Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Daniel Smith's "Argument from Impossibility"

Posted: Feb. 14 2009,20:13

Lest we forget:

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 12 2009,19:07)

Bill, I'll admit that I'm prejudiced when it comes to human ancestry. I don't want us to be descended from apes, so I need extra convincing when it comes to that. It's my bias. I'm not sure how we fit into the picture re: evolution. I'd like to believe we are a special creation of God, but I'm not wed to the idea.

Wishing something not to be true is NOT a basis for concluding that it is not true, or even unlikely to be true. I gather from your response that you have no basis for doubting that human beings and other great apes share a common ancestor other than your wishes and biases. The science is absolutely clear, however: human beings share common ancestry with the great apes (most recently with chimps and bonobos).

Quote

As for your other questions: Common ancestry is compatible with front-loaded evolution.

My point is that front-loading is irrelevant to the emergence of humanity IF human beings did not descend from SOME ancestor species or other.

Quote

As for the "immediate precursor", I don't think you understand what I mean by that. I'm asking for the immediate precursor to an extant biological system - with the evolutionary path between them.

I don't think you understand what you have already conceded. If you agree that there is no basis for reasonable doubt that bonobos and chimpanzees (which surely themselves meet the definition of "complex biological systems") share a common ancestor, then you are stating that there is no reasonable doubt that a) there was such a precursor, and b) both populations progressed from that ancestral form to the organisms we see today by means of an unbroken succession of individuals reproducing over the intervening 2.5 million years, culminating in the organisms we know today.

Quote

It's not enough to just point to something and say that it's the immediate precursor. The two must be connected by a real pathway.

Not enough for what? Your statement that there can be no reasonable doubt of chimp-bonobo common ancestry does all the work that needs to be done. You've already conceded everything important in this discussion, as above. Of course we would like to know more about both that precursor and those intermediates, but the soundness of this inference (of precursor and intermediates progressing to the systems we observe today) depends in no way upon those additional findings.

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

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

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Feb. 14 2009,20:14

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2009,19:24)

As near as I can tell, the evolution of this new feature began when there was some kind of genetic rearrangement due to polyploidy. As you know however, that's just the beginning. I don't know the exact genetic rearrangements, nor do I know which genes were expressed and why, nor do I know the makeup of the genes and the epigenetic factors involved in the production of the new feature, nor any of the metabolic factors involved, the biochemical pathways, their enzymes and their regulation. I know none of this. I know one thing however - all of this worked itself out in one single evolutionary step. That's a lot! The fact that this is a repeatable phenomenon where the above factors work themselves out every time leads me to believe that this is a either a normal reproductive event for plants, or, an evolutionary event with no random element whatsoever. Care to choose?

I called it "recombination" but I was wrong. I should have likened it to recombination - since it works in a similar manner - except for the number of chromosomes.

This is all pretty neat and tidy - don't you think? A new morphological feature with all of its many complex biochemical processes just falling into place. So, do you think evolution normally works this way? It sure seems a lot more like the "unfolding of pre-existing rudiments" than "selection acting on random variation" - wouldn't you say?

(Now which part of this will you snip and ignore?)

I won't snip and ignore any of it except for the irrelevant bits. Which would be almost all of it.

Your challenge was to show you a novel biological system where the immediate precursors are known. I did that. Note that this challenge does not include any stipulations about mechanism, so I will ignore that. Nor did you stipulate if this had to be "normal", or "common", so I can ignore that. Nor did you say that I had to prove that "evolution normally works that way", or not. You asked for a single example; that is the goal post we should be concentrating on. Why don't you try harder to do that?

Furthermore, if you had actually READ those papers rather than comb through them for something to hang your dunce cap on, you would know that there is absolutely NO evidence for "some kind of genetic rearrangement due to polypoloidy". if you actually understood any biology, you would be able to deduce that from the reading. Since you know absolutely no biology, you are pulling (again) strawmen out of your rectum.

So, back to the original question which you are avoiding.

Please tell me WHY this is not an example of a novel biological system where we know the immediate precursors. Don't hand-wave about mechanisms, or hormalcy, or repeatability, or any of those other idiotic parameters that you have erected post facto. Tell me WHY this is not an answer to your challenge.

If you can't do that, perhaps you should just shut up about it.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers

Erasmus, FCD

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Feb. 14 2009,20:43

man this is one dense dude. almost as if by design. who are you anyway, Denial? you have an essence of old-school troll about you.

anyway...

Denial, speciation by ploidy is a lot more common in plants than in animals. it's not unknown in animals but it is apparently much less frequent.

none of that is rescuing you from your demand that we demonstrate a complex biological system and the precursors. the frequency of speciation by ploidy is irrelevant. and a fascinating subject but you are apparently too willfully self-deluded to investigate. cest' la tard.

no random element whatosever? well fuck me.

i suppose you know exactly what causes this sort of event in plants then. because, to the rest of us that don't have God Shades 2.0 or Satan Blockers or whatever lens you are privy to that the entirety of modern biological investigation is lacking, it sure as hell seems to be random.

it may be more prevalent in certain phylogenetic groups but that's not helping you any here, we have theoretical explanations for that that have an evolutionary basis and not anything based on your misunderstanding or mangling of Schindewolf et al

I'm not helping you out here on that one, until you drop this stupid goal post moving game and start acting like a man and admit that your demand has been met. i've got a bagful of these examples, O Petulant One, but I'm going to enjoy slapping you with them one at a time. and I'm not done with this one yet. what makes this non-random?

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

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Feb. 15 2009,05:04

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2009,19:24)

(Now which part of this will you snip and ignore?)

Lets face it, the entire post is you saying what you don't know.

It could have gone on for alot longer then that, no?

Congratulations for keeping it so short.

So, Daniel, the evolution of the ability to digest Citrate in the Lenski study appears to answer your challenge.

Are you so afraid of being wrong that you can't say why it does not?

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

JLT

Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

Posted: Feb. 15 2009,06:46

Just to recap:

Quote

Daniel: Show me a novel biological system where the immediate precursors are known.
<subtext> Ha, he won't be able to do that, because it's impossible for a novel biological system to evolve (without woo woo from God)</subtext>

Albatrossity: Here's your example of a novel biological system where the immediate precursors are known.
<subtext>Take that, moron*</subtext>

Daniel: No, that can't be an example of an evolved novel biological system because it's impossible for a novel biological system to evolve. So it isn't a novel biological system and the evolutionary event leading to this novel biological system happens so frequently that it can't be an evolutionary event, so it's either normal reproduction or made by God!!!1!!11

That's really brilliant reasoning right there, congrats.
Oh and BTW:

Quote

This is all pretty neat and tidy - don't you think? A new morphological feature with all of its many complex biochemical processes just falling into place.

You are aware that if the the "biochemical processes" weren't working properly in the new species there wouldn't be any new species, aren't you. It might be a novel concept to you, but there is this thing that is called "natural selection". It just means that any new variants in which the biochemical processes weren't working properly WOULDN'T SURVIVE (long enough to produce offspring)**.

* Sorry, if I assumed wrongly that you thought something like that. Couldn't resist.

** or be sterile or produce significantly less offspring than the parent species, ALL of which probably happened and happens way more often than that it works out.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Feb. 15 2009,08:34

Quote (JLT @ Feb. 15 2009,06:46)

Just to recap:

Quote

Daniel: Show me a novel biological system where the immediate precursors are known.
<subtext> Ha, he won't be able to do that, because it's impossible for a novel biological system to evolve (without woo woo from God)</subtext>

Albatrossity: Here's your example of a novel biological system where the immediate precursors are known.
<subtext>Take that, moron*</subtext>

Daniel: No, that can't be an example of an evolved novel biological system because it's impossible for a novel biological system to evolve. So it isn't a novel biological system and the evolutionary event leading to this novel biological system happens so frequently that it can't be an evolutionary event, so it's either normal reproduction or made by God!!!1!!11

That's really brilliant reasoning right there, congrats.
Oh and BTW:

Quote

This is all pretty neat and tidy - don't you think? A new morphological feature with all of its many complex biochemical processes just falling into place.

You are aware that if the the "biochemical processes" weren't working properly in the new species there wouldn't be any new species, aren't you. It might be a novel concept to you, but there is this thing that is called "natural selection". It just means that any new variants in which the biochemical processes weren't working properly WOULDN'T SURVIVE (long enough to produce offspring)**.

* Sorry, if I assumed wrongly that you thought something like that. Couldn't resist.

** or be sterile or produce significantly less offspring than the parent species, ALL of which probably happened and happens way more often than that it works out.

No, that works for me.

Just another example of conclusion-first reasoning on Daniel's part - "there are no examples like the one I am demanding because it is impossible for those examples to exist in the tiny basement where my imagination lives". Conclusion-first reasoners will always have to go to great lengths to deny or ignore actual evidence that deflates their conclusions.

And, along with OldMan's citrate example, as erasmus said, there are plenty of examples in the plant world that Daniel still hasn't heard about. This could go on for a while if he wants to continue to get kicked around here.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers

Louis

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Feb. 15 2009,08:38

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.

This is the way we do some science,
Do some science, do some science.
This is the way we do some science,
So early Monday morning.

This is when Dan denies the facts,
Denies the facts, denies the facts.
This is when Dan denies the facts,
So early Tuesday morning.

