pajarito 0
pajarito 0
QuoteQuoteMany think Neanderthal should be regarded as Homo Sapiens.
In parts of Appalachia, it's actually true.
But I digress.
You should see a guy that I work with. His protruding brow ridge is freakin HUGE.
pajarito 0
QuoteThe topic is: "Origin of the species, where do you stand?", so it IS a perfectly valid question.
Ok... Here's my stance for this thread. The NDT is not possible and cannot be proven.
Squeak 17
Quote
Adaptation and Natural Selection as a result of environmental cues happens all the time. This is observable. Transspeciation does not and cannot be shown to occur. Natural Selection always results in a loss of information. It cannot add to the genome. Populations selected become more specialized and less information is available. Evolution (as you would describe it) requires the addition of new information. Not just reorganization, copying error, or mutation. Completely new information.
Natural selection does not add nor remove information, it merely changes how some of the genome codes, via mutation.
99.99% of mutations are deleterious but on rare occassions a mutations confer in an orgamism a better suitability to thrive. this over time can lead to speciation. There are numerous things that can drive speciation, one is island populations, the Galopos Islands are a good example of this.
It really isnt rocket science, and the vast majority of educated clergy that I know fully beive in speciation and evolution. We do however come to loggerheads when the conversation turns to the origins of LIFE.
So far you have done nothing to prove you point, there's nothing magical or mysterious about evolution.
You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?
billvon 2,433
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>How is this trans-speciation?
The two strains drifted so far apart genetically that they can no longer reproduce. That's speciation. Now that they are genetically isolated (i.e. they can no longer share genetic material) they will begin to diverge genetically.
The fruit fly example is boring because while their genome is now quite different, their phenotype (what they look like) is not yet different. They look just like - well - fruit flies. It would take thousands of years for these new species to diverge significantly, even counting how fast they breed.
When such a speciation happens in nature, and the two new species are competing for the same niche, one generally dies off (less well adapted.) When a new organism is introduced into an environment with lots of niches, speciation produces new organisms that fill these new niches. This happens remarkably quickly; when cichlids were introduced into african lakes about a million years ago, they very rapidly speciated and filled the niches with dozens of new species. This is called adaptive radiation.
>Yes… it allows for longer haired dogs to survive over short haired dogs in
>extreme cold environments. The gene for short hair would be more
>detrimental to the survival of the short haired dogs and they would most
>likely die out.
Right. And eventually even the genes that code for short hair would be eliminated from the dog's genome.
> No… it cannot give you a heritable line of traits (even over millennia)
>which can gradually grow wings for the dog so it can fly (I’m not
>predicting this by the way). The possible information for that kind of
>progression is not available.
No one is suggesting that dogs will fly.
Here's a more likely development:
The dog starts evolving warmer fur. Also more fat, a higher metabolism, bigger feet (for snow) and arteries and veins that are closer together in their legs. Close arteries and veins produce a sort of "heat exchanger" effect; warm blood going to the dog's feet is cooled by the cold blood coming back in, which in turn warms the returning blood. There's no intelligence telling the dog to move its arteries and veins closer together. Random changes in the genome produce some dogs with closer blood vessels, some with farther blood vessels. The dogs with closer blood vessels survive more often; the trait is retained.
Now comes along a mutation. One dog has a defective gene that means that the arteries and veins in his leg don't separate at _all_. This would ordinarily be quite a handicap - this makes the circulation in his legs ineffective, resulting in less sensation in his feet, less chance of healing injuries etc.
However, in this environment he doesn't have to feel his feet as much. He's running on snow, not over the desert, so healing isn't as big a problem. And he has an excellent heat exchanger there in his leg. Just one screwed-up gene that made one mistake during his development - but it worked out well for him.
He has descendents. Some have the new mutation, some don't. Some have it partially. (The advantage of sexual reproduction.) The ones that still have good circulation in their feet _and_ a better heat exchanger survive; the trait is passed on.
Fast forward a few million years and you will see a pretty sophisticated heat exchanger in his legs, similar to the one ducks have. Someone like you might protest "but it can't just come from nothing! Where did the new information come from to design that sophisticated heat exchanger? How did evolution understand thermodynamics well enough to install a heat exchanger in that dog's leg?" And the answer, of course, is - it didn't. Random mutation provided incremental improvements, and natural selection eliminated the ones that didn't work.
That's evolution in a nutshell. That's why bats have arms that look like wings (or wings that look like arms if you prefer.) They didn't just "sprout wings" out of their backs, because they had no structures in their backs that could become wings. But arms _can_ become wings, just as they are now becoming wings in flying squirrels. Hands _can_ become feet, as they did with humans.
>If you took a bunch of cards, each with a number from 0 to 9,
>shuffled them, threw out every card with a number greater than 1,
>threw out every card that’s a repeat, and due to all this there suddenly
>appeared a card that you didn’t put in there with a capital A on it, that
>would be new information.
Agreed. Evolution doesn't do that. It doesn't add new "letters to the alphabet" - just uses the same ol' alphabet to spell a new story.
>Otherwise, you’re just reorganizing or losing information from the finite
>amount that you started with (e.g. Natural Selection). A loss of
>information might make the hand more specialized and more ordered
> but it’s still just a series of 1’s and 0’s.
Yep. And all we are, genetically, is a series of A's, C's, G's and T's (and sometimes U's.) With those four base pairs we can express everything from a human to an oak tree. No "new" information required.
Now, if you could demonstrate that humans somehow acquired a few R's, K's and D's (new base pairs) spontaneously, or they've always had them and no other organism on earth does, you'd have a pretty good argument that we were "created" (or at least treated) differently than the rest of the life on the planet. But that's not the case. We have exactly the same genes, that express exactly the same codons, in an order that's almost identical to our nearest cousin (chimps/bonobos.) We can trace how the non-coding parts of our genome change over a few hundred years, and if you extrapolate back to the point that humans and apes split - you'd see almost exactly that amount of change.
But in the end, we all use the same alphabet.
The two strains drifted so far apart genetically that they can no longer reproduce. That's speciation. Now that they are genetically isolated (i.e. they can no longer share genetic material) they will begin to diverge genetically.
The fruit fly example is boring because while their genome is now quite different, their phenotype (what they look like) is not yet different. They look just like - well - fruit flies. It would take thousands of years for these new species to diverge significantly, even counting how fast they breed.
When such a speciation happens in nature, and the two new species are competing for the same niche, one generally dies off (less well adapted.) When a new organism is introduced into an environment with lots of niches, speciation produces new organisms that fill these new niches. This happens remarkably quickly; when cichlids were introduced into african lakes about a million years ago, they very rapidly speciated and filled the niches with dozens of new species. This is called adaptive radiation.
>Yes… it allows for longer haired dogs to survive over short haired dogs in
>extreme cold environments. The gene for short hair would be more
>detrimental to the survival of the short haired dogs and they would most
>likely die out.
Right. And eventually even the genes that code for short hair would be eliminated from the dog's genome.
> No… it cannot give you a heritable line of traits (even over millennia)
>which can gradually grow wings for the dog so it can fly (I’m not
>predicting this by the way). The possible information for that kind of
>progression is not available.
No one is suggesting that dogs will fly.
Here's a more likely development:
The dog starts evolving warmer fur. Also more fat, a higher metabolism, bigger feet (for snow) and arteries and veins that are closer together in their legs. Close arteries and veins produce a sort of "heat exchanger" effect; warm blood going to the dog's feet is cooled by the cold blood coming back in, which in turn warms the returning blood. There's no intelligence telling the dog to move its arteries and veins closer together. Random changes in the genome produce some dogs with closer blood vessels, some with farther blood vessels. The dogs with closer blood vessels survive more often; the trait is retained.
Now comes along a mutation. One dog has a defective gene that means that the arteries and veins in his leg don't separate at _all_. This would ordinarily be quite a handicap - this makes the circulation in his legs ineffective, resulting in less sensation in his feet, less chance of healing injuries etc.
However, in this environment he doesn't have to feel his feet as much. He's running on snow, not over the desert, so healing isn't as big a problem. And he has an excellent heat exchanger there in his leg. Just one screwed-up gene that made one mistake during his development - but it worked out well for him.
He has descendents. Some have the new mutation, some don't. Some have it partially. (The advantage of sexual reproduction.) The ones that still have good circulation in their feet _and_ a better heat exchanger survive; the trait is passed on.
Fast forward a few million years and you will see a pretty sophisticated heat exchanger in his legs, similar to the one ducks have. Someone like you might protest "but it can't just come from nothing! Where did the new information come from to design that sophisticated heat exchanger? How did evolution understand thermodynamics well enough to install a heat exchanger in that dog's leg?" And the answer, of course, is - it didn't. Random mutation provided incremental improvements, and natural selection eliminated the ones that didn't work.
That's evolution in a nutshell. That's why bats have arms that look like wings (or wings that look like arms if you prefer.) They didn't just "sprout wings" out of their backs, because they had no structures in their backs that could become wings. But arms _can_ become wings, just as they are now becoming wings in flying squirrels. Hands _can_ become feet, as they did with humans.
>If you took a bunch of cards, each with a number from 0 to 9,
>shuffled them, threw out every card with a number greater than 1,
>threw out every card that’s a repeat, and due to all this there suddenly
>appeared a card that you didn’t put in there with a capital A on it, that
>would be new information.
Agreed. Evolution doesn't do that. It doesn't add new "letters to the alphabet" - just uses the same ol' alphabet to spell a new story.
>Otherwise, you’re just reorganizing or losing information from the finite
>amount that you started with (e.g. Natural Selection). A loss of
>information might make the hand more specialized and more ordered
> but it’s still just a series of 1’s and 0’s.
Yep. And all we are, genetically, is a series of A's, C's, G's and T's (and sometimes U's.) With those four base pairs we can express everything from a human to an oak tree. No "new" information required.
Now, if you could demonstrate that humans somehow acquired a few R's, K's and D's (new base pairs) spontaneously, or they've always had them and no other organism on earth does, you'd have a pretty good argument that we were "created" (or at least treated) differently than the rest of the life on the planet. But that's not the case. We have exactly the same genes, that express exactly the same codons, in an order that's almost identical to our nearest cousin (chimps/bonobos.) We can trace how the non-coding parts of our genome change over a few hundred years, and if you extrapolate back to the point that humans and apes split - you'd see almost exactly that amount of change.
But in the end, we all use the same alphabet.
Royd 0
Sounds kind of like the Democrats.QuoteI've noticed that the ones arguing against evolution have yet to propose an alternative theory.
Royd 0
There's the BS. From now till whenever those squirrels will only be able to go from a high elevation to a lower elevation, more commonly known as gliding. It will never be able to gain elevation,unless, by some chance, it catches an updraft, unlike the bat, whose wing has much more structure and was actually DESIGNED to gain elevation.QuoteBut arms _can_ become wings, just as they are now becoming wings in flying squirrels.
jakee 1,259
QuoteIf you took a bunch of cards, each with a number from 0 to 9, shuffled them, threw out every card with a number greater than 1, threw out every card that’s a repeat, and due to all this there suddenly appeared a card that you didn’t put in there with a capital A on it, that would be new information. Otherwise, you’re just reorganizing or losing information from the finite amount that you started with (e.g. Natural Selection). A loss of information might make the hand more specialized and more ordered but it’s still just a series of 1’s and 0’s. Not 1’s, 0’s, and an A. (required by NDT).
Oh for fucks sake - why haven't you been listening!!!!!
In sufficient quantities those 1s and 0s can describe the entire world we live on, it doesn't need a new unit to carry new information.
Likewise those As, Bs, Cs and G's can express information enough to describe every living thing on the damn planet! we don't need to add a Z on the end to describe something else, we don't need new units to turn a horse into a giraffe.
Now since you are determined to keep parroting Spetner's 'information' catchphrase despite anything said on this site, perhaps you would at least read this fully referenced article answering his argument?
From the introduction...
QuoteAlthough his arguments are superficially plausible, a closer look with some knowledge of biochemistry shows significant flaws. I will first briefly describe Spetner's metric of information, I will then show that 1) Spetner's metrics depend on a binding mechanism that does not occur in nature, 2) that Spetner's metrics require that substances bind to enzymes in an all or nothing fashion, whereas real substrates do not bind in this way. Furthermore, I will show that Spetner himself is inconsistent in his application of his metrics. In his Xylitol example he does not actually use the measure he develops, and in the streptomycin example he swaps to a different metric, when his original metric would show increased information. Finally, I will show that his "directed evolution" model is based on a misunderstanding of one form of random mutation.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
QuoteIf you accept the premise that Jesus is God in the flesh, there's no problem with any of it.
At one point, lightning and thunder were believed to be caused by Thor's hammer striking the anvil.
Once you accept the divinity of Thor, there's no problem with any of it. Lightning, Valkyries...
Of course, that stuff was mythology and that is different. Nobody believes that invisible guys fly around on clouds anymore.
billvon 2,433
> From now till whenever those squirrels will only be able to go from a
>high elevation to a lower elevation . . .
. . . which allows them to escape predators and find more food. Which is why they evolved wings; the wings give them a competitive advantage over other squirrels in some situations. Since they only evolved their wings a few million years ago, they're still pretty primitive.
One flying squirrel species from Africa has gotten a little farther. Its "fingers" have started to get much longer, so it can lengthen its wing; it can wiggle them to extend its glide a tiny bit. It cannot yet achieve level flight. But its longer range in glide means it can find food that other flying squirrels can't - and thus it survives and prospers.
>unlike the bat, whose wing has much more structure and was actually
>DESIGNED to gain elevation.
Just as the african flying squirrel is being designed to gain elevation. But it's not there yet. Give it another million years; these things take time.
>high elevation to a lower elevation . . .
. . . which allows them to escape predators and find more food. Which is why they evolved wings; the wings give them a competitive advantage over other squirrels in some situations. Since they only evolved their wings a few million years ago, they're still pretty primitive.
One flying squirrel species from Africa has gotten a little farther. Its "fingers" have started to get much longer, so it can lengthen its wing; it can wiggle them to extend its glide a tiny bit. It cannot yet achieve level flight. But its longer range in glide means it can find food that other flying squirrels can't - and thus it survives and prospers.
>unlike the bat, whose wing has much more structure and was actually
>DESIGNED to gain elevation.
Just as the african flying squirrel is being designed to gain elevation. But it's not there yet. Give it another million years; these things take time.
kallend 1,647
QuoteThere's the BS. From now till whenever those squirrels will only be able to go from a high elevation to a lower elevation, more commonly known as gliding. It will never be able to gain elevation,unless, by some chance, it catches an updraft, unlike the bat, whose wing has much more structure and was actually DESIGNED to gain elevation.QuoteBut arms _can_ become wings, just as they are now becoming wings in flying squirrels.
Do you believe all species were "designed" simultaneously, or did this "designer" keep coming back with new ones? How old do you think the Earth is, and how long ago did life first appear?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuote
Soon soon something like :
NEWS TODAY !! - A group of philosophers, professors and kickass scientists who has been a leading champions of atheism and evilution on Dropzone.com for more than a few years has changed their minds. They now believe in God -- more or less -- based on scientific evidence.
After decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Evilutionists has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature Speakers Corner Evilutionists said .
They came to the conclusion as a group and said they are best labeled as deists now like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives , thus not to admit defeat to clearly.
We now think of a God not very different from the God of the Christian but far away from the God of Islam "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose."
Over the years, these DZ.Com locals proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while shooting down and criticizing any belief that conflicts with their evilution theory..
There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for them,
… biologists' investigations of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Speakers on DZ.Com now have new threads relating to subjects like "Has Science Discovered God?"
The first hint of Evilutionists’ turn was when one of their locals on the forum and sect leaders posted and wrote “it has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism,"
DZ.Com Evilutionists said the debate over God (since they accepted Him has to exist) will start a million new threads on DZ.com and keep them busy as they have a lot to learn….
Free busy ...
Two things I find hilarious:
1. That after (supposedly) reading the point by point rebuttals of your arguments and the external sources you have been shown you creationists still think that your position is not only plausible but actually defeating evolution on the grounds of scientific evidence! Your stubborness in the face of reality is breathtaking.
2. Even your attempted satire takes after your 'theory' and is riddled with internal inconsistencies
If there weren't so damn many of you out there I'd be laughing so hard I'd cry.
....Comedy my idea with the post sparky
I laugh all the time when i read these posts .. and yes i must admit sometimes i cry
If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it
Lindsey 0
I wonder if we skydivers are humans evolving toward bird-dom. :)
linz
linz
--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail
QuoteI wonder if we skydivers are humans evolving toward bird-dom. :)
linz
Good question
mmmhhh .....Where is Dr. Emmett Brown when you need him ?If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it
Royd 0
Since they are both rodents, at what point do we begin to call them bats?QuoteJust as the african flying squirrel is being designed to gain elevation. But it's not there yet. Give it another million years; these things take time.
Eventually, some of them might run out of nuts due to a drought, and they just might get a hankering for blood. Then, we will have vampire squirrels. Don't you see the silliness of it all?
Royd 0
In a word,"yes."QuoteDo you believe all species were "designed" simultaneously, or did this "designer" keep coming back with new ones?
According to Billvon's line of thinking, what did bats do before they could fly? Let me quess. They were tree rats. What did the tree rats do before they had the claws to be able to grip the bark of a tree?
If you continue to reverse this thinking, eventually there are just globs of tissue that is prey for anything that comes along. Their only chance of survival is to breed in astounding numbers.
But wait a minute. That would require a reproductive system that has to work perfectly from the formation of this particular creature.
Every living thing on the earth has to have the ability to reproduce itself within its lifecycle. Otherwise, it is doomed to live only one generation.
I don't think that it's the millions and millions of yrs. that Billvon keeps quoting for all of these changes to happen.QuoteHow old do you think the Earth is,
As I said in an earlier post, a majority of the fossils that we find were laid down in a few catastrophic volcanic upheavals.
Large dinosaur skeletons are found virtually intact. This eliminates a natural death with the possibility of the bones being carried away by another animal, or eventually deteriorating, and returning to the earth.
We only have to look at Pompei as a recent example of this.
Insects deteriorate extremely fast when left to the elements, yet we find layer upon layer of perfectly preserved imprints, all in the same location.
Here's a serious question. What is the difference between the fossil records of the East coast, which seems to have been formed gently, as opposed to the Rockies and the west coast, which obviously experienced violent volcanic activity?
Squeak 17
QuoteSince they are both rodents, at what point do we begin to call them bats?QuoteJust as the african flying squirrel is being designed to gain elevation. But it's not there yet. Give it another million years; these things take time.
Where do you get that Bats are rodents, educate yourself a little please
I supose to some people ignorance actualy IS bliss
http://macro.dokkyomed.ac.jp/mammal/en/taxa.html
You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?
jakee 1,259
Quote....Comedy my idea with the post sparky
Oh believe me champ, it was funny in a very different way than what you intended.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
kallend 1,647
QuoteQuoteDo you believe all species were "designed" simultaneously, or did this "designer" keep coming back with new ones?
In a word,"yes."
Yes to which? Simultaneous, xor the "designer" kept coming back with new ones as older ones went extinct?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuote....Comedy my idea with the post sparky
Oh believe me champ, it was funny in a very different way than what you intended.
Soorry bro ...Put on some clothes then will ya
If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it
Squeak 17
QuoteQuoteQuoteDo you believe all species were "designed" simultaneously, or did this "designer" keep coming back with new ones?
In a word,"yes."
Yes to which? Simultaneous, xor the "designer" kept coming back with new ones as older ones went extinct?
I can see it now,,
The intelligent Designer....Hmmmm I know I put that Diprotodon down there somewhere, fuck it, I'll just make some thing else
You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?
Royd 0
With the evolutionary theory, I won't have to worry about it. They will all trade places eventually.QuoteWhere do you get that Bats are rodents, educate yourself a little please
I was 29 when I gained my Christian beliefs. Prior to that was difficult. Now, it's even more difficult. It doesn't worry me in the slightest that the foundation of Christianity will be shaken by anything...ever.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites