RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (13) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   
  Topic: Southstar's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,12:10   

Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,09:38)
Let me explain.

You came into the forum looking very much like a typical Creationist/ID troll.

I did not believe you were who you said you were, hence the attitude. (Itchy trigger finger, you see.)

If you are legitimate you have my apologies.

One question, though; how did you find AtBC?

Hi,

Well as I explained I was using the Talkorigins.org website as the major inspirational tool. But Alas, some things weren't very clear, (I stopped taking Biology in standard 7).  So the postes I made came increasingly under attack by some that were apparently at least more knowelgble than I. So I needed some help. There is a link on the site to a forum Panda's thumb. From there I got here. :)

Cheers
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

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1956
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,12:13   

Well the entire "molecular clock" notion is always going to be merely supplemental to real fossils, and real geology.

I am either amused, or irritated (depending on the weather = †fishing conditions) when people treat these genetic "ages" as if they were real.

To quote Lewis Black to creationists,

"We have the fossils!"

Here is another fun one;

Dara O'Brian

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

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

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3319
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,12:19   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,11:59)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,10:08)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:51)
Yes i'm quite sure he's attempting the "bury them with bullshit" strategy. Unfortunaly my knowlege of molecular biology is not suffiscient to fight back on even grounds.

I thought I'd ask a list of basic claims he could make against evolution.

That way I could take hime down one at a time.

Thanks guys your all great!
Marty

Remember, the science is well understood.

They MUST support their position. †That is all. †Remind them and keep reminding them that

"Even if they totally discredit evolution, right now... it still doesn't mean creationism or anything else is correct. †Only positive supporting evidence will do that." †Then ask them where their positive supporting evidence is. †Ask what their research program is. †Ask what products their stripe of creationism has produced.

I predict you will be banned in no time.

Then just tell your friend that they obviously can't handle real discussion, therefore you must assume that they have nothing.

Hi,

Yes I expect to be banned soon, however since alot of people are begining to think somethings up. I expect they need to beat me up first.

Marty

Just remember... offense is the best defense.

The science is decided.  There are no legitimate scientists on the other side of the fence.  Not really.

Demand that they give you all the details you are demanding from them.

HLA-A alleles are a good start. Read about them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....-A

If everyone says, "That's OK, that's just microevolution."  Then introduce them to the concept of clines (ring species): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....species

Brief summary:  A ring species (or cline) is when you have a series of very closely related species that share some (usually geographical) thing between only two members of the ring.

Say moving from North to South, you have

A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H

Now A and B can interbreed.  A and C can interbreed.  B can interbreed with A, C, and D.  C can interbreed with A,B,D and E.

But none of A, B, or C can interbreed with G or H.  Yet H can interbreed with F, which can interbreed with D, which can interbreed with B.

The entire point is that A and H are totally not the same species.  Without B--G, then A and H might even be different genuses.  But with B--G, where can we draw the line between species?

We can't, in a simple and easy manner, which is about all the creationists can handle.

Life is squishy.  It's not cut and dried like physics or chemistry.  And a lot of the things that we hold to be true are just made up artifacts and do not always correctly represent reality.

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

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

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 1956
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,12:23   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:39)
Hi,

Concerning you first example. The italian Sparrow, it derives from a hybridization of two other spieces.

To be a good point should it derive form internal mutation and not hybridization?

I'm shure that if I post it someone will come up with: well dogs have been crosed alot of times and obviuosly their jeans are mixed?

This might sound like a realy stupid question to you but please bear in mind that last time I looked at genetics was at school 8 years ago.

Thanks
Marty

Why should hybrids be excluded?  They are merely a way of combining genes, and gene variants. When this results in a self reproducing population with restricted out-breeding, it is 'macroevolution."

If creationshits start redefining "species," "evolution," and what ever else shows them to be fools, just bust them on their inconsistency.

But, there were dozens of other examples, use them if you prefer.

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

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

   
Henry J



Posts: 4079
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,12:58   

One could also point out that the validity of the theory doesn't depend on direct observation of speciation. As I understand it, that's usually a slow process, in which as two populations diverge the ability to interbreed declines, perhaps slowly.

But, the theory does imply patterns that should be consistently observed if it's correct (or at least a close approximation), but that would not be expected in combination otherwise. The main pattern here is the the matching nested hierarchies constructed from multiple traits or DNA segments. (Ironically, hybridization causes an exception to the nested hierarchy thing.)

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,13:41   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 08 2011,12:13)
Dara O'Brian

Hi,

God I could stop laughing at this, I sat all during supper gigeling like an idiot!

Thanks
It was worth it just for 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

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,14:05   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,13:41)

Okay,

One thing that I keep getting back is that fossils that are found are placed in species according to whim of whoever finds the fossil.
Now I really can't imagine it going on a whim.. Is there a fixed protocol, or some sort of methodical proof that a fossil belongs to one spieces or another. In some cases only a tooth is found or part of a jaw bone or whatever.

The main example they throw out is well you see the fossils you find are all extinct apes except for Neaderthals they were human.

The main argument I throw out against this is that "I presume" that DNA studies are carried out on the bones and those give proof of who they belong too. But DNA decays over time so how do you go about to prove that let's say a dolphin was once a Basilosaurus.

Any ideas on 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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3319
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,15:01   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,14:05)
[quote=Southstar,Nov. 08 2011,13:41][/quote]
Okay,

One thing that I keep getting back is that fossils that are found are placed in species according to whim of whoever finds the fossil.
Now I really can't imagine it going on a whim.. Is there a fixed protocol, or some sort of methodical proof that a fossil belongs to one spieces or another. In some cases only a tooth is found or part of a jaw bone or whatever.

The main example they throw out is well you see the fossils you find are all extinct apes except for Neaderthals they were human.

The main argument I throw out against this is that "I presume" that DNA studies are carried out on the bones and those give proof of who they belong too. But DNA decays over time so how do you go about to prove that let's say a dolphin was once a Basilosaurus.

Any ideas on this
Marty

Well, you can't say that the fossil was once an ancestor of a modern species.  That's impossible, but it's also not required for science.  The creationists often demand this because they know it's impossible (or they actually think it's required).

That's not what transitional means.  Transitional means it has some characters of past species and some characters of future species.

No one thinks that Archeopteryx was the ancestor of all birds.  Nor does it exist between dinosaurs and birds.  But (using talk.origins archives) when you compare characters, the Archeopteryx has mostly dinosaur characters and only a few bird characters.

Like, read about Tiktaalik.  In this case Shubin knew what he wanted to find.  He knew the characteristics it had to have... which defines in what environment is had to live.  He also had a time range in which it should have existed.  He was able to look for rock layers of the appropriate age and type and in only a few years found Tiktaalik.

The creationists might say that Tiktaalik is not transitional because it's the wrong age.  That is incorrect.  Transitional is about characters (location of holes in bones, numbers of bones, kinds of teeth, even patterns in shells) not time or direct ancestry.

Your dad is transitional between you and your grandparents.  But also, your dad is transitional between you and your uncle.  Your grandfather is transitional between you and your cousins.  Transitional has nothing to do with time.  You can look up the definitions of transitional and post those if they think otherwise.

You might also take a look at the evolution of whales on wiki and the testimony of Kevin Paidan in the Kitzmiller trial (on talk.origins).  He describes in pretty good detail about the transitionals.  It's not just the nose, or the forelimbs, or the hind limbs, or the vertebrae, it's all of them taken together.

That's the one thing that creationists also can't deal with.  The volume of information on science.  They can't grasp that we aren't just making these supposed links between fossils based on one thing.  For whales, for example, we have hundreds of fossils, we have genetic studies, we have biogeographical studies, chemistry (the Oxygen isotope ratio in bones is different for marine creatures than land creatures).  So their explanation has to deal with all of that.

Keep asking.  "Well, explain how you think it happened.  Why do you think so?  What evidence supports your opinion?"

As far as the teeth.  It's all about expertise.  You can't just hand a tooth to anyone and they can say, "that's a new species".  The people who are making these determinations are experts in their field.  They have been studying their chosen subject for decades.  I can watch a movie and tell you the make, model number, number of rounds, and range of about any firearm in the movie, just from a glance.  I've been studying firearms for decades.  I can't look at a shark tooth and tell you what kind it is from, but I know that there are people that can.

That's all it is.  When the scientists propose a new species, it undergoes some intense scrutiny.  It's not "Hey, I found a new species."  It's "I think I found a new species and here's my evidence why.  What do you think?"

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

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

   
Cubist



Posts: 350
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,15:22   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,07:05)
My brother is getting sucked into the evil sect of creationist people who for some wild reason that is above mindboggeling suggest that evolution is just a theory an bla bla bla.
Well, evolution is "just a theory". The thing is, saying that evolution is "just a theory" is kind of like saying that Bill Gates is "just a multibillionaire" -- it's nothing more than a rhetorical flourish intended to cast unwarranted doubt upon its subject. Creationists who say evolution is "just a theory" are counting on their listeners to understand that statement as using the common vernacular meaning of 'theory', which is basically 'a wild guess', never mind the fact that in the context of science, a 'theory' is a well-tested idea that successfully explains a whole lot of data.

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,07:46)
Is there any direct evidence that microevolution leads to macroevolution. Feel free to quote studies.
What's going to stop 'microevolution' from leading to 'macroevolution'? Arguing that the former doesn't lead to the latter, is very much like saying that yes, you can walk 5 steps, but it's clearly impossible to walk 5,000,000 steps. Demand details. Where's the barrier that prevents microevolution from leading to macroevolution? How does this alleged barrier prevent new mutations from occuring?
Also: Since this is a Creationist question, ask your Creationist 'friends' to define 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution'. It's a damn good bet that 'microevolution (as defined by Creationists)' cannot lead to 'macroevolution (as defined by Creationists)' -- but unless they're defining those terms the same way real scientists do, they're refuting a caricature of evolutionary theory, and a refutation of a caricature is a caricature of a refutation.
So ask your Creationist 'friends' what they mean by 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution'. Be sure to point out how and where their definitions differ from the definitions used by real scientists. And if their definitions contain vague/undefined terms, demand that they define those vague terms. If they say "macroevolution is a change from one kind to another", ask them what a 'kind' is, and how the heck you can even tell which 'kind' an arbitrary critter belongs to.

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,14:05)
One thing that I keep getting back is that fossils that are found are placed in species according to whim of whoever finds the fossil. ... The main example they throw out is well you see the fossils you find are all extinct apes except for Neaderthals they were human.
If that's what they're saying about fossils, point them at the Comparison of all skulls page, a collection of Creationist "human or ape?" pronouncements about six different fossil specimens -- and the amusing bit is, Creationists themselves can't make up their minds which fossils are human and which are apes! This is very curious indeed. Because if the difference between 100% human!!1! and 100% ape!11! actually was as obvious/evident as Creationists assert it to be, shouldn't Creationist judgments about these specimens be 100% consistent? Alas (for Creationists...), those judgments aren't 100% consistent.
For maximum hilarity, look at the cases where a Creationist has changed their mind about whether or not any given Specimen X is human or ape. PS Taylor, in a 1992 publication, asserted that both Java Man and Peking Man were 100% apes -- but he declared them both to be 100% human in a 1996 publication. Similarly, Duane Gish declared the KNM-ER 1470 (Homo habilis) specimen to be 100% human in a 1979 publication, but a 1985 Gish publication declared that specimen to be 100% ape.
So... if a Creationist says "Neanderthal human, everything else ape", point out that Duane Gish says Java Man was an ape, and ask them what they know that Duane freaking Gish doesn't?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3319
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2011,16:54   

BTW: Southstar,

I don't want you to get your hopes up.  Creationists are wedded to their beliefs.  They will not change them.

The best to hope for is to instill some doubt and be able to point to them and say, "They can't deal with real science and hard questions about their own beliefs."

You might be able to influence some fence sitters, but you will not change the mind of the real creationist.

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

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

   
George



Posts: 313
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2011,04:45   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 08 2011,12:23)
 
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:39)
Hi,

Concerning you first example. The italian Sparrow, it derives from a hybridization of two other spieces.

To be a good point should it derive form internal mutation and not hybridization?

I'm shure that if I post it someone will come up with: well dogs have been crosed alot of times and obviuosly their jeans are mixed?

This might sound like a realy stupid question to you but please bear in mind that last time I looked at genetics was at school 8 years ago.

Thanks
Marty

Why should hybrids be excluded? †They are merely a way of combining genes, and gene variants. When this results in a self reproducing population with restricted out-breeding, it is 'macroevolution."

If creationshits start redefining "species," "evolution," and what ever else shows them to be fools, just bust them on their inconsistency.

But, there were dozens of other examples, use them if you prefer.