This is how flowers evolve new things,
Evolve new things, evolve new things.
This is how flowers evolve new things,
So early Wednesday morning.

This is when Dan tries ignorance,
Ignorance, ignorance.
This is when Dan tries ignorance,
So early Thursday morning.

Here are some citrate eating bugs,
Eating bugs, eating bugs.
Here are some citrate eating bugs,
So early Friday morning.

This is when Dan appeals to faith,
Appeals to faith, appeals to faith.
This is when Dan appeals to faith,
So early Saturday morning.

This is the way we get pissed off,
Get pissed off, get pissed off.
This is the way we get pissed off,
So early Sunday morning.

With apologies to scansion, verse, doggerel and poetry everywhere

Louis

--------------
Bye.

Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

Posted: Feb. 15 2009,10:05

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 15 2009,15:38)

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.

This is the way we do some science,
Do some science, do some science.
This is the way we do some science,
So early Monday morning.

This is when Dan denies the facts,
Denies the facts, denies the facts.
This is when Dan denies the facts,
So early Tuesday morning.

This is how flowers evolve new things,
Evolve new things, evolve new things.
This is how flowers evolve new things,
So early Wednesday morning.

This is when Dan tries ignorance,
Ignorance, ignorance.
This is when Dan tries ignorance,
So early Thursday morning.

Here are some citrate eating bugs,
Eating bugs, eating bugs.
Here are some citrate eating bugs,
So early Friday morning.

This is when Dan appeals to faith,
Appeals to faith, appeals to faith.
This is when Dan appeals to faith,
So early Saturday morning.

This is the way we get pissed off,
Get pissed off, get pissed off.
This is the way we get pissed off,
So early Sunday morning.

With apologies to scansion, verse, doggerel and poetry everywhere

Louis

Beautiful, just beautiful! *dabs eyes*

But we don't care 'cos Dan's at church,
Dan's at church, Dan's at church.
But we don't care 'cos Dan's at church,
So early Sunday morning.

Sorry, I had to bring that verse...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

Louis

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Feb. 15 2009,10:13

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 15 2009,16:05)

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 15 2009,15:38)

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.

This is the way we do some science,
Do some science, do some science.
This is the way we do some science,
So early Monday morning.

This is when Dan denies the facts,
Denies the facts, denies the facts.
This is when Dan denies the facts,
So early Tuesday morning.

This is how flowers evolve new things,
Evolve new things, evolve new things.
This is how flowers evolve new things,
So early Wednesday morning.

This is when Dan tries ignorance,
Ignorance, ignorance.
This is when Dan tries ignorance,
So early Thursday morning.

Here are some citrate eating bugs,
Eating bugs, eating bugs.
Here are some citrate eating bugs,
So early Friday morning.

This is when Dan appeals to faith,
Appeals to faith, appeals to faith.
This is when Dan appeals to faith,
So early Saturday morning.

This is the way we get pissed off,
Get pissed off, get pissed off.
This is the way we get pissed off,
So early Sunday morning.

With apologies to scansion, verse, doggerel and poetry everywhere

Louis

Beautiful, just beautiful! *dabs eyes*

But we don't care 'cos Dan's at church,
Dan's at church, Dan's at church.
But we don't care 'cos Dan's at church,
So early Sunday morning.

Sorry, I had to bring that verse...

Nice!

I avoided bringing in "church" in the last verse, deliberately removing it in fact. Denial's church attendance is almost irrelevant. What isn't irrelevant is how Denial defends what he learns at church: appeals to prejudice, personal incredulity, common prejudice, ignorance, mystery etc. It's the same shit, just a different day.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

Posted: Feb. 15 2009,10:25

I would probably have avoided the allusion as well, but the simple fact that his ideas and reactions here come from "church", it somewhat becomes relevant, at least I think.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

Louis

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Feb. 15 2009,11:23

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 15 2009,16:25)

I would probably have avoided the allusion as well, but the simple fact that his ideas and reactions here come from "church", it somewhat becomes relevant, at least I think.

I would agree, but church attendance is a necessary, not sufficient, prerequisite. ;-)

Louis

P.S. I think this is rather relevant to Denial's issues.

--------------
Bye.

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Feb. 15 2009,18:44

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 14 2009,17:53)

As I look at Danny's new avatar, I have to wonder if he's bumped into AFDave lately.

HA HA THIS IS DANIEL:

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

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Feb. 15 2009,19:11

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 14 2009,18:14)

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2009,19:24)

As near as I can tell, the evolution of this new feature began when there was some kind of genetic rearrangement due to polyploidy. As you know however, that's just the beginning. I don't know the exact genetic rearrangements, nor do I know which genes were expressed and why, nor do I know the makeup of the genes and the epigenetic factors involved in the production of the new feature, nor any of the metabolic factors involved, the biochemical pathways, their enzymes and their regulation. I know none of this. I know one thing however - all of this worked itself out in one single evolutionary step. That's a lot! The fact that this is a repeatable phenomenon where the above factors work themselves out every time leads me to believe that this is a either a normal reproductive event for plants, or, an evolutionary event with no random element whatsoever. Care to choose?

I called it "recombination" but I was wrong. I should have likened it to recombination - since it works in a similar manner - except for the number of chromosomes.

This is all pretty neat and tidy - don't you think? A new morphological feature with all of its many complex biochemical processes just falling into place. So, do you think evolution normally works this way? It sure seems a lot more like the "unfolding of pre-existing rudiments" than "selection acting on random variation" - wouldn't you say?

(Now which part of this will you snip and ignore?)

I won't snip and ignore any of it except for the irrelevant bits. Which would be almost all of it.

Your challenge was to show you a novel biological system where the immediate precursors are known. I did that. Note that this challenge does not include any stipulations about mechanism, so I will ignore that. Nor did you stipulate if this had to be "normal", or "common", so I can ignore that. Nor did you say that I had to prove that "evolution normally works that way", or not. You asked for a single example; that is the goal post we should be concentrating on. Why don't you try harder to do that?

Furthermore, if you had actually READ those papers rather than comb through them for something to hang your dunce cap on, you would know that there is absolutely NO evidence for "some kind of genetic rearrangement due to polypoloidy". if you actually understood any biology, you would be able to deduce that from the reading. Since you know absolutely no biology, you are pulling (again) strawmen out of your rectum.

So, back to the original question which you are avoiding.

Please tell me WHY this is not an example of a novel biological system where we know the immediate precursors. Don't hand-wave about mechanisms, or hormalcy, or repeatability, or any of those other idiotic parameters that you have erected post facto. Tell me WHY this is not an answer to your challenge.

If you can't do that, perhaps you should just shut up about it.

It is a novel biological system where the immediate precursors are known. If that's all you want from me, then there it is. If you read back through my posts however, I never said that it wasn't. What I was disputing was whether this novel feature was a normal result of plant crosses or if it was the "evolution" of a new feature. I was not disputing the "novelness" of the feature, nor was I disputing the fact that the parents are known, I was only concerned with the mechanisms by which such novel features are born. You don't want to discuss mechanisms or anything else related to this. All you want to do is say you met one of my challenges. Well hooray for you! You met one of my challenges. (Don't stop reading here or snip the rest!) If you remember though, the specific challenge involved an evolutionary pathway for a novel biological feature. The challenge was to find the immediate precursor, then go back one more step - so that we can build an agreed upon evolutionary pathway. The challenge assumed there would be many steps. You all whined endlessly about how it would be impossible to retrace the specific steps for the evolution of a new feature because it takes millions of years, involves countless mutations, and other assorted excuses. Now you cite an example that requires only one step! Geez. I guess evolutionary pathways are remarkably easy to trace after all! You guys should be able to knock out the E. coli aminosynthesis pathway before dinner! Unless of course, this is not a typical example of the kind of evolution you claim built most biological features. If that's the case, I can only assume you're just trying to pull a fast one to show off for your friends.

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

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Feb. 15 2009,19:22

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 14 2009,18:13)

Lest we forget:

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 12 2009,19:07)

Bill, I'll admit that I'm prejudiced when it comes to human ancestry. I don't want us to be descended from apes, so I need extra convincing when it comes to that. It's my bias. I'm not sure how we fit into the picture re: evolution. I'd like to believe we are a special creation of God, but I'm not wed to the idea.

Wishing something not to be true is NOT a basis for concluding that it is not true, or even unlikely to be true. I gather from your response that you have no basis for doubting that human beings and other great apes share a common ancestor other than your wishes and biases. The science is absolutely clear, however: human beings share common ancestry with the great apes (most recently with chimps and bonobos).

Quote

As for your other questions: Common ancestry is compatible with front-loaded evolution.

My point is that front-loading is irrelevant to the emergence of humanity IF human beings did not descend from SOME ancestor species or other.

Quote

As for the "immediate precursor", I don't think you understand what I mean by that. I'm asking for the immediate precursor to an extant biological system - with the evolutionary path between them.

I don't think you understand what you have already conceded. If you agree that there is no basis for reasonable doubt that bonobos and chimpanzees (which surely themselves meet the definition of "complex biological systems") share a common ancestor, then you are stating that there is no reasonable doubt that a) there was such a precursor, and b) both populations progressed from that ancestral form to the organisms we see today by means of an unbroken succession of individuals reproducing over the intervening 2.5 million years, culminating in the organisms we know today.

Quote

It's not enough to just point to something and say that it's the immediate precursor. The two must be connected by a real pathway.

Not enough for what? Your statement that there can be no reasonable doubt of chimp-bonobo common ancestry does all the work that needs to be done. You've already conceded everything important in this discussion, as above. Of course we would like to know more about both that precursor and those intermediates, but the soundness of this inference (of precursor and intermediates progressing to the systems we observe today) depends in no way upon those additional findings.

Bill,

The only question worthy of discussion regarding this issue is the question of MECHANISM. You seem to be missing that point. Let's say I accept common ancestry in total. That does not change the fact that science can't tell me HOW we - or any other species - evolved from their common ancestors.

Take Albatrossity's example. If that's typical evolution, then novel features can evolve in one step - pre-regulated, all biosynthetic and metabolic pathways and cycles in place. Is that the mechanism of evolution? If so, I've won the debate on how evolution works. I picked "saltational with big changes in one step", you guys all picked "many untraceable steps".

Do I win? Or do we have some more 'cipherin' to do?

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

jeffox

Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

Posted: Feb. 15 2009,19:29

I may only be a fox, but methinks the following:

Daniel Smith's challenge = goalpost on wheels, new and improved*.

My 2c.

* now with variable height adjusters.

FrankH

Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

Posted: Feb. 15 2009,19:35

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 15 2009,19:22)

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 14 2009,18:13)

Lest we forget:

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 12 2009,19:07)

Bill, I'll admit that I'm prejudiced when it comes to human ancestry. I don't want us to be descended from apes, so I need extra convincing when it comes to that. It's my bias. I'm not sure how we fit into the picture re: evolution. I'd like to believe we are a special creation of God, but I'm not wed to the idea.

Wishing something not to be true is NOT a basis for concluding that it is not true, or even unlikely to be true. I gather from your response that you have no basis for doubting that human beings and other great apes share a common ancestor other than your wishes and biases. The science is absolutely clear, however: human beings share common ancestry with the great apes (most recently with chimps and bonobos).

Quote

As for your other questions: Common ancestry is compatible with front-loaded evolution.

My point is that front-loading is irrelevant to the emergence of humanity IF human beings did not descend from SOME ancestor species or other.

Quote

As for the "immediate precursor", I don't think you understand what I mean by that. I'm asking for the immediate precursor to an extant biological system - with the evolutionary path between them.

I don't think you understand what you have already conceded. If you agree that there is no basis for reasonable doubt that bonobos and chimpanzees (which surely themselves meet the definition of "complex biological systems") share a common ancestor, then you are stating that there is no reasonable doubt that a) there was such a precursor, and b) both populations progressed from that ancestral form to the organisms we see today by means of an unbroken succession of individuals reproducing over the intervening 2.5 million years, culminating in the organisms we know today.

Quote

It's not enough to just point to something and say that it's the immediate precursor. The two must be connected by a real pathway.

Not enough for what? Your statement that there can be no reasonable doubt of chimp-bonobo common ancestry does all the work that needs to be done. You've already conceded everything important in this discussion, as above. Of course we would like to know more about both that precursor and those intermediates, but the soundness of this inference (of precursor and intermediates progressing to the systems we observe today) depends in no way upon those additional findings.

Bill,

The only question worthy of discussion regarding this issue is the question of MECHANISM. You seem to be missing that point. Let's say I accept common ancestry in total. That does not change the fact that science can't tell me HOW we - or any other species - evolved from their common ancestors.

Take Albatrossity's example. If that's typical evolution, then novel features can evolve in one step - pre-regulated, all biosynthetic and metabolic pathways and cycles in place. Is that the mechanism of evolution? If so, I've won the debate on how evolution works. I picked "saltational with big changes in one step", you guys all picked "many untraceable steps".

Do I win? Or do we have some more 'cipherin' to do?

I'm interested in hearing why you think that evolution, ie the change of allele frequency over time, can't be decided by:

1: genetic drift

2: errors in duplication

3: selection of traits that allow those with the mutation to pass them on, etc.

On a side note, you postulate a designer, correct?

Could there be more than one designer? What do you know about the designer? I am interested as if an archeologist were to discover the remnants of some hereto unknown civilization via the artifacts they've left behind, they try and piece together the society that made them.

Why is ID so quiet on that point?

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

Reciprocating Bill

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: Feb. 15 2009,20:10

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 15 2009,20:22)

The only question worthy of discussion regarding this issue is the question of MECHANISM.

No, your request was thus:

"It's easy to point to something that works, and works well, and postulate that such a system would be advantageous and selected for...The hard part is finding the precursors - those systems that necessarily didn't work as well in the environment - and finding the path from there to the existing, refined system."*

"What I am asking for is the immediate precursor to an extant biological system - with the evolutionary path between them."

There is nothing in these particular requests vis mechanisms. When you state that there is no basis for reasonable doubt of common ancestry between chimps and bonobos, you state that there is no reasonable doubt regarding the fact that 1) there once existed a precursor to these species and 2) an unbroken evolutionary pathway from that precursor to two novel species (chimps and bonobos) must have existed. For the purposes of this discussion you have conceded your request, above.

Quote

Let's say I accept common ancestry in total. That does not change the fact that science can't tell me HOW we - or any other species - evolved from their common ancestors.

Science tells you that variation and selection, reflecting countless contingent events, account for those pathways of descent, including the pathway culminating in Homo sapiens sapiens. Science speaks, but your biases and wishes render you unwilling to listen due to your overvalued attachment to human exceptionalism, as you stated above. Suit yourself.

You did not respond to my other questions:

What basis do you have for excluding human beings from otherwise universal common descent other than your wishes and biases?

In what way is frontloading relevant to the emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens absent human descent from an ancestor species ("special creation")?

* ETA: "those systems that necessarily didn't work as well in the environment" expresses a misbegotten understanding of natural selection. It does not follow that precursor organisms "worked less well in the environment." Selection pressures often arise from changing environments; organisms once beautifully adapted to their environments becomes less so as a result of those changes, resulting in increased selection pressures. Successor species are not "superior" or better adapted in some absolute sense; rather, they are better adapted to their later, modified environments.

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

"Hereâ€™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

Posted: Feb. 15 2009,22:00

no explanation will be considered that does not describe the entire process, including the xyz coordinates of all states of matter interacting during the process, along with an ontological narrative for the existence of said units of matter that summarily proves that atheists are wrong because Jehovah exists.

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

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Feb. 16 2009,06:25

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 15 2009,19:11)

It is a novel biological system where the immediate precursors are known. If that's all you want from me, then there it is. If you read back through my posts however, I never said that it wasn't. What I was disputing was whether this novel feature was a normal result of plant crosses or if it was the "evolution" of a new feature. I was not disputing the "novelness" of the feature, nor was I disputing the fact that the parents are known, I was only concerned with the mechanisms by which such novel features are born. You don't want to discuss mechanisms or anything else related to this. All you want to do is say you met one of my challenges. Well hooray for you! You met one of my challenges. (Don't stop reading here or snip the rest!) If you remember though, the specific challenge involved an evolutionary pathway for a novel biological feature. The challenge was to find the immediate precursor, then go back one more step - so that we can build an agreed upon evolutionary pathway. The challenge assumed there would be many steps. You all whined endlessly about how it would be impossible to retrace the specific steps for the evolution of a new feature because it takes millions of years, involves countless mutations, and other assorted excuses. Now you cite an example that requires only one step! Geez. I guess evolutionary pathways are remarkably easy to trace after all! You guys should be able to knock out the E. coli aminosynthesis pathway before dinner! Unless of course, this is not a typical example of the kind of evolution you claim built most biological features. If that's the case, I can only assume you're just trying to pull a fast one to show off for your friends.

No, Daniel. This is what you said.

"What I am asking for is the immediate precursor to an extant biological system - with the evolutionary path between them."

And you got it.

Game, set, match.

Oh, BTW, there is more than one step in this pathway. As you would know if you actually read those papers. The F1 crosses made in the lab have different flower morphologies, and are mostly sterile. That single step isn't enough; the final products (two new species) are not just mere collections of both sets of genes. That single step is part of the process, but not the only part, as you seem to think in your simple-minded approach to all things biological. The Soltis group has spent a fair bit of time working out how these plants came to be. Too bad you can't be bothered to read about that before you spout off and move your goalposts again.

Finally, if you are "only concerned about mechanisms", why have you consistently failed to give us the mechanisms behind your "god theory"? How many steps does it take, using think-poof, to get from Lucy to you? Since you admit that I've "met one of your challenges", how about meeting this one for me?

Quit wasting electrons here, hypocrite.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers

Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

Posted: Feb. 16 2009,06:33

As the would say, Bloodhound Gang "you can't teach an old god new tricks".

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

Posted: Feb. 16 2009,06:34

Damn! Missed my edit! I can has edit buttun?

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

Posted: Feb. 16 2009,06:39

Of course, I meant "as the Bloodhound gang would say"...

Edit buttun? Pleeease?

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

Tracy P. Hamilton

Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

Posted: Feb. 16 2009,11:30

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 16 2009,06:39)

Of course, I meant "as the Bloodhound gang would say"...

Edit buttun? Pleeease?

No. Bad Dog! :angry:

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

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

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

Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

Posted: Feb. 16 2009,11:41

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Feb. 16 2009,18:30)

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 16 2009,06:39)

Of course, I meant "as the Bloodhound gang would say"...

Edit buttun? Pleeease?

No. Bad Dog! :angry:

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Feb. 16 2009,17:45

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 14 2009,18:43)

no random element whatosever? well fuck me.

i suppose you know exactly what causes this sort of event in plants then. because, to the rest of us that don't have God Shades 2.0 or Satan Blockers or whatever lens you are privy to that the entirety of modern biological investigation is lacking, it sure as hell seems to be random.

it may be more prevalent in certain phylogenetic groups but that's not helping you any here, we have theoretical explanations for that that have an evolutionary basis and not anything based on your misunderstanding or mangling of Schindewolf et al

I'm not helping you out here on that one, until you drop this stupid goal post moving game and start acting like a man and admit that your demand has been met. i've got a bagful of these examples, O Petulant One, but I'm going to enjoy slapping you with them one at a time. and I'm not done with this one yet. what makes this non-random?

If it's a truly random event, would it be repeatable at the frequency we're seeing?

Tragopogon miscellus has formed as many as 20 times and T. mirus, 12 times, in eastern Washington and Idaho in only the past 60–70 years.

These speciation events are recurrent: the same species is forming the same way, numerous times. Does this fit any definition of "random"?

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

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Feb. 16 2009,18:09

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 15 2009,18:10)

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 15 2009,20:22)

The only question worthy of discussion regarding this issue is the question of MECHANISM.

No, your request was thus:

"It's easy to point to something that works, and works well, and postulate that such a system would be advantageous and selected for...The hard part is finding the precursors - those systems that necessarily didn't work as well in the environment - and finding the path from there to the existing, refined system."*

"What I am asking for is the immediate precursor to an extant biological system - with the evolutionary path between them."

There is nothing in these particular requests vis mechanisms. When you state that there is no basis for reasonable doubt of common ancestry between chimps and bonobos, you state that there is no reasonable doubt regarding the fact that 1) there once existed a precursor to these species and 2) an unbroken evolutionary pathway from that precursor to two novel species (chimps and bonobos) must have existed. For the purposes of this discussion you have conceded your request, above.

Except the part about the evolutionary path. I want to know what it is (that involves mechanism). You're still just pointing to two creatures and saying "connect the dots".

Quote

Let's say I accept common ancestry in total. That does not change the fact that science can't tell me HOW we - or any other species - evolved from their common ancestors.

Science tells you that variation and selection, reflecting countless contingent events, account for those pathways of descent, including the pathway culminating in Homo sapiens sapiens. Science speaks, but your biases and wishes render you unwilling to listen due to your overvalued attachment to human exceptionalism, as you stated above. Suit yourself.

Science "speaks". Science "tells me" that "variation and selection, reflecting countless contingent events, account for those pathways of descent". Handwaving anyone? Science has none of these pathways worked out. Science does not know whether "variation and selection" or "saltational evolution" produced one species from another. Science can not know the specific mechanism that caused these evolutionary events until science knows exactly what the changes were and when and how they occurred.

Take Albatrossity's flowers for example. If they were discovered centuries from now - when the exact number of "contingent events" necessary to produce the morphological feature in question was unknown - do you think science would be able to tell whether it was one event or many?

Quote

You did not respond to my other questions:

What basis do you have for excluding human beings from otherwise universal common descent other than your wishes and biases?

Things such as speech, language, culture, design, learning potential - in short the things that set us apart from apes.

Quote

In what way is frontloading relevant to the emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens absent human descent from an ancestor species ("special creation")?

It wouldn't be if we were a special creation. If we are not, then it is relevant.

Quote

* ETA: "those systems that necessarily didn't work as well in the environment" expresses a misbegotten understanding of natural selection. It does not follow that precursor organisms "worked less well in the environment." Selection pressures often arise from changing environments; organisms once beautifully adapted to their environments becomes less so as a result of those changes, resulting in increased selection pressures. Successor species are not "superior" or better adapted in some absolute sense; rather, they are better adapted to their later, modified environments.

Those are nice stories Bill, got any data to back them up?

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

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Feb. 16 2009,18:50

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 14 2009,18:14)

Furthermore, if you had actually READ those papers rather than comb through them for something to hang your dunce cap on, you would know that there is absolutely NO evidence for "some kind of genetic rearrangement due to polypoloidy".

I'm not sure you read the papers Albatrossity. If you had, you'd also know that they are positing genetic rearrangement as part of the polyploid process.

Look at Fig 2 in this paper: "Polyploidy: recurrent formation and genome evolution", by Douglas E. Soltis and Pamela S. Soltis.

It is a diagram contrasting the traditional view of polyploidy with the revised view. Notice how often they refer to genetic rearrangements? (It helps to look at the picture, but here's the caption):

Quote

Fig. 2. Comparison of (a) traditional view of genomic evolution subsequent to polyploid formation with (b) new or revised view. The classic view of genome evolution suggested that interactions between the parental genomes of an allopolyploid were minimal. Recently, it has become apparent that both intra- as well as intergenomic rearrangements occur. (b) In this example, arrows indicate genomic rearrangements – intragenomic rearrangements are represented by hatched areas on chromosomes from ‘diploid B’; intergenomic rearrangements are represented by translocation of ‘black’ or ‘white’ chromosomal segments between the genomes of ‘diploid A’ and ‘diploid B’. The degree of genomic change can also be influenced by cytoplasmic–nuclear interactions. In a newly formed allopolyploid, there are adverse interactions between the nuclear genome contributed by the male parental diploid and both the nuclear and cytoplasmic genomes of the female parental diploid; genome adjustments must occur to restore nuclear– cytoplasmic compatibility. Available data suggest that the nuclear genome of maternal origin experiences less change than does the paternal nuclear genome. Other evidence implicates transposable elements in the genome reorganization that has been detected in polyploids.

So you see Albatrossity - you were wrong about that. It would seem that you are working from the traditional view of polyploidy rather than the revised view that Soltis and Soltis now champion.

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

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Feb. 16 2009,19:06

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,18:50)

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 14 2009,18:14)

Furthermore, if you had actually READ those papers rather than comb through them for something to hang your dunce cap on, you would know that there is absolutely NO evidence for "some kind of genetic rearrangement due to polypoloidy".

I'm not sure you read the papers Albatrossity. If you had, you'd also know that they are positing genetic rearrangement as part of the polyploid process.

Nice try, dipshit. Read your words again, and this time pretend that you are a scientist. What part of what they report is "due to polyploidy"? In common parlance, "due to" implies a causal relationship. How does polyploidy cause rearrangements? What mechanism (your favorite word!) is involved in this causality? Did SchindewolfBergDavison or one of their many acolytes predict this?

Point #2 involves your hypocrisy. In your reply to R. Bill, you wrote

Quote

Except the part about the evolutionary path. I want to know what it is (that involves mechanism).

Yet you can't give us a mechanism for think-poof.

Point #3. Answer the question that you ignored from my last comment

How many steps does it take, using think-poof, to get from Lucy to you? Since you admit that I've "met one of your challenges", how about meeting this one for me?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers

khan

Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

Posted: Feb. 16 2009,19:13

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,19:50)

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 14 2009,18:14)

Furthermore, if you had actually READ those papers rather than comb through them for something to hang your dunce cap on, you would know that there is absolutely NO evidence for "some kind of genetic rearrangement due to polypoloidy".

I'm not sure you read the papers Albatrossity. If you had, you'd also know that they are positing genetic rearrangement as part of the polyploid process.

Look at Fig 2 in this paper: "Polyploidy: recurrent formation and genome evolution", by Douglas E. Soltis and Pamela S. Soltis.

It is a diagram contrasting the traditional view of polyploidy with the revised view. Notice how often they refer to genetic rearrangements? (It helps to look at the picture, but here's the caption):

Quote

Fig. 2. Comparison of (a) traditional view of genomic evolution subsequent to polyploid formation with (b) new or revised view. The classic view of genome evolution suggested that interactions between the parental genomes of an allopolyploid were minimal. Recently, it has become apparent that both intra- as well as intergenomic rearrangements occur. (b) In this example, arrows indicate genomic rearrangements – intragenomic rearrangements are represented by hatched areas on chromosomes from ‘diploid B’; intergenomic rearrangements are represented by translocation of ‘black’ or ‘white’ chromosomal segments between the genomes of ‘diploid A’ and ‘diploid B’. The degree of genomic change can also be influenced by cytoplasmic–nuclear interactions. In a newly formed allopolyploid, there are adverse interactions between the nuclear genome contributed by the male parental diploid and both the nuclear and cytoplasmic genomes of the female parental diploid; genome adjustments must occur to restore nuclear– cytoplasmic compatibility. Available data suggest that the nuclear genome of maternal origin experiences less change than does the paternal nuclear genome. Other evidence implicates transposable elements in the genome reorganization that has been detected in polyploids.

So you see Albatrossity - you were wrong about that. It would seem that you are working from the traditional view of polyploidy rather than the revised view that Soltis and Soltis now champion.

It's so cute when the tards 'explain' science to the scientists.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

Erasmus, FCD

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007