts: 314
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,01:15   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 22 2007,18:51)
No, you'd also expect gradualism (i.e., non-saltational change) if any incremental evolutionary process is in play, which would include genetic drift.

Not much time to keep up here.  Just like to say that I'm obviously using the terminology incorrectly.  What I was trying to say is that rate of evolution under RM+NS is not necessarily slow and constant.  I was under the impression that this was the model of evolution Daniel was working under.  Periods of rapid gradualistic change might not be captured by the fossil record if resolution is poor, thus resulting in the appearance of saltation.

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,01:58   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 24 2007,06:12)
The fact that dogs under artificial selection have one set of characters, and another set of characters when they are feral and subject to a different kind of selective pressure, is not a problem for evolutionary theory. It is, in fact, a prediction of that theory.

I didn't know the theory had any predictions.
Quote

Do you have any testable predictions from your theory (whatever it is at the moment) that would lead to a different outcome than that predicted by evolutionary theory?

Since my view holds that selection is a conservative function, my statements about dogs and cabbage would probably qualify as predictions.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,02:11   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 24 2007,08:44)
Daniel, it is also not true.  the genetic milieu is changed by selection (artificial is just another form, and it's not really artificial is it?  unless you are arguing it is sooooopernatcheral).
It's artificial in the sense that it's not natural - man selects the breeding partners - not nature.  
Quote

offspring of different lineages (or hybrids if you will) can have phenotypes that are completely outside the range of variation in the parents.  if there is any positive selective pressure on those traits then they will persist.  if there is then a mate preference, they will diverge.  it is that simple, and 'throwing dogs into the wild and they all turn back into wolves' is just wrong for a litany of reasons.  think about why that might be.  no way can a chihuaha turn 'back into' a wolf.  for one, it never was one.

I never predicted that a chihuahua would "turn into" a wolf.  Chihuahuas and great danes would probably be the first breeds to go extinct - due to a lack of reproductive partners.  Medium sized dogs would have more partners to breed with and dog size would most likely gravitate towards that median.  All the super-specialized breeds would probably also eventually go away - as their gene pool became more and more watered down through breeding as well.
Quote


fancy types of lettuce don't go back to being one single muddy lettuce, there is a quantitative legacy of mutation and selection.  same as the dogs.  new traits can be formed from recombination during contact between different lineages (See the Helianthus sunflower examples, it blows your contentions out of the water in the first paragraph)

No idea what sunflower example you're talking about.  Perhaps a link?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,02:16   

Quote (improvius @ Sep. 24 2007,09:12)

So you actually think that by simply removing natural selection, dogs just magically developed into all of these breeds with very specific purposes?  That's absurd.

Come on now.  You're really can't be that dense, can you?
I said artificial selection (that's the part where people actively protect their dogs from breeding with any other breed of dogs) works by shielding (i.e.: protecting) the dogs from natural selection (that is, what would happen if the dogs got out and just ran the streets, breeding with any dog they felt like).

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,02:46   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 25 2007,01:58)
I didn't know the theory had any predictions.

Predictions

Start here

EDIT: And Darwin himself made predictions about his theory that were later confirmed.
Here and here

I expect this is more to your taste however.

--------------
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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,03:08   

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 24 2007,16:02)
             
Quote

Big deal.  Things that are alike are built alike - even at the molecular level.

That's not remotely close to what he's saying. He's talking about mathematical analyses of the similarities AND DIFFERENCES. They fit nested hierarchies. The hierarchies of the organisms can be superimposed upon the hierarchies of their components, which are even more complex, because we can see how different proteins are related to each other.

Nested hierarchies are evidence of "top-down" evolution - where the higher categories are emplaced first - as opposed to evolution by speciation which would not create a nested hierarchy at all but would look more like a road map with lineages wandering aimlessly around.
           
Quote

Oh, and Daniel, no set of designed objects has these characteristics, so please save your lying for ignorant lay people.

Lots of designed objects fit into nested hierarchies.  One could make a nested hierarchy for automobiles - starting with horse drawn carriages and branching out.
               
Quote
             
Quote
What the molecular evidence shows, however is not always consistent with RM+NS.

Obviously, much of it is consistent with drift, which is not RM+NS, and a small subset is consistent with horizontal transfer.

If you had the slightest clue, you'd know that modern evolutionary theory is not limited to RM+NS.
Why do you have to be so mean and accusatory?
               
Quote
         
Quote
For instance, Denton points out the "Molecular Equidistance of all Eucaryotic Organisms from Bacteria" (in "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis", Figure 12.2, page 280), which is more consistent with the Schindewolf/Berg/Davison et al hypotheses of prescribed/directed/planned/designed evolution.

No. Denton fundamentally misunderstood evolutionary theory, and has since backtracked on that ignorant claim. MET (particularly drift) predicts that. Denton assumed a ladder, not a bush.
What claim did he backtrack on?
Denton's last book supports directed evolution.
               
Quote

Why not construct some trees, then, unless you weren't being truthful about your interest in evidence?

So, in order to show that I'm interested in evidence, I must construct trees?
             
Quote
         
Quote
And in answer to your previous question about the primary literature:  I read what I can online.

That doesn't answer my question. Have you ever read a paper from the primary literature?
I guess I don't know what you mean by "primary literature".  Is that only peer-reviewed journals?
         
Quote
           
Quote
I've often searched for articles on google scholar, but most require memberships to read - so I am not nearly as well informed as you I'm sure.

So why do you consider your uninformed conclusions to be more correct than mine?
Well, so far you've mostly called me names, and you haven't (yet) shown me anything that convinces me I'm wrong.
           
Quote

Let's discuss this paper, then:
http://www.biolbull.org/cgi/content/full/202/2/104
...let's start with Figure 2. Note that vertical line length is irrelevant, only the horizontal lines represent sequence divergence.

Alright, I read it.  As I understand it, they found a gene in a fish that would allow it to get high on pot, :D then they sequenced that gene along with the same gene in humans and mice and fed all that info into a couple computer programs that spit out a comparative sequence and a chart that shows a theoretical phylogenetic divergence based on the similarities and differences and... mutation rates I'm guessing?
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to learn from this, but I'm open to whatever it is you think this shows.  You'll just have to spell it out in layman's terms for me.
               
Quote
           
Quote
It may take me awhile to understand what you're getting at sometimes and you may have to bring it down to my level, but don't accuse me of not being willing to discuss evidence when you haven't even given me the chance.

Sorry, but you're supposed to familiarize yourself with the evidence before reaching a firm conclusion.
But I've reached no firm conclusion as of yet.  Unless you are talking about my statement that whatever happened was by design.  In that case, I've yet to see any evidence that doesn't strengthen that conviction.
               
Quote
               
Quote

I understand all of it.  None of it is inconsistent with Nomogenesis, Orthogenesis, or the PEH.      

I don't think you understand it at all, since you blew it off as mere similarity.
Similarities and differences can be mapped out into a neat hierarchal pattern.  What part of that is inconsistent with evolution by law?
               
Quote
           
Quote
No, but Berg cites many examples of similar types of experiments.  His arguments against evolution via natural selection are very well constructed and empirically based.

To know that, you'd have to be familiar with the evidence, not just that someone offered citations. Are you familiar with these data, or are you faking it? Do you realize that science is not about appraising arguments, but about predicting and grappling with the actual evidence, not what anyone says about it?

Berg spent years in the field documenting case after case that confounded those he called "Selectionists".  I respect his findings because they are not arguments but are documented observances.  Many here and at talk.origins who fervently hold to the evolution by RM+NS (and drift and horizontal transfer) seem to be more interested in theoretical arguments than documented field work.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,03:33   

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 24 2007,16:38)
         
Quote
Big deal.  Things that are alike are built alike - even at the molecular level.

If you're going to argue for "common design" as we see you coming, you'll have to explain why closely related species share homologies at synonymous or neutral sites, which have nothing to do with "design".

How about this?
         
Quote
"The new view transforms our view of the genomic fabric," explained Dr Tim Hubbard, from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, "The majority of the genome is copied, or transcribed, into RNA, which is the active molecule in our cells, relaying information from the archival DNA copy to the cellular machinery. This is a remarkable finding, since most prior research suggested only a fraction of the genome was transcribed."

"But it is our new understanding of regulation of genes that stands out. The integrated approach has helped us to identify new regions of gene regulation and altered our view of how gene regulation occurs."...

The team showed that transcription of DNA is pervasive across the genome, and that RNA transcripts overlap known genes and are found in what were previously thought to be gene 'deserts'.(all emphasis mine)



I am especially interested in these overlapping coding areas.  What that means, as near as I can tell, is that the coding in DNA is more elaborate and more sophisticated than previously thought - with regions that code for regulatory RNA overlapping (sharing parts of the same code with) regions that code for proteins.

If this is true (and it looks like it is), it would seem to be a nightmare for any theory based on random mutations - since one mutation would have to not only improve the protein produced, but the RNA as well.

Of course those of us who hold to a designed life theory have been predicting that there is no such thing as "junk DNA" all along.

I'm sure, however, that many of you will say that the ToE predicts this as well.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,05:07   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 25 2007,03:33)
Of course those of us who hold to a designed life theory have been predicting that there is no such thing as "junk DNA" all along.

I'm sure, however, that many of you will say that the ToE predicts this as well.

So, if "junk" DNA is in fact found then that will, to your complete satisfaction, disprove the "designed life theory"?


If not, well you can't have it both ways can you?

--------------
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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,06:51   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 25 2007,01:03)
But do not be so sure in your convictions. It doesn't mean if you dismiss their ideas that you are right.

You are operating with very funny arguments:
we are so many, so we are right.

VMartin: however funny my argument, you failed to grasp it. I'll simplify:

1) Daniel Smith claims to be interested in evidence gathered free of bias and preconception.

2) But Daniel himself, per his own frank and repeated self-description, is operating from a decisive bias (one you appear to endorse), specifically that he prefers to learn from those who have been ignored, laughed at and shunned. This massive bias, and its accompanying a prior assumption that mainstream scientists have nothing to offer to him, renders 1) absurd.

3) I'd like him to publicly abandon 1), given 2). I'd also like him to articulate the origins of his bias. I'm not interested in a reply couched in terms of some biological challenge or other, because he has already confessed his abject ignorance of the field, as well as this self-same bias.

Rather, I'd like to hear about his commitments and community identifications, a description of the non-scientific allegiances from which his biases arise.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,08:25   

'junk' is a sloppy term that covers many different phenomenon.  we prefer non-coding.  there is a lot of repetition in there, daniel, and it acts as if it were selectively neutral.  or, as if it were doing nothing but accumulating dust.

sunflower hybrid speciation here

punchline?  new traits evolve from lineage contact that promote ecological divergence and reproductive isolation via selection.  you are completely wrong.  

your 'super specialized' breeds have different ecological niches.  chihuahas and terriers would do just fine in a habitat where they could nail mice and dig burrows.  pit bulls hunt in packs.  I, uh, don't know if you have noticed, but every place is not like every other place.  Things vary.  This matters.

It all boils down to my fundamental biologic law:  Shit varies.  It matters.  Sometimes.

Now, we are waiting to hear what makes you doubt the findings of hundreds of thousands of biologists, since it is very clearly not the evidence (perhaps your unfamiliarity with the evidence...).  It could be that you just prefer the German mystical archetype position, but this was refuted in the 20s 30s and 40s (although VMartin may not have access to those journals in the caves he lives in).  Phenotypes may very quickly surpass the range exhibited by parentals, and there is a ton of evidence to show this.  For god's sake look at the work of Dolph Schluter.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,09:09   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 25 2007,02:11)
All the super-specialized breeds would probably also eventually go away - as their gene pool became more and more watered down through breeding as well.

The gene pool would be enriched. Domesticated dogs have high homozygosity from inbreeding, not low.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1008
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,09:31   

Here's a snapshot of Daniel's level of comprehension:
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 25 2007,03:08)
...evolution by speciation which would not create a nested hierarchy at all but would look more like a road map with lineages wandering aimlessly around.
           
One could make a nested hierarchy for automobiles - starting with horse drawn carriages and branching out.
               
Why do you have to be so mean and accusatory?

Similarities and differences can be mapped out into a neat hierarchal pattern.  What part of that is inconsistent with evolution by law?

Many here and at talk.origins who fervently hold to the evolution by RM+NS (and drift and horizontal transfer) seem to be more interested in theoretical arguments than documented field work.

Edit: formatting snafu

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,10:18   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 25 2007,03:33)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 24 2007,16:38)
         
Quote
Big deal.  Things that are alike are built alike - even at the molecular level.

If you're going to argue for "common design" as we see you coming, you'll have to explain why closely related species share homologies at synonymous or neutral sites, which have nothing to do with "design".

How about this?

This has hardly anything to do with my objection. JAM was right about your misconception regarding pseudognes and junk DNA.
Regions of unknown functions (what you like to call “junk”) may actually have some phenotypic effects. And, guess what? This is tested by building phylogenies on those regions, and detecting evidence of selection acting on them.

In a typical gene, synonymous mutations are far more frequent that non-synonymous ones. (To give you an example, the 30 point mutations that separate two species of aphids that I study at a 700 bp locus are all synonymous).
These kinds of observations have been the primary argument of Kimura, who first formulated the neutral theory of evolution.
We know that synonymous mutations lead to the same proteins, and are very unlikely to have a significant effect on the organism. Hence they are not eliminated by natural selection.
Same goes for pseudogenes, once they are knocked-out (typically by a frame shift or a stop mutation), we notice an acceleration of their mutation rates. This is expected if they are no longer active.
So again, why do related species share mutations that have no effect?

And you should think about my second objection: human, lungfish and trout. What does common design predict about their genes?

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,10:58   

D: Big deal.  Things that are alike are built alike - even at the molecular level.

JAM:That's not remotely close to what he's saying. He's talking about mathematical analyses of the similarities AND DIFFERENCES. They fit nested hierarchies. The hierarchies of the organisms can be superimposed upon the hierarchies of their components, which are even more complex, because we can see how different proteins are related to each other.

D:Nested hierarchies are evidence of "top-down" evolution - where the higher categories are emplaced first - as opposed to evolution by speciation which would not create a nested hierarchy at all but would look more like a road map with lineages wandering aimlessly around.

Please explain how Darwin was wrong when he predicted nested hierarchies, then.
[quote][quote]Oh, and Daniel, no set of designed objects has these characteristics, so please save your lying for ignorant lay people.[/quote]
Lots of designed objects fit into nested hierarchies.[/quote]
They fit into multiple NHs, but one of "these characteristics" that you socleverly omitted was the superimposability of the NH of the assembled objects over any NH independently constructed from their components. Why did you omit that, Daniel? And if you disagree, show me the NHs you can construct from the relationships between lug nuts for GM cars and trucks.
         
Quote
One could make a nested hierarchy for automobiles - starting with horse drawn carriages and branching out.

But it couldn't be superimposed on NHs derived from their components. In fact, virtually none of the components of cars can be organized into nested hierarchies.                            
Quote
Quote
Quote
What the molecular evidence shows, however is not always consistent with RM+NS.

Obviously, much of it is consistent with drift, which is not RM+NS, and a small subset is consistent with horizontal transfer. If you had the slightest clue, you'd know that modern evolutionary theory is not limited to RM+NS.
Why do you have to be so mean and accusatory?

Probably because you have the appealing quality of massive arrogance, made even more appealing by massive ignorance.
Quote
Quote
Quote
For instance, Denton points out the "Molecular Equidistance of all Eucaryotic Organisms from Bacteria" (in "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis", Figure 12.2, page 280), which is more consistent with the Schindewolf/Berg/Davison et al hypotheses of prescribed/directed/planned/designed evolution.

No. Denton fundamentally misunderstood evolutionary theory, and has since backtracked on that ignorant claim. MET (particularly drift) predicts that. Denton assumed a ladder, not a bush.

What claim did he backtrack on?

The ladder part. It's stupid. The equidistance is predicted.
Quote
Denton's last book supports directed evolution.

Evidence supports positions, not books. You don't give a damn about evidence, do you?
Quote
Quote
Why not construct some trees, then, unless you weren't being truthful about your interest in evidence?

So, in order to show that I'm interested in evidence, I must construct trees?

Since the relationships between these sequences represent the overwhelming evidence favoring MET that make fossils unnecessary, it would be the inevitable prediction for someone who claimed an interest in evidence.
Quote
Quote
Quote
And in answer to your previous question about the primary literature:  I read what I can online.

That doesn't answer my question. Have you ever read a paper from the primary literature?
I guess I don't know what you mean by "primary literature".  Is that only peer-reviewed journals?

Within most journals, there are both primary (those with new data) and secondary (reviews). Usually, only the former are peer-reviewed. So I'll ask again: have you ever read a paper from the primary literature--meaning one that reports data that have never been reported before?
                       
Quote
Well, so far you've mostly called me names, and you haven't (yet) shown me anything that convinces me I'm wrong.

Mostly? Show me a single instance in which I called you a name, Daniel.
 
Quote
 
Quote
Let's discuss this paper, then:
http://www.biolbull.org/cgi/content/full/202/2/104
...let's start with Figure 2. Note that vertical line length is irrelevant, only the horizontal lines represent sequence divergence.

Alright, I read it.  As I understand it, they found a gene in a fish that would allow it to get high on pot, :D then they sequenced that gene along with the same gene in humans and mice

No, those were already sequenced.
 
Quote
and fed all that info into a couple computer programs that spit out a comparative sequence and a chart that shows a theoretical phylogenetic divergence based on the similarities and differences and... mutation rates I'm guessing?

Sorry, but you're fudging already. The tree is not theoretical in any way. It is simply a graphic representation of the actual evidence--the identities and differences between the sequences. What do you conclude from these relationships? If CB2 was designed, when was it designed?
 
Quote
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to learn from this, but I'm open to whatever it is you think this shows.  You'll just have to spell it out in layman's terms for me.

It's a starting point for examining the evidence and making predictions, something I predict that you're afraid to do. Where will a reptilian CB2 branch off on this tree? Why do both CB1 and CB2 fit into a single nested hierarchy?
                           
Quote
But I've reached no firm conclusion as of yet.

Read all the conclusions you advanced above.
 
Quote
Unless you are talking about my statement that whatever happened was by design.  In that case, I've yet to see any evidence that doesn't strengthen that conviction.

That's because you haven't looked at evidence. Look at how you misrepresented the tree as "theoretical" above.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,11:07   

Daniel Smith:
Quote
Nested hierarchies are evidence of "top-down" evolution - where the higher categories are emplaced first - as opposed to evolution by speciation which would not create a nested hierarchy at all but would look more like a road map with lineages wandering aimlessly around.

You don't know Joe Gallien, do you?  If you don't mind me asking, could you define a nested hierarchy for us?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,13:37   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 25 2007,03:16)
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 24 2007,09:12)

So you actually think that by simply removing natural selection, dogs just magically developed into all of these breeds with very specific purposes?  That's absurd.

Come on now.  You're really can't be that dense, can you?
I said artificial selection (that's the part where people actively protect their dogs from breeding with any other breed of dogs) works by shielding (i.e.: protecting) the dogs from natural selection (that is, what would happen if the dogs got out and just ran the streets, breeding with any dog they felt like).

I'm not being dense.  You've completely disregarded the element of selection.  You seem to think that Chihuahuas, Dachshunds, Great Danes, etc. would all eventually spring forth from wolves with no selection whatsoever.  This is ridiculous.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,15:03   

Quote

It could be that you just prefer the German mystical archetype position, but this was refuted in the 20s 30s and 40s (although VMartin may not have access to those journals in the caves he lives in).  Phenotypes may very quickly surpass the range exhibited by parentals, and there is a ton of evidence to show this.


It was refuted only in darwinian heads of course. The tactic is the same - first darwinists pretend that unpleasant facts do not exists. After 50 years they declare their victory over "outdated" facts.
 

This has happend many times. The great research done
by Theodor Eimer (the main proponent of here discussed orthogenesis) and his opus magnum has never been translated into English. Of course observed rules governing the change of color patterns on skin of lizards or evolution of color patterns on butterfly wings has nothing to do with "natural selection".

The same for Franz Heikertinger whose work on mimicry has never been translated into English. His own research and comparisions refuted the darwinian pressupositions about aposematism very clearly.

The research of McAtee from US Department of agriculture where many thousands of birds stomachs was put under scrutiny and shows that all preconceptions of "aposematism" and "mimicry" are often only armchairs theories of "selectionists" that has nothing to do with facts. The research made Poulton very unhappy - but behold, it is forgotten and selectionists continue to spread nowadays their theories of aposematism of ladybirds, wasps etc.. as the research never exist.

I am afraid that in caves live those who do not recognize antiselectionists scientific materials that is older than 1 year.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,15:16   

Quote

I am afraid that in caves live those who do not recognize antiselectionists scientific materials that is older than 1 year.


Martin, would you share with us what you think the correct explanation is? Any idea at all?

And while you're at it, do you accept common descent between apes and humans?

As someone who supposedly does not live in a cave, I'm sure you're willing to answer.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,15:23   

Vmartin, do you recognize the difference between 'selectionist' and 'panadaptationist'?  

you might find that i agree with you that there is no fundamental reason that any particular trait must be adaptive.  but this does nothing to undermine the importance of natural selection.  it sure as hell doesn't imply the existence of a mystical organizing differentiating force.  

Here is my theory.

Shit Varies.  It Matters.  Sometimes.

Now, you could clear up this discussion IMMENSELY and earn your laurel wreaths if you would just get to work and translate Eimer and Heikertinger into English.  But beware the evil darwinist materialist from ATBC conspiracy, they might try to blow up your cave or something.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,15:53   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 25 2007,01:58)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 24 2007,06:12)
The fact that dogs under artificial selection have one set of characters, and another set of characters when they are feral and subject to a different kind of selective pressure, is not a problem for evolutionary theory. It is, in fact, a prediction of that theory.

I didn't know the theory had any predictions.

You'd like to think that you're immune, it's so hard
You're gonna have to face it you're addicted to...

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,16:00   

Quote (Steviepinhead @ Sep. 18 2007,19:48)
 
Quote
skeptic Posted: Sep. 18 2007,16:50
 
Quote
jeannot Posted: Sep. 18  
Hi Alan,

I don't think that anyone here is a paleontologist. So if we're going to defend RM+NS, it will probably be on another ground.
what about Deadman?

deadman is an archaeologist, last I heard.

maybe he's a paleontologist now? My neighbor was a banker last year and he's an insurance risk analyzer now.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10323
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,16:01   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Sep. 22 2007,11:43)
Quote
I decided what I needed was just to see the evidence for myself.


If you saw 10 clocks Daniel, and 9 of them were reading the same time and the tenth was different which one would you choose ? I know what I would think. I would assume the one that was different was in error.

This is how it is with this debate (if you could call it that). 99.99% of all scientists accept the age of the Earth/evolution. No mainstream scientist that I know of has found evidence of a 6-10,000 year old Earth/Universe. I always wonder why those who question science in favour of YECism don't think about that.

Duh! Bible says "don't think".

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,16:18   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 25 2007,16:01)
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Sep. 22 2007,11:43)
Quote
I decided what I needed was just to see the evidence for myself.


If you saw 10 clocks Daniel, and 9 of them were reading the same time and the tenth was different which one would you choose ? I know what I would think. I would assume the one that was different was in error.

This is how it is with this debate (if you could call it that). 99.99% of all scientists accept the age of the Earth/evolution. No mainstream scientist that I know of has found evidence of a 6-10,000 year old Earth/Universe. I always wonder why those who question science in favour of YECism don't think about that.

Duh! Bible says "don't think".

FTK solves the problem by accepting massive conspiracies as an everyday fact of life in all the sciences.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,23:56   

Daniel said  
Quote
I didn't know the theory had any predictions.

Indeed it does. That is one of the things needed for a theory to be called a theory. It is also one of the reasons why Intelligent Design is not a theory.

Daniel: you seem to be under the impression that artificial selection and natural selection are two quite different processes. What I want to know is how do cabbages, or even dogs, perceive the difference between the two? After all, in both cases they basically breed with whatever partner is available. The only difference is that in one case the available partners are narrowed down by diseases and other stresses, in the other case there's also a person involved saying "By golly, that looks a good un".

With regards to the nested hierarchies, I have some sympathy towards your misunderstanding. The point is that, although it is possible to make a nested hierarchy describing designed objects such as cars and trucks, it would be a forced affair and no two people would come up with the same hierarchy. With evolved organisms, however, not only does everyone come up with essentially the same hierarchy (there will always be a few fuzzy areas) but hierarchies drawn up using just one aspect of an organism (e.g. cytochrome, mitochondrial DNA, reproductive system) will match to an impressive degree.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,04:39   

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 25 2007,10:18)
       
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 25 2007,03:33)

How about this?

This has hardly anything to do with my objection. JAM was right about your misconception regarding pseudognes and junk DNA.
Regions of unknown functions (what you like to call “junk”) may actually have some phenotypic effects. And, guess what? This is tested by building phylogenies on those regions, and detecting evidence of selection acting on them.

In a typical gene, synonymous mutations are far more frequent that non-synonymous ones. (To give you an example, the 30 point mutations that separate two species of aphids that I study at a 700 bp locus are all synonymous).
These kinds of observations have been the primary argument of Kimura, who first formulated the neutral theory of evolution.
We know that synonymous mutations lead to the same proteins, and are very unlikely to have a significant effect on the organism. Hence they are not eliminated by natural selection.
Same goes for pseudogenes, once they are knocked-out (typically by a frame shift or a stop mutation), we notice an acceleration of their mutation rates. This is expected if they are no longer active.
So again, why do related species share mutations that have no effect?

First, I don't use the term "junk" to describe any sequence of DNA.  I am against the use of that term - as are most ID proponents.  I've always said that there's no such thing as junk DNA, so saying that I "like to call" it junk is untrue.

Second, I'm arguing that these so-called "junk" regions are important - that they likely do have an effect (something it appears you are noticing too).  The ENCODE study shows that that's true - since it shows that "most" (their word - no idea what the percentage is) of the genome is transcribed.

So to answer your question: Related species share mutations (if that's what they are) that most likely do have an effect.      
Quote


And you should think about my second objection: human, lungfish and trout. What does common design predict about their genes?
Common Design would predict that lungfish and trout would be closer to each other than to humans.  Perhaps, once they get the entire genomes sorted out, they'll find this to be true.  For now, with the concentration seemingly focused on coding regions - it appears not to be true.  I guess we'll have to wait and see.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,06:01   

Thanks for you clarification Daniel. Indeed, you didn't use the term "junk".

I agree that much of this DNA can have a function. However, we do know that many (most) mutations are neutral.
So you're not really answering my question, about the fact that related species tend to share neutral mutations.

Regarding my other objection, I'll get back to it when I have more time.

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,06:01   

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 25 2007,10:58)

D:Nested hierarchies are evidence of "top-down" evolution - where the higher categories are emplaced first - as opposed to evolution by speciation which would not create a nested hierarchy at all but would look more like a road map with lineages wandering aimlessly around.

Please explain how Darwin was wrong when he predicted nested hierarchies, then.

Can you supply that quote from Darwin?
 
Quote

They fit into multiple NHs, but one of "these characteristics" that you socleverly omitted was the superimposability of the NH of the assembled objects over any NH independently constructed from their components. Why did you omit that, Daniel? And if you disagree, show me the NHs you can construct from the relationships between lug nuts for GM cars and trucks.
...
But it couldn't be superimposed on NHs derived from their components. In fact, virtually none of the components of cars can be organized into nested hierarchies.

That's not true.  Most components can also be organized into nested hierarchies. Speaking from experience (since my job involves troubleshooting and repairing very large, complex, industrial CNC machinery) I can verify that the parts of a machine evolve right along with the machine and can be placed in separate but superimposable NHs.
Right now, the company I work for is talking about rebuilding 8 machines (which are pretty much exact duplicates of one another) - one a year - over an 8 year period.  Even though we'll have the same company come in and do the work, we'll end up with 8 very different machines - since the technology will change every year as the machines go in.
   
Quote

The ladder part. It's stupid. The equidistance is predicted.

Where did Denton assume a ladder?  I don't remember that part.
     
Quote
     
Quote

Denton's last book supports directed evolution.

Evidence supports positions, not books. You don't give a damn about evidence, do you?

Like I said, I'm willing to look at any and all evidence.  I'm less interested in opinions though.
     
Quote

Since the relationships between these sequences represent the overwhelming evidence favoring MET that make fossils unnecessary, it would be the inevitable prediction for someone who claimed an interest in evidence.

Fossils are unnecessary? Wow. You do realize that fossils are empirical, observable evidence don't you?                
Quote
 
Within most journals, there are both primary (those with new data) and secondary (reviews). Usually, only the former are peer-reviewed. So I'll ask again: have you ever read a paper from the primary literature--meaning one that reports data that have never been reported before?

I don't subscribe to the journals and their online articles all seem to require a subscription.  I've been consigned to reading mostly abstracts and summations of these articles.        
Quote
       
Quote

Well, so far you've mostly called me names, and you haven't (yet) shown me anything that convinces me I'm wrong.

Mostly? Show me a single instance in which I called you a name, Daniel.

OK,
       
Quote

you have the appealing quality of massive arrogance, made even more appealing by massive ignorance... so please save your lying for ignorant lay people.

Does that qualify?
       
Quote
       
Quote
       
Quote

Let's discuss this paper, then:
http://www.biolbull.org/cgi/content/full/202/2/104
...let's start with Figure 2. Note that vertical line length is irrelevant, only the horizontal lines represent sequence divergence.

Alright, I read it.  As I understand it, they found a gene in a fish that would allow it to get high on pot, :D then they sequenced that gene along with the same gene in humans and mice

No, those were already sequenced.

OK my bad.
       
Quote
       
Quote

and fed all that info into a couple computer programs that spit out a comparative sequence and a chart that shows a theoretical phylogenetic divergence based on the similarities and differences and... mutation rates I'm guessing?

Sorry, but you're fudging already. The tree is not theoretical in any way. It is simply a graphic representation of the actual evidence--the identities and differences between the sequences.

OK
       
Quote

What do you conclude from these relationships? If CB2 was designed, when was it designed?

When was it designed or when was it implemented?  I have no idea when it was designed, but when it was first implemented can be found out I guess - if you find the earliest fossil evidence for that fish.                
Quote
       
Quote

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to learn from this, but I'm open to whatever it is you think this shows.  You'll just have to spell it out in layman's terms for me.

It's a starting point for examining the evidence and making predictions, something I predict that you're afraid to do. Where will a reptilian CB2 branch off on this tree? Why do both CB1 and CB2 fit into a single nested hierarchy?

I don't know the answers to those questions but I'm not afraid of them - I just need to figure out what you're asking and how you're arriving at your conclusions.  I need to see the evidence for myself - I won't just take your word for it.      
       
Quote
       
Quote

Unless you are talking about my statement that whatever happened was by design.  In that case, I've yet to see any evidence that doesn't strengthen that conviction.

That's because you haven't looked at evidence. Look at how you misrepresented the tree as "theoretical" above.

The tree is theoretical in that it is just a graphic representation of a proposed relationship.  How do you know these genes are not convergent?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,06:24   

By the way, Daniel:

1) You claim to be interested in evidence gathered free of bias and preconception.

2) But, per your own frank and repeated self-description, you are operating from a decisive bias, specifically that you prefer a priori to learn from those who have been ignored, laughed at and shunned. This massive bias, and its accompanying assumption that mainstream scientists have nothing to offer to you, renders 1) absurd. Not the least because your self-described ignorance of the field renders you ill-equipped to evaluate the work of these outliers, their methods, and their data.

3) I'd like you to publicly abandon 1), given 2). I'd also like you to articulate the origins of your bias. I'm not interested in a reply couched in terms of some biological challenge or other, because you have already confessed your abject ignorance of the field, as well as this self-same bias.

Rather, I'd like to hear about your commitments and community identifications, a description of the non-scientific allegiances from which your biases arise.

C'mon Daniel - this is the one subject you actually know something about (yourself).

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,06:37   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 26 2007,07:01)
 
Quote (JAM @ Sep. 25 2007,10:58)

D:Nested hierarchies are evidence of "top-down" evolution - where the higher categories are emplaced first - as opposed to evolution by speciation which would not create a nested hierarchy at all but would look more like a road map with lineages wandering aimlessly around.

Please explain how Darwin was wrong when he predicted nested hierarchies, then.

Can you supply that quote from Darwin?

Here.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4519
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,06:42   

Quote

Fossils are unnecessary? Wow. You do realize that fossils are empirical, observable evidence don't you?


<cop drama>

Lt. DS: The lab boys failed to retrieve any fingerprints in this case. We'll have to file it as unsolved.

Lt. JAM: Why would we do that? The lab boys did find the perp's hair at the scene. We got an excellent DNA match to a guy with a motive and no alibi. The fingerprints are unnecessary.

Lt. DS: Fingerprints are unnecessary? Wow. You do realize that fingerprints are empirical, observable evidence don't you?

[Rest of people in room look at Lt. DS, jaws dropping  in amazement.]

</cop drama>

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
  1733 replies since Sep. 18 2007,15:27 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (58) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]