I've just finished reading a paper in the New Journal of Botany on the evolution and taxonomy of the narrow-leaved marsh orchid complex (within Dactylorhiza) in Britain, Ireland and the rest of Europe. †These have all originated as allopolyploids of the same two diploid species in apparently four separate episodes. †In other words, two species hybridise and the hybrid undergoes genome duplication, which results in instant reproductive isolation (more or less). †Biogeographical and molecular evidence suggests that three species evolved after the last glacial maximum, whereas the fourth predates it. †What's really interesting are the differences in ecological (habitat) preferences shown by these four species, which serves to further isolate each species from the others, setting them on separate evolutionary trajectories.

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2011,06:26   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,16:54)
BTW: Southstar,

I don't want you to get your hopes up. †Creationists are wedded to their beliefs. †They will not change them.

The best to hope for is to instill some doubt and be able to point to them and say, "They can't deal with real science and hard questions about their own beliefs."

You might be able to influence some fence sitters, but you will not change the mind of the real creationist.

Hi Everyone,

First I want to thank you all for your great support! I don't have high hopes of making them change their minds after all they do have blind beliefs. But since they have thrown junk around I have prooven that it is junk and maybe it's cause I'm in italy, this site presumes that everyone is dumb and can't read english.

Now what get's my hopes up is that at least a few of them have started asking the right questions. Critical thought. And well my brother is waking up ;) What really did it, however was a quote on their stupid booklet (of which the author remains anonimus can't immagine why) quoted Richard Dawkins as stating that His work "should be taken as Sience fiction", and that therefore all scientists don't really belive in their work anyway. Well since I have most of his books I went to look it up and well it said: " THIS book should be read almost as though it were science fiction. It is designed to appeal to the imagination. But it is not science fiction: it is science. Cliche or not, Ďstranger than fictioní expresses exactly how I feel about the truth".

Even when my brother get's out... you know what? I'm going to continue fighting so that the truth gets out there! I usually read Badastronomy.com and often wondered why Phil Plait get's so upset... Now I understand I've met them too...

Cheers
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

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2011,06:39   

Quote (George @ Nov. 09 2011,04:45)
[quote=Dr.GH,Nov. 08 2011,12:23] † [quote=Southstar,Nov. 08 2011,09:39]Hi,

I've just finished reading a paper in the New Journal of Botany on the evolution and taxonomy of the narrow-leaved marsh orchid complex (within Dactylorhiza) in Britain, Ireland and the rest of Europe. †These have all originated as allopolyploids of the same two diploid species in apparently four separate episodes. †In other words, two species hybridise and the hybrid undergoes genome duplication, which results in instant reproductive isolation (more or less). †Biogeographical and molecular evidence suggests that three species evolved after the last glacial maximum, whereas the fourth predates it. †What's really interesting are the differences in ecological (habitat) preferences shown by these four species, which serves to further isolate each species from the others, setting them on separate evolutionary trajectories.

Hi,

Could you give me a link to the paper.

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 2923
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2011,06:58   

Quote (George @ Nov. 08 2011,17:40)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:00)
Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 08 2011,08:05)
Southstar could you post a link to the Italian forum you mentioned?

Thanks.

Here is the link http://freeforumzone.leonardo.it/discuss....775&p=9

If you need some translating let me know.

There is mainly alot of rubish that I can handle the posts by
Ioseb-Bassebet however are the ones that are giving me hassels.
He works in a lab and has a degree in something or other (how the hell did he get it?!! mysteries of italy)

My posts are Southstar87

Marty

I speak no Italian, but I had a quick peek over there and noted that one of Ioseb-Bassebet's posts totaled 6731 words.

He didn't use any phrases like "oil-soaked strawman sprinkled with red herrings" did he?

MAYBE THEY DEGREASED HIS COMENTS?

oops .....caps lock error

Holy crap where do these twits come from?

One living Creo and a thousand under the woodpile.

Nature in action.

Science inaction.

TARDZ.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3319
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2011,07:12   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 09 2011,06:26)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,16:54)
BTW: Southstar,

I don't want you to get your hopes up. †Creationists are wedded to their beliefs. †They will not change them.

The best to hope for is to instill some doubt and be able to point to them and say, "They can't deal with real science and hard questions about their own beliefs."

You might be able to influence some fence sitters, but you will not change the mind of the real creationist.

Hi Everyone,

First I want to thank you all for your great support! I don't have high hopes of making them change their minds after all they do have blind beliefs. But since they have thrown junk around I have prooven that it is junk and maybe it's cause I'm in italy, this site presumes that everyone is dumb and can't read english.

Now what get's my hopes up is that at least a few of them have started asking the right questions. Critical thought. And well my brother is waking up ;) What really did it, however was a quote on their stupid booklet (of which the author remains anonimus can't immagine why) quoted Richard Dawkins as stating that His work "should be taken as Sience fiction", and that therefore all scientists don't really belive in their work anyway. Well since I have most of his books I went to look it up and well it said: " THIS book should be read almost as though it were science fiction. It is designed to appeal to the imagination. But it is not science fiction: it is science. Cliche or not, Ďstranger than fictioní expresses exactly how I feel about the truth".

Even when my brother get's out... you know what? I'm going to continue fighting so that the truth gets out there! I usually read Badastronomy.com and often wondered why Phil Plait get's so upset... Now I understand I've met them too...

Cheers
Marty

Ah, quotemining at it's finest (or weakest).

Congratulations and thank you for standing up to them.

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

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

   
George



Posts: 313
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2011,07:55   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 09 2011,06:39)
[quote=George,Nov. 09 2011,04:45][quote=Dr.GH,Nov. 08 2011,12:23] †
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:39)
Hi,

I've just finished reading a paper in the New Journal of Botany on the evolution and taxonomy of the narrow-leaved marsh orchid complex (within Dactylorhiza) in Britain, Ireland and the rest of Europe. †These have all originated as allopolyploids of the same two diploid species in apparently four separate episodes. †In other words, two species hybridise and the hybrid undergoes genome duplication, which results in instant reproductive isolation (more or less). †Biogeographical and molecular evidence suggests that three species evolved after the last glacial maximum, whereas the fourth predates it. †What's really interesting are the differences in ecological (habitat) preferences shown by these four species, which serves to further isolate each species from the others, setting them on separate evolutionary trajectories.

Hi,

Could you give me a link to the paper.

Thanks
Marty

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content....rt00002 should work.  If not, let me know and I'll see what I can do.

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2011,08:01   

Quote (George @ Nov. 09 2011,07:55)
[quote=Southstar,Nov. 09 2011,06:39][quote=George,Nov. 09 2011,04:45]
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 08 2011,12:23)
†  
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:39)
Hi,

I've just finished reading a paper in the New Journal of Botany on the evolution and taxonomy of the narrow-leaved marsh orchid complex (within Dactylorhiza) in Britain, Ireland and the rest of Europe. †These have all originated as allopolyploids of the same two diploid species in apparently four separate episodes. †In other words, two species hybridise and the hybrid undergoes genome duplication, which results in instant reproductive isolation (more or less). †Biogeographical and molecular evidence suggests that three species evolved after the last glacial maximum, whereas the fourth predates it. †What's really interesting are the differences in ecological (habitat) preferences shown by these four species, which serves to further isolate each species from the others, setting them on separate evolutionary trajectories.

Hi,

Could you give me a link to the paper.

Thanks
Marty

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content....rt00002 should work. †If not, let me know and I'll see what I can do.

Hi,

I was about to post it then i read the first line of the study "This subjective and highly personal commentary critically reviews..."

They, the dims, have a thing for picking stuff like this out of even well written papers and with that saying something stupid like... See even the people writing it call it a personal whim "see she's puting out rubbish" ha ha ha. I really need to stay a step or two ahead of them.

Thanks anyway
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

  
Quack



Posts: 1770
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2011,10:59   

Hi Marty,

I have always found the honest opinion of YEC creationist Kurt Wise †very illuminating. †

You will find it †here. Scroll down to footnotes, or search for "Kurt Wise is".

But of course, the whole document is well worth reading. And the talkorigins archive is a great source of info.

The best of luck with your 'plight'.

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself ‚ÄĒ and you are the easiest person to fool.
¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†         Richard Feynman

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2011,12:18   

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 09 2011,10:59)

Okay,

I have a question for me ;)

It sounds awfully stupid but maybe it isn't

At what point do you stop calling a dog a dog and start calling it something else?

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: 3319
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2011,12:38   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 09 2011,12:18)
[quote=Quack,Nov. 09 2011,10:59][/quote]
Okay,

I have a question for me ;)

It sounds awfully stupid but maybe it isn't

At what point do you stop calling a dog a dog and start calling it something else?

Thanks
Marty

That's a REALLY good question and it all depends on how you define species.  

To give you an example of the huge inconstancy in this regard, you might be familiar with Escherichia coli.  It is a massively diverse species of bacteria.  In fact, it's so diverse that only 20% of the DNA is common between all strains of it. {Lukjancenko, O.; Wassenaar, T.M.; Ussery, D.W. (2010). "Comparison of 61 sequenced Escherichia coli genomes". Microb Ecol. 60 (4): 708Ė720. doi:10.1007/s00248-010-9717-3. PMC 2974192. PMID 20623278.}

When you get to vertebrates, you could go with something like reproductive isolation, but you have to get pretty specific.  Lions (Panthera leo) and tigers (Panthera tigris) are obviously different species, yet they can interbreed and produce reproductively capable offspring, which by most indicators would suggest they are the same species.

In short, life is squishy.  Humans want everything to be in a category and those categories to have meaning.  They don't, not really.

Wolves, dogs, and coyotes interbreed all the time.  Three different species.  Is the hybrid a wolf-dog or a dog-wolf?  

I maintain (and I may be almost alone here), that absent the medium sized dogs, the toy dogs and working dogs should be different species.  In fact, there's more diversity within dogs, than there is in all of Carnivora combined.  On the other hand, most of that diversity is in a very small amount of DNA {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2919785/}

So, really, who knows.  I doubt anyone will ever be able to say, "look, this dog really isn't a dog".  What will be more likely is something like "Hey, 12,000 years ago, in 1995 was the first divergence of this new species of pet from what used to be called 'dogs'."

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

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

   
Cubist



Posts: 350
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2011,13:05   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 09 2011,12:18)
Okay,
I have a question for me ;)
It sounds awfully stupid but maybe it isn't
At what point do you stop calling a dog a dog and start calling it something else?

Not a stupid question at all. "At what point do you stop calling a dog a dog and start calling it something else?" includes, as an unstated premise, the notion that you can distinguish Dog from Not-Dog. More generally, your query hints at the larger question of how the heck one goes about distinguishing a member-of-species-X from a not-member-of-species-X. And (as the link to Wikipedia indicates) this is not an easy question!
Since we're talking about dogs in particular, I'd say that the BSC (Biological Species Concept) -- i.e., can the critter successfully interbreed with dogs? -- is about as good a distinguishing criterion as you're likely to find. The BSC doesn't work for all living things (like those which reproduce asexually, for instance), but it's pretty good for 'standard' animals like dogs and horses and such.

  
George



Posts: 313
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2011,15:11   

[quote=Southstar,Nov. 09 2011,08:01][quote=George,Nov. 09 2011,07:55]
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 09 2011,06:39)
Quote (George @ Nov. 09 2011,04:45)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 08 2011,12:23)
† † †
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,09:39)
Hi,

I've just finished reading a paper in the New Journal of Botany on the evolution and taxonomy of the narrow-leaved marsh orchid complex (within Dactylorhiza) in Britain, Ireland and the rest of Europe. †These have all originated as allopolyploids of the same two diploid species in apparently four separate episodes. †In other words, two species hybridise and the hybrid undergoes genome duplication, which results in instant reproductive isolation (more or less). †Biogeographical and molecular evidence suggests that three species evolved after the last glacial maximum, whereas the fourth predates it. †What's really interesting are the differences in ecological (habitat) preferences shown by these four species, which serves to further isolate each species from the others, setting them on separate evolutionary trajectories.

Hi,

Could you give me a link to the paper.

Thanks
Marty

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content....rt00002 should work. †If not, let me know and I'll see what I can do.

Hi,

I was about to post it then i read the first line of the study "This subjective and highly personal commentary critically reviews..."

They, the dims, have a thing for picking stuff like this out of even well written papers and with that saying something stupid like... See even the people writing it call it a personal whim "see she's puting out rubbish" ha ha ha. I really need to stay a step or two ahead of them.

Thanks anyway
Marty

I understand and it's unfortunate for your purposes that he prefaces the abstract with those words. †For what it's worth, there's a lot of "critical review" before he gets to the personal opinions. †His review is a good summary of the methods used and issues involved in plant speciation. †Very accessible to the non-molecular specialist, like me.

It also illustrates one of the reasons why the biological species concept is less useful when applied to plants than vertebrates. †Another reason is the presence within some species of reproductive barriers that serve to promote outcrossing. †For example, primroses have flowers in two forms, pin and thrum, differentiated by relative length of stamens and styles. †Plants with pin flowers pollinate those with thrum flowers or vice versa. †Pin to pin or thrum to thrum generally doesn't work. †Are primroses one species or two under the biological species concept?

Edited for more caveatness.

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1012
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2011,19:01   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,14:05)
[quote=Southstar,Nov. 08 2011,13:41][/quote]
Okay,

One thing that I keep getting back is that fossils that are found are placed in species according to whim of whoever finds the fossil.
Now I really can't imagine it going on a whim.. Is there a fixed protocol, or some sort of methodical proof that a fossil belongs to one spieces or another. In some cases only a tooth is found or part of a jaw bone or whatever.

The main example they throw out is well you see the fossils you find are all extinct apes except for Neaderthals they were human.

The main argument I throw out against this is that "I presume" that DNA studies are carried out on the bones and those give proof of who they belong too. But DNA decays over time so how do you go about to prove that let's say a dolphin was once a Basilosaurus.

Any ideas on this
Marty

Yes,  there is a protocol which involves using comparative material. In paleontology and paleoanthropology scientists are required to show how a proposed new species is different from other related material.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2011,12:18   

Quote (afarensis @ Nov. 09 2011,19:01)

Hi,

Here is a question that was posted on the site. Which I have a little of a hard time answering.

After mentioning speciation which caused wide spread panic. Obvioulsy a few of them started changing the goal post and started asking for exapmles of new families forming. I answered that you will only see them formed after they are formed and looking back you'll say well at about this time the dog became a ciuaua (which to me classifies as a different spiecis ;) )

Some asked for proof of fish turning into mice, which is great cause it would be proof against evolution if ever it was found.

But then the usual chap comes up with this:

To verify up to what point speciation can lead to macro changes you need to see how much "weight" these changes have in genetic and especially molecular terms. This you need to do in terms of measuring the amount of information that has been modified but more importantly how much information has been added.

I would answer this way: Well if it's a new species, there's got to be different information, probably non much different information but a little different it would get more different the farther away you were from the speciation event. It's the added part that I can't get..

Any ideas?
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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10228
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2011,12:20   

Ask him to define 'information' and give examples of it's measurement in biology.

--------------
"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

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1956
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2011,12:36   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,10:20)
Ask him to define 'information' and give examples of it's measurement in biology.

I agree. I would insist that the information content of a gene be calculated, and then show us how this varied between species.

The creationist demand seems to be rebutted if they cannot give a cut-off value. This reminds me of Duane Gish's bullshit about protein sequences.

What evolutionary science does instead is to show that molecular, and fossil data generate the same hierarchical trees. Some references I have at hand on whale evolution include;

Thomas A. DEMERE,  Michael R. MCGOWEN, Annalisa BERTA, John GATESY
2008 ďMorphological and Molecular Evidence for a Stepwise Evolutionary Transition from Teeth to Baleen in Mysticete WhalesĒ Systematic biology, vol. 57, no1, pp. 15-37

Robert W. Meredith, John Gatesy, Joyce Cheng and Mark S. Springer
2011 ďPseudogenization of the tooth gene enamelysin (MMP20) in the common ancestor of extant baleen whalesĒ  Proc. R. Soc. B 7 April  vol. 278 no. 1708: 993-1002
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content....bstract

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

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

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3319
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2011,13:08   

Thirded.

Ask them for an exact measurement process.  What definition of information it's supposed to measure and how it applies to genetics.

Then, once they avoid doing that like the plague, you can hit them with a few studies that show step-wise evolution of major changes in systems.  

My personal favorite is Darwinian Evolution on a Chip. http://www.plosbiology.org/article....0060085

Because it shows the stepwise changes in the RNA sequence from the original product all the way through the final sequence which has a 90-fold improvement over the original.

Plus, there is an example of an early negative mutation being a prerequisite mutation for further increasing the effectiveness of the sequence.

Then, you can ask them, exactly where the designer stepped in.  Dr. Joyce is still around and they can ask for the original data, including the sequences that were collected throughout the experiment... if they dared.

No, it's not a change in species, genus, or family, but only creationists have those requirements anyway.

You might read up on evolutionary developmental biology as well.  I predict that the next move will be the whole "How did body plans develop".

It's in the creationist playbook.

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

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

   
Henry J



Posts: 4079
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2011,13:10   

As I understand it, speciation just means that the two populations will then accumulate changes independent of each other, i.e., evolve in different "directions".

For two subpopulations to cease regular interbreeding doesn't appear to me to require any great amount of change, and certainly doesn't require that one of them become more complex (whatever that means) than it was.

  
Cubist



Posts: 350
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2011,22:27   

Allow me to add my voice to the chorus of not-insane people saying "Ask your Creationist buddies how they measure this 'information' stuff". You might even go further than that, by asking them to determine which of two different nucleotide sequences has more 'information' in it. Or even a series of such questions...
First, a pair of arbitrary nucleotide sequences. Which sequence has more information in it?
 
Quote
Nucleotide sequence 1a: aca acg gaa ttc agc acc acc cca cca tga ctg cag gtc gcg atg acc ccc tgt cgt ttg tcg atc cgt tat tgg
Nucleotide sequence 1b: cga act gtc cgg tca acg ccg gga gca aac ggt taa cac tag aca gaa gca gac att cgt tgt tat tca tca tag

Second, an arbitrary nucleotide sequence, followed by that same sequence plus a one-codon insertion (the inserted codon being underlined in the second sequence here; you needn't preserve the underlining if you present this pair of sequences elsewhere). Which sequence has more information in it?
 
Quote
Nucleotide sequence 2a: ctc gac gca cat ata acg ata aag tcg cag ctg tag cac aag gca gtt tac act tgg aaa tct ctg gca taa gcg
Nucleotide sequence 2b: ctc gac gca cat ata acg ata aag tcg cag ctg tag cca cac aag gca gtt tac act tgg aaa tct ctg gca taa gcg

Third: An arbitrary nucleotide sequence, followed by that same sequence with one codon deleted from it (the deleted codon is underlined in the first sequence). Which sequence has more information in it?
 
Quote
Nucleotide sequence 3a: gca agg cta atg ggg gta gtg cca ttg ccc atc taa gaa caa ttt cca agt aaa gag gct ccc gta tag att gcc
Nucleotide sequence 3b: gca agg cta atg gta gtg cca ttg ccc atc taa gaa caa ttt cca agt aaa gag gct ccc gta tag att gcc

Fourth: An arbitrary nucleotide sequence, followed by that same sequence with a single nucleotide inserted into it (inserted nucleotide underlined in the 2nd sequence). Which sequence has more information in it?
Quote
Nucleotide sequence 4a: att aag tgc aaa cat gcc gaa cac aag tga atc gaa tcc gcg caa tct ata agt cgg gct atc tca aac cct aat
Nucleotide sequence 4b: att aca gtg caa aca tgc cga aca caa gtg aat cga atc cgc gca atc tat aag tcg ggc tat ctc aaa ccc taa t

Fifth: An arbitrary nucleotide sequence, followed by that same sequence with a single nucleotide deleted from it (deleted nucleotide underlined in the 1st sequence). Which sequence has more information in it?
Quote
Nucleotide sequence 5a: tac aac cgt ctt gtt taa cag ggt tga atg ttg gat agg taa aaa ctg atc atg atg acc att cgt gcc gcc atc
Nucleotide sequence 5b: taa acc gtc ttg ttt aac agg gtt gaa tgt tgg ata ggt aaa aac tga tca tga tga cca ttc gtg ccg cca tc

Sixth: An arbitrary nucleotide sequence, followed by that same sequence with one codon replaced by some different codon entirely (the relevant codons are underlined in both sequences). Which sequence has more information in it?
Quote
Nucleotide sequence 6a: aaa cgc gag cgc gct cag ccc aga tca gct gcc caa gac gtc gtt acc aca atc gtt acc acc gcg ata tta ttt tga
Nucleotide sequence 6b: aaa cgc gag tga gct cag ccc aga tca gct gcc caa gac gtc gtt acc aca atc gtt acc acc gcg ata tta ttt

  
Henry J



Posts: 4079
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2011,23:27   

Insufficient data to respond to those questions!

  
  366 replies since Nov. 08 2011,06:46 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (13) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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