Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Evolution of the horse; a problem for Darwinism?

Pages: (58) < ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... >

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2007,20:09    . Quote mutation of DNA is directed by some mechanisms that I am not aware of. Do you know anything about these mechanisms? do you?  RB has postulated the existence of tiny little dudes called 'Behes' that snip away at Things with directions from Thing-Think upstairs.  Is that how you view evolution?   of course random means unplanned, random with respect to an organism's 'need'.   of course it's not 'random' as in 'anyfuckingthingcouldhappenhere'. what can happen is constrained by what has happened.  what can happen is constrained by what could happen.  read gould and the river analogy.  and stop being redundantly ignorant -------------- 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

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2007,22:55    Quote It could be that inadvertently I was brainwashed or misunderstood the following passage from Wikipedia about adaptation:   ?Although the vast majority of genetic variants arising from errors of DNA replication or recombination do not confer any advantage to an individual organism, the multitude of variation contained within the collective genomes of a species provides much material for natural selection to work upon allowing many adaptations to be manifest.? If ?errors of DNA replication or recombination? are not random, the only option remains is that mutation of DNA is directed by some mechanisms that I am not aware of. Do you know anything about these mechanisms? The anwswer to that question was right there in what you quoted: "provides much material for natural selection to work upon allowing many adaptations to be manifest". Henry

Richard Simons Posts: 425 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,08:22    Quote If  “errors of DNA replication or recombination” are not random, the only option remains is that mutation of DNA is directed by some mechanisms that I am not aware of. No. Errors of DNA replication are not random because some changes are easier to make than others. There is no evidence of any directing agency, either in the DNA changes that occur or in the resulting changes to the phenotype (if any). -------------- All sweeping statements are wrong.

swbarnes2 Posts: 78 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,11:42    Quote (Mark Iosim @ Oct. 29 2007,19:57) Also From Wikipedia: “There are three basic mechanisms of evolutionary change: natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow. Natural selection favors genes that improve capacity for survival and reproduction.” The authors of this articles forgot to include the main mechanism of evolutionary change that is called UNKNOWN. And absence of this admission is a very relevant to subject of dishonesty. First of all, Wikipedia is hardly the be-all-end-all of evolutionary theory.  It's just a Wiki. What defines a scientific theory is what's written in the peer-reviewed journal articles.   If you think that the Wiki is wrong, find us a peer-reviewed paper that you think supports your case. For instance, point us to the paper in which something is obsserved that is not explicable by the current theory. It would be preferable to use a journal like PLOS or PNAS, because then everyone can read along, but if the paper is somewhere else, I'm sure that someone here will be able to read it and comment on it. Second, just because you are unhappy with what you think the current theory of evolution is doesn't mean that there is a serious void in the current theory. Certainly, you just saying so with absolutely no evidence is convincing to absolutely no one. You want to impress us?  Stop citing Wikis, start reading and citing peer-reviewed papers.

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,12:00    Erasmus       Quote what can happen is constrained by what has happened.  what can happen is constrained by what could happen.  read gould and the river analogy.  and stop being redundantly ignorant. Yes, if you like to be bored and sleepy read Gould. If you want something intelligent read Franz Heikertinger and especially Adolf Portmann and Zdenek Neubauer. These prominent scientists published in peer-reviewed journals - the last one in Nature - and were/are no way darwinists. Evolution is a process little bit more complicated as your weird idea how  natural selection created human or mimicry of ants. Your sentence above: "what can happen is constrained by what has happened " is an extraordinary vague darwinian nonsense. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,12:10    Vicky Quote Your sentence above: "what can happen is constrained by what has happened " is an extraordinary vague darwinian nonsense. I suppose we could substitute your preference: -------------- 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

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,12:29    I looked up Neubauer.  Wonder why none of his 'Rivista' articles have ever been cited? Could it be because the magical 'morphogenetic field' is a kooky harebrained idea with no evidence behind this? Hasn't PZ spanked you enough about this? -------------- 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

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,12:35    Martin are you the translator for the wiki german page into english? Quote Another time and again in Port's research and publications occurring theme is the external shape of animals, particularly in his work "The animal shape", "camouflage in the animal kingdom" and "New Ways of biology." Portland man is here already to his lifetime hotly disputed theory that the design of the surface is not readily from their adaptive value annulled. S His empirically and theoretically well criticism of extremely adaptionistischen ideas is currently also for those left to deal with his concept of "presentation value" is not liked. -------------- 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

VMartin Posts: 525 Joined: Nov. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,12:53    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 30 2007,12:29) I looked up Neubauer.  Wonder why none of his 'Rivista' articles have ever been cited? Could it be because the magical 'morphogenetic field' is a kooky harebrained idea with no evidence behind this? Hasn't PZ spanked you enough about this? I suppose your knowledge of foreign languages other than English is limited. Otherwise you would read some materials before babbling nonsense about professor Zdenek Neubauer. -------------- I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.- Charles Darwin

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,13:00    If it was worth a damn, in 2007, it would be translated.  This is not a monk growing peas here. Martin, is there a material explanation for your 'morphic fields'?  If not, why do you disagree with your german structuralist predecessors who were strongly convinced that there WAS a material explanation? Gould is not as hard on them as he could have been.  I wonder if you understand why that is. More of Vicky's shenanigans, elsewhere, same effect -------------- 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

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,13:52    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 28 2007,16:16)   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 28 2007,15:22) Back to another prediction I made:           Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 30 2007,15:32) The genetic code will be found to be more sophisticated and more robust than previously thought. Embedded and overlapping coding will be found to be more prevalent than previously thought. Not really. It's like saying "there is more to find out" and when more is found out, it confirms your prediction. Make a specific prediction, and then maybe crow about it when it comes true. I don't see the word "overlapping" in there. You must've missed it. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,13:59    Quote (JAM @ Oct. 29 2007,00:10) Random mutation doesn't do it by itself. You've bought into the lie that evolution is random, just because a part of it (mutation) is random only in a very limited way (wrt fitness). Why would you buy into such an obvious lie? You're right.  Evolution is not random. Quote How do you explain the fact that starting with a random sequence, we can use mutation and selection to evolve a function in real time? My guess is that it has to do with the selection criteria.  With a specific goal in mind, random solutions can be consecutively selected until they actually build something useful. The main reason these types of selection algorithms work is because they select for potential. Natural selection is not so kind. -------------- "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

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,14:18    Is it just me, or are you Daniel trying to force God into some real science? I mean when you say things like it's your "guess" that structures are being designed by evolution, aren't you just saying that since the general direction of evolution after stages a and b seems to be towards z, therefore something designed it to be z? Seems like a whole lot of straw clutching there. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,14:19    Quote My guess is that it has to do with the selection criteria.  With a specific goal in mind, random solutions can be consecutively selected until they actually build something useful. The main reason these types of selection algorithms work is because they select for potential. Natural selection is not so kind. You're wrong, Daniel. See here and here for an object lesson in Evolutionary Computation. -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,14:22    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 30 2007,13:52) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 28 2007,16:16)   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 28 2007,15:22) Back to another prediction I made:             Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 30 2007,15:32) The genetic code will be found to be more sophisticated and more robust than previously thought. Embedded and overlapping coding will be found to be more prevalent than previously thought. Not really. It's like saying "there is more to find out" and when more is found out, it confirms your prediction. Make a specific prediction, and then maybe crow about it when it comes true. I don't see the word "overlapping" in there. You must've missed it. Permalink? Not that I don't trust you or anything, but I am willing to be proven wrong. -------------- 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

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,15:05    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 30 2007,13:59)   Quote How do you explain the fact that starting with a random sequence, we can use mutation and selection to evolve a function in real time? My guess is that it has to do with the selection criteria. There was a single criterion in the case to which I'm referring: reproduction. Does that help?   Quote With a specific goal in mind, random solutions can be consecutively selected until they actually build something useful. But there was no specific goal in this case, just reproduction.   Quote The main reason these types of selection algorithms work is because they select for potential. There was no selection for potential in this case. I'm amazed at the way you view your speculations as more relevant than reality.   Quote Natural selection is not so kind. This was no different, with the exception of the elimination of competition from outside the initial pool. How do you explain it? More importantly, why would you attempt to explain it when you don't have a clue to begin with?

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,18:20    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Oct. 30 2007,14:18) Is it just me, or are you Daniel trying to force God into some real science? I mean when you say things like it's your "guess" that structures are being designed by evolution, aren't you just saying that since the general direction of evolution after stages a and b seems to be towards z, therefore something designed it to be z? Seems like a whole lot of straw clutching there. I'm talking about computer simulations - not real evolution. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,18:25    Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Oct. 30 2007,14:19) Quote My guess is that it has to do with the selection criteria.  With a specific goal in mind, random solutions can be consecutively selected until they actually build something useful. The main reason these types of selection algorithms work is because they select for potential. Natural selection is not so kind. You're wrong, Daniel. See here and here for an object lesson in Evolutionary Computation. He doesn't give us his selection algorithm, so how can we know if it selects for potential? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,18:27    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 30 2007,14:22) Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 30 2007,13:52) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 28 2007,16:16)     Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 28 2007,15:22) Back to another prediction I made:             Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 30 2007,15:32) The genetic code will be found to be more sophisticated and more robust than previously thought. Embedded and overlapping coding will be found to be more prevalent than previously thought. Not really. It's like saying "there is more to find out" and when more is found out, it confirms your prediction. Make a specific prediction, and then maybe crow about it when it comes true. I don't see the word "overlapping" in there. You must've missed it. Permalink? Not that I don't trust you or anything, but I am willing to be proven wrong. Permalink -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,18:35    Quote (JAM @ Oct. 30 2007,15:05)   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 30 2007,13:59)       Quote How do you explain the fact that starting with a random sequence, we can use mutation and selection to evolve a function in real time? My guess is that it has to do with the selection criteria. There was a single criterion in the case to which I'm referring: reproduction. Does that help?       Quote With a specific goal in mind, random solutions can be consecutively selected until they actually build something useful. But there was no specific goal in this case, just reproduction.     Quote The main reason these types of selection algorithms work is because they select for potential. There was no selection for potential in this case. I'm amazed at the way you view your speculations as more relevant than reality.       Quote Natural selection is not so kind. This was no different, with the exception of the elimination of competition from outside the initial pool. How do you explain it? More importantly, why would you attempt to explain it when you don't have a clue to begin with? The more you say, the less I understand you. If you want specific, detailed answers, why don't you try starting with a specific example - rather than a vague question? This: Quote How do you explain the fact that starting with a random sequence, we can use mutation and selection to evolve a function in real time? Gives us no information.  I was forced to speculate that you were referring to computer simulations of evolution.  Is that what you were talking about?  Or were you referring to something else?  If a simulation, please show me the info - including the selection algorithm - so I can get a better idea how it works.   If you're not willing to give any more info, then be satisfied with general answers. -------------- "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

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,18:35    Here you go Daniel. Find me the potential. FORTRAN Code for Dave Thomas's Steiner Tree GA -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,18:38    Note also, that in a strict and very real sense these are not "simulations of evolution." GA's like these we are speaking of are instantiations of real, no-kidding, actual Darwinian processes. Hope that clears up your misunderstanding of JAM's post. -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,19:08    More confirmation: From the paper, "Unbiased Mapping of Transcription Factor Binding Sites along Human Chromosomes 21 and 22 Points to Widespread Regulation of Noncoding RNAs" link           Quote To further explore properties of the transcriptome and to identify functional attributes of the noncoding transcripts, binding sites for a collection of transcription factors have been mapped along chromosomes 21 and 22 in an unbiased approach, as a means of identifying possible regulatory regions for a wide variety of cellular RNAs. Interestingly, only 22% of the transcription factor binding sites (TFBS) are located at the canonical 5? termini of well-characterized protein-coding genes, while 36% lie within of immediately 3? to well-characterized genes and are significantly correlated with noncoding RNAs. A number of these noncoding RNAs are regulated in response to retinoic acid stimulation, and coregulation of overlapping pairs of protein-coding and noncoding RNAs occurs at a frequency significantly greater than chance. These data point to evidence that protein coding and noncoding genes have similar functional attributes regarding (1) the existence of common transcription factors in their promoter regions and (2) their ability to respond to environmental and developmental conditions, which together suggest that that they may be controlled by the same transcriptional regulatory machinery. These functional attributes argue against the idea that these noncoding RNAs merely represent transcriptional noise, but instead suggest that they may have biological functions. (my emphasis) And...         Quote Additionally, overlapping novel transcripts from the genes encoding nuclear protein UBASH3A (Supplemental Figures S2A and S2B), phosphatidylinositol transfer-like protein SEC14L2 (Supplemental Figures S2C and S2D), TBC/rabGAP domain protein EPI64 (Supplemental Figures S2E and S2F), guanine-nucleotide exchange factor TIAM1 (Supplemental Figures S2G and S2H), KIAA0376 protein (Supplemental Figures S2I and S2J), and GTSE1 (Supplemental Figures S2K and S2L) were verified by RT-PCR and/or Northern blot analyses (Supplemental Figure S3). In many of these cases, the TFBS that are located on the 3? end of the well-characterized gene appear to be located 5? of the overlapping novel transcript, which suggests that these transcripts may be regulated by these factors and in precisely the same way as protein coding genes. (my emphasis) So not only is the myth of "junk DNA" being systematically shattered, but they are also finding evidence that coding and non-coding sequences not only overlap each other, but also share regulatory factors. -------------- "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

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,19:09    Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Oct. 31 2007,18:38) Note also, that in a strict and very real sense these are not "simulations of evolution." GA's like these we are speaking of are instantiations of real, no-kidding, actual Darwinian processes. Hope that clears up your misunderstanding of JAM's post. Actually, I wasn't talking about computers at all, but real biology.

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,19:17    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 31 2007,18:35)   Quote (JAM @ Oct. 30 2007,15:05)       Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 30 2007,13:59)           Quote How do you explain the fact that starting with a random sequence, we can use mutation and selection to evolve a function in real time? My guess is that it has to do with the selection criteria. There was a single criterion in the case to which I'm referring: reproduction. Does that help?           Quote With a specific goal in mind, random solutions can be consecutively selected until they actually build something useful. But there was no specific goal in this case, just reproduction.         Quote The main reason these types of selection algorithms work is because they select for potential. There was no selection for potential in this case. I'm amazed at the way you view your speculations as more relevant than reality.           Quote Natural selection is not so kind. This was no different, with the exception of the elimination of competition from outside the initial pool. How do you explain it? More importantly, why would you attempt to explain it when you don't have a clue to begin with? The more you say, the less I understand you. You have to do that, otherwise you might have to give up your fantasies for the truth. Quote If you want specific, detailed answers, why don't you try starting with a specific example - rather than a vague question? Because there are many such cases. I'm asking for your explanation, and you came back with nothing but false suppositions. Quote This:     Quote How do you explain the fact that starting with a random sequence, we can use mutation and selection to evolve a function in real time? Gives us no information.  I was forced to speculate that you were referring to computer simulations of evolution.  Is that what you were talking about? Not at all! I can see why you would assume that I wasn't talking about actual biology, though. ;-) Why wouldn't you ask before spouting nonsense? Quote Or were you referring to something else? If a simulation, please show me the info - including the selection algorithm - so I can get a better idea how it works. It's biology. You delete a gene with an essential function. You replace it with random sequence. You go through cycles of genetic variation (random wrt fitness) and selection (only reproduction). You end up with a functional sequence that is nothing like the designed/evolved one that it replaced. How do you explain that? Quote If you're not willing to give any more info, then be satisfied with general answers. You didn't give any answers, just false suppositions. You're afraid of the truth. Here's another question: how long does it take to evolve multiple, different, incredibly specific, functional, new protein-protein binding sites, using nothing but genetic variation and selection?

JAM Posts: 517 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,19:26    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 31 2007,19:08) More confirmation: Of what? Did you read this? Quote By combining chromatin immunoprecipitation and high-density oligonucleotide arrays interrogating the [bold]nonrepeat[/bold] genomic sequences of chromosomes 21 and 22 at 35 base pair (bp) resolution (Kapranov et al., 2002), the positions of binding for three human transcription factors (TFs), cMyc, Sp1, and p53, were determined within two cell lines (cMyc and Sp1 in Jurkat, p53 in HCT1116). What does "nonrepeat" mean, Daniel? What proportion of "junk" is repeat, and what proportion is nonrepeat (unique)? Quote So not only is the myth of "junk DNA" being systematically shattered, but they are also finding evidence that coding and non-coding sequences not only overlap each other, but also share regulatory factors. How much DNA was reclassified as something other than the provisional classification of "junk" in this case? What proportion of the genome? Be precise and systematic. What proportion of the genome did they throw out when they only looked at "nonrepeat" sequences? Be precise and systematic. You lie like a rug, Daniel. The fact that you're lying to yourself doesn't excuse your behavior.

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,19:42    Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Oct. 31 2007,18:38) Note also, that in a strict and very real sense these are not "simulations of evolution." GA's like these we are speaking of are instantiations of real, no-kidding, actual Darwinian processes. Therein lies the difference.  "Darwinian processes", when coupled with strict selection criteria (which conform to a specific goal), can take any random sequence and eventually meet that goal. Real Darwinian evolution however, has no goal.  Reproductive fitness is seen as a valid section criteria, but it cannot be the reason for the variety of lifeforms we see.  If reproductive fitness was the goal, nothing beyond bacteria would have ever evolved - since they are probably the fittest reproducers on the planet. So, if you want to postulate a mechanism for evolution, you must show one that is capable of producing vast complexity without a goal. Therein lies the conundrum for your theory. -------------- "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

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,19:57    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 01 2007,01:42) Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Oct. 31 2007,18:38) Note also, that in a strict and very real sense these are not "simulations of evolution." GA's like these we are speaking of are instantiations of real, no-kidding, actual Darwinian processes. Therein lies the difference.  "Darwinian processes", when coupled with strict selection criteria (which conform to a specific goal), can take any random sequence and eventually meet that goal. Real Darwinian evolution however, has no goal.  Reproductive fitness is seen as a valid section criteria, but it cannot be the reason for the variety of lifeforms we see.  If reproductive fitness was the goal, nothing beyond bacteria would have ever evolved - since they are probably the fittest reproducers on the planet. So, if you want to postulate a mechanism for evolution, you must show one that is capable of producing vast complexity without a goal. Therein lies the conundrum for your theory. Errr.....No. They are indeed fittest, but only for their niche. If one happened to spawn various things which put it on a track to (eventually) become multicellular, then these would have distinct advantage, in certain conditions. You can't put all animals on one scale of "fitness", that would be simplistic. And idiotic. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

swbarnes2 Posts: 78 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,20:05    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 31 2007,19:08) So not only is the myth of "junk DNA" being systematically shattered, I'm curious...do you honestly think that the authors who wrote this paper think that they have shattered major parts of the theory of evolution, as you think this paper has? If not, why do you think that we should take your grossly ignorant opnion over theirs?

David Holland Posts: 17 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,21:11    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 31 2007,19:42) Real Darwinian evolution however, has no goal.  Reproductive fitness is seen as a valid section criteria, but it cannot be the reason for the variety of lifeforms we see.  If reproductive fitness was the goal, nothing beyond bacteria would have ever evolved - since they are probably the fittest reproducers on the planet. If I have a petri dish with bacteria that are reproducing once an hour and add something to the petri dish that only reproduces once a day but eats the bacteria, will that new organism flourish? Of course it will. It is exploiting an empty niche in the petri dish. There is more to fitness that speed of reproduction.

Pages: (58) < ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard