The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: narcberry on April 05, 2007, 02:51:34 PM
-
The biggest, and most ignored, fact about evolution is it ideas shouldn't apply to a singularity of special(species) relationships. That is to say, most of the effects of evolution work across species. This is a huge topic, so I will keep my claim small and concise.
Claim
If two species occupy the same terrain and feed on the same diet, they are in direct competition with each other. The factors that would evolve an ape into a man are infinitessimally small in comparison to the factors that should have made the majority of bovines extinct by now.
Open your eyes, evolution was only embraced when a social acceptance of moving away from christianity occured. It is simply a method used to justify denying a peoples faith in their God.
-
Why don't you actually learn about the subject matter before you begin shouting "OMFG EVILBBQHAX!"
-
What bogwarrior said.
-
What is your contention? I see you disagree, but why?
-
Filed under "doggerel and spooge". ::)
-
I think you are dismissing this idea too lightly. It is a factor in evolution that is intentionally overlooked since it provides thousands of examples of an unevolving earth.
-
What is your contention? I see you disagree, but why?
Because your dissertation didn't explain shit - rather than delving into the topic of why it's wrong, you simply used generalizing terms (e.g., "the factors"), an oversimplification of a case example to back your claim, and, to top it all off, stated that evolution is the scientific community's attempt at toppling God/religion.
No. It's a science. Not a religion. Go back to hugging your Bible.
[edit]
OMFG, you said "unevolving".
-
(http://www.platformtwo.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/03/before%20stuff.jpg)
-
Charles Darwin was a christian you plank. :P
Or at least he was until he explained the idea of evolution.
-
What is your contention? I see you disagree, but why?
Because your dissertation didn't explain shit - rather than delving into the topic of why it's wrong, you simply used generalizing terms (e.g., "the factors"), an oversimplification of a case example to back your claim, and, to top it all off, stated that evolution is the scientific community's attempt at toppling God/religion.
No. It's a science. Not a religion. Go back to hugging your Bible.
[edit]
OMFG, you said "unevolving".
You dont get angry until someone says Bible, do you? That is an interesting phenomena. Anyhow, I did present the "why", but I will try again in a more clear manner. And I'll leave my opinions out this time, so as to not offend.
-
What is your contention? I see you disagree, but why?
Because your dissertation didn't explain shit - rather than delving into the topic of why it's wrong, you simply used generalizing terms (e.g., "the factors"), an oversimplification of a case example to back your claim, and, to top it all off, stated that evolution is the scientific community's attempt at toppling God/religion.
No. It's a science. Not a religion. Go back to hugging your Bible.
[edit]
OMFG, you said "unevolving".
You dont get angry until someone says Bible, do you? That is an interesting phenomena. Anyhow, I did present the "why", but I will try again in a more clear manner. And I'll leave my opinions out this time, so as to not offend.
I don't get angry, just defensive against religious zealots. I'm happy that you've found some certainty/stability in your life, but please, allow me to think for myself.
Very well - I'll soon be posting what evolution is and what it is not, so as to avoid any confusion and debunk popular myths.
-
Claim
If two species occupy the same terrain and feed on the same diet, they are in direct competition with each other. The factors that would evolve an ape into a man are infinitessimally small in comparison to the factors that should have made the majority of bovines extinct by now.
The majority of the creatures that once inhabited the Earth are extinct now. ::)
Open your eyes, evolution was only embraced when a social acceptance of moving away from christianity occured. It is simply a method used to justify denying a peoples faith in their God.
Don't flatter yourself. Those of us who support evolution couldn't care less about your religion.
-
Please ignore this thread.
All thoughts are welcome here:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12254.0 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12254.0)
-
I smell a plot thickening.
-
The biggest, and most ignored, fact about evolution is it ideas shouldn't apply to a singularity of special(species) relationships. That is to say, most of the effects of evolution work across species. This is a huge topic, so I will keep my claim small and concise.
Claim
If two species occupy the same terrain and feed on the same diet, they are in direct competition with each other. The factors that would evolve an ape into a man are infinitessimally small in comparison to the factors that should have made the majority of bovines extinct by now.
Open your eyes, evolution was only embraced when a social acceptance of moving away from christianity occured. It is simply a method used to justify denying a peoples faith in their God.
It usually helps your arguement if you back it up with science before coming to a conclusion based of zero evidence.
-
Please ignore this thread.
Please ignore this post.
-
Charles Darwin was a christian you plank. :P
Or at least he was until he explained the idea of evolution.
Actually from what I've heard, Charles Darwin later noticed that the idea of evolution was incorrect but it was too late at the time to tell everyone because they already accepted his idea of evolution. NOTE: I heard this from all those creepy church people my parents bring over to our house. So most likely they were just trying to brainwash me.
-
Yeah that statement about Charles Darwin opposing evolution at his death is actually a complete lie; it is not based on any amount of truth at all. It demonstrates the moral character of many of the people who oppose evolution, that they think it is ok to consciously lie in order to convert people to their beliefs.
It's also important to point out that even if it were true, which it is not, it is hardly evidence that evolution does not exist. The evidence that proves evolution is in the dna of every single life form, as well as the fossil records, and the physical world; not in the mind of Charles Darwin or any other person.
-
What you said doesn't even make sense dingleberry. The factors that evolved an ape into man... it's easy. The apes stood on their back legs to see over some grass. They started making tools because the realized the advantage of mechanics... ?
-
What you said doesn't even make sense dingleberry. The factors that evolved an ape into man... it's easy. The apes stood on their back legs to see over some grass. They started making tools because the realized the advantage of mechanics... ?
...rofl.
-
Evolution doesn't prove anything.
-
The eloquence and intelligence of your argument is a fantastic example of the way religion supports the quest for knowledge.
-
Evolution doesn't prove anything; it explains the obvious.
Fixed.
-
Exactly.
Evolution isn't a proof, it's a theory.
The theory may have holes... that's why we get better ones.
It just takes us some time to find the missing parts, and then reformulate the theory around those parts.
Natural Selection is a proven, non-debated (I hope ???) fact.
Macroevolution had more holes. Those holes are starting to be filled. The final theory (if one is possible) for how organisms developed into different species will most likely be different from our current understanding.
-
[edit] OMFG, you said "unevolving".
Help! I'm unevolving! :o
Or maybe it's just the FEers...
-
Says somebody with a Michael Jackson avatar...
-
Lol!
-
Exactly.
Evolution isn't a proof, it's a theory.
The theory may have holes... that's why we get better ones.
It just takes us some time to find the missing parts, and then reformulate the theory around those parts.
Natural Selection is a proven, non-debated (I hope ???) fact.
Macroevolution had more holes. Those holes are starting to be filled. The final theory (if one is possible) for how organisms developed into different species will most likely be different from our current understanding.
rofl, evolution has never been debated. Only idiots claim to have debated it. Evolution has been tested and tried relentlessly, and it's always proven true. There are no holes in macro-evolution.
-
Do you ever post your own ideas outside of your poetry?
-
Exactly.
Evolution isn't a proof, it's a theory.
The theory may have holes... that's why we get better ones.
It just takes us some time to find the missing parts, and then reformulate the theory around those parts.
Natural Selection is a proven, non-debated (I hope ???) fact.
Macroevolution had more holes. Those holes are starting to be filled. The final theory (if one is possible) for how organisms developed into different species will most likely be different from our current understanding.
rofl, evolution has never been debated. Only idiots claim to have debated it. Evolution has been tested and tried relentlessly, and it's always proven true. There are no holes in macro-evolution.
Sure they are, but over details. The gist of the theory has never been in doubt since Darwin first published.
-
Do you ever post your own ideas outside of your poetry?
Since when am I a scientist? When I become a scientist, I can definitely tell you my opinions on evolution. Even so, all I have found is evidence for evolution as I study it more.
-
Do you ever post your own ideas outside of your poetry?
Since when am I a scientist? When I become a scientist, I can definitely tell you my opinions on evolution. Even so, all I have found is evidence for evolution as I study it more.
I wasn't being hateful, I was curious. Didn't say anything about you being a Scientist or not. You just seem to carbon copy beast for some strange reason, and never present your own take on all this.
-
Do you ever post your own ideas outside of your poetry?
Since when am I a scientist? When I become a scientist, I can definitely tell you my opinions on evolution. Even so, all I have found is evidence for evolution as I study it more.
I wasn't being hateful, I was curious. Didn't say anything about you being a Scientist or not. You just seem to carbon copy beast for some strange reason, and never present your own take on all this.
I don't mean to be a dick, but Beast is right. I agree with him because he's right. We totally disagree on other things though, as he would probably LOVE to point out. Evolution is a simple thing to understand, and I haven't found a single point he's said that is wrong. He's following very sound, and tested logic. Do you want me to oppose the obvious?
-
Exactly.
Evolution isn't a proof, it's a theory.
The theory may have holes... that's why we get better ones.
It just takes us some time to find the missing parts, and then reformulate the theory around those parts.
Natural Selection is a proven, non-debated (I hope ???) fact.
Macroevolution had more holes. Those holes are starting to be filled. The final theory (if one is possible) for how organisms developed into different species will most likely be different from our current understanding.
rofl, evolution has never been debated. Only idiots claim to have debated it. Evolution has been tested and tried relentlessly, and it's always proven true. There are no holes in macro-evolution.
Sure they are, but over details. The gist of the theory has never been in doubt since Darwin first published.
Details such as?
-
Details such as?
Irreducible complexity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity).
-
Details such as?
Irreducible complexity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity).
Which has been proven wrong? :|
Give me a good example please.
-
Details such as?
Irreducible complexity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity).
Which has been proven wrong? :|
Give me a good example please.
Perhaps the best example of irreducible complexity is the motor mechanism in a cell's flagellum.
(http://www.ideacenter.org/stuff/contentmgr/files/18400e205feb8af26e346af7d95c02e8/misc/flagellumdiagram.jpg)
As you can see from the image, the motor has an actual bearing. How could a bearing possibly evolve in a step by step process? Each part of a bearing is absolutely essential for its function. It's one essential step that must have evolved all at once. There are no incremental improvements from a bearingless flagellum.
The same goes for the entire motor of the flagellum as a whole. Take one piece out and the entire motor fails to function. There are no incremental improvements that can be made on the wall of a cell that could be turned into a motor.
There is no such thing as an "almost working" motor, either. There is such a thing as a broken motor, maybe. A motor has certain essential parts which are necessary for its function. A motor either works or it doesn't work. If it doesn't work, and is missing one essential piece, it provides absolutely no evolutionary advantage for the next of kin to pass on.
-
From your own source: "For instance, precursors to the flagellum's motor can be found being used as ionic channels within bacteria, known as the Type III Secretory System.[3] This is true for most of the structure of the flagellum in general; of the 42 proteins found in the flagellum, 40 have already been found in use in different biological pathways.[4] Even Behe's toy model used to illustrate the concept, the mouse trap, was countered by critics including biology professor John McDonald, who produced examples of how he considered the mousetrap to be "easy to reduce", eventually to a single part.[5] Critics consider that most, or all, of the examples were based on misunderstandings of the workings of the biological systems in question, and consider the low quality of these examples excellent evidence for the argument from ignorance. Irreducible complexity is generally dismissed by the majority of the scientific community;[2] it is often referred to as pseudoscience.[6]"
You fucked yourself. Talk about unintelligent design.
-
The eloquence and intelligence of your argument is a fantastic example of the way religion supports the quest for knowledge.
beast, did I ever tell you that you're one of my heroes?
-
You fucked yourself. Talk about unintelligent design.
What do proteins have to do with anything? Of course the proteins used in creating the flagellum's motor are found elsewhere. There are only 20 different amino acids that can possibly exist, and thus there are a limited number of proteins that amino acids can configure themselves into. Any middle school student could see that proteins found in the flagellum motor are found elsewhere in the bacterium. A protein is a multi-purpose tool like a swiss army knife.
The point is, like a mousetrap, the flagellum motor is a single system composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively stop functioning.
The Flagellum's motor must, by all reason of logic, have appeared in one discrete step. It is absolutely absurd to believe that a free rotating structure like a bearing could possibly evolve through natural selection. It would be analogous to a creature evolving a wheel as a method of transportation. Think about it a little.
I'm not a proponent of Intelligent Design myself, but there are alternatives to Natural Selection that could be taking place. Genetic Drift is one such alternative to Evolution through Natural Selection. Other alternatives include Molecular Breeding, DNA Shuffling, Neutral Adaption Theory, and Macromutation.
Scientists and professors have a habit of using the word 'Evolution' as a magic wand over questions of why and how. None have the insight or intelligence to describe Natural Selection on a biochemical level.
-
I didn't read this.
but if i did i'd say yur a dumbass
-
You fucked yourself. Talk about unintelligent design.
What do proteins have to do with anything? Of course the proteins used in creating the flagellum's motor are found elsewhere. There are only 20 different amino acids that can possibly exist, and thus there are a limited number of proteins that amino acids can configure themselves into. Any middle school student could see that proteins found in the flagellum motor are found elsewhere in the bacterium. A protein is a multi-purpose tool like a swiss army knife.
The point is, like a mousetrap, the flagellum motor is a single system composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively stop functioning.
The Flagellum's motor must, by all reason of logic, have appeared in one discrete step. It is absolutely absurd to believe that a free rotating structure like a bearing could possibly evolve through natural selection. It would be analogous to a creature evolving a wheel as a method of transportation. Think about it a little.
I'm not a proponent of Intelligent Design myself, but there are alternatives to Natural Selection that could be taking place. Genetic Drift is one such alternative to Evolution through Natural Selection. Other alternatives include Molecular Breeding, DNA Shuffling, Neutral Adaption Theory, and Macromutation.
Scientists and professors have a habit of using the word 'Evolution' as a magic wand over questions of why and how. None have the insight or intelligence to describe Natural Selection on a biochemical level.
No. The Flagellum's motor has already been proven to have intermediate steps. Your own article says that what you are telling me is pseudoscience.
-
No. The Flagellum's motor has already been proven to have intermediate steps. Your own article says that what you are telling me is pseudoscience.
Care to describe these steps then? Regardless of what the Wikipedia article says, it is not "pseudscience."
(http://i13.tinypic.com/4e17y2t.png)
How could a rotary bearing (http://video.tinypic.com/player.php?v=2h7nfk2) possibly evolve in discrete steps? Don't you see the problem?
Take any one balls out of the bearing and the entire structure does not turn, defeating the purpose of the flagellum's motor. Take the casing off of the bearing and the balls fall out. Take the entire bearing out and the motor becomes worthless. The bearing is worthless without the motor and the motor is worthless without the bearing. It's a complete, complex system where each part relies on each other for function.
-
Tom, I myself lack the technical understanding of this issue to present any sort of convincing argument. So instead I'll just link you to a fascinating article from TalkDesign, a sister site of TalkOrigins. It explains in great detail how IC systems are perfectly capable of evolving, and are completely explained through natural selection.
Clicky (http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html)
-
No. The Flagellum's motor has already been proven to have intermediate steps. Your own article says that what you are telling me is pseudoscience.
Care to describe these steps then? Regardless of what the Wikipedia article says, it is not "pseudscience."
(http://i13.tinypic.com/4e17y2t.png)
How could a rotary bearing (http://video.tinypic.com/player.php?v=2h7nfk2) possibly evolve in discrete steps? Don't you see the problem?
Take any one balls out of the bearing and the entire structure does not turn, defeating the purpose of the flagellum's motor. Take the casing off of the bearing and the balls fall out. Take the entire bearing out and the motor becomes worthless. The bearing is worthless without the motor and the motor is worthless without the bearing. It's a complete, complex system where each part relies on each other for function.
Someone already beat me to it. Your argument is weak.
-
I'm not a proponent of Intelligent Design myself, but there are alternatives to Natural Selection that could be taking place. Genetic Drift is one such alternative to Evolution through Natural Selection. Other alternatives include Molecular Breeding, DNA Shuffling, Neutral Adaption Theory, and Macromutation.
Scientists and professors have a habit of using the word 'Evolution' as a magic wand over questions of why and how. None have the insight or intelligence to describe Natural Selection on a biochemical level.
What the fuck are you talking about? Scientists readily agree that not all evolution that occurs happens because of natural selection. However they also agree that when you see animals improving at skills, for example learning to fly, getting better eyesight etc. that has to be because of natural selection. As for you claim about describing natural selection on the biochemical level; you should source that, because it's clearly false. DNA and genetics is the strongest evidence of evolution that exists.
-
LOL
-
No. The Flagellum's motor has already been proven to have intermediate steps. Your own article says that what you are telling me is pseudoscience.
Care to describe these steps then? Regardless of what the Wikipedia article says, it is not "pseudscience."
(http://i13.tinypic.com/4e17y2t.png)
How could a rotary bearing (http://video.tinypic.com/player.php?v=2h7nfk2) possibly evolve in discrete steps? Don't you see the problem?
Take any one balls out of the bearing and the entire structure does not turn, defeating the purpose of the flagellum's motor. Take the casing off of the bearing and the balls fall out. Take the entire bearing out and the motor becomes worthless. The bearing is worthless without the motor and the motor is worthless without the bearing. It's a complete, complex system where each part relies on each other for function.
The picture you posted is not at all how the bearing in the bacterial flagellum motor works, and is instead a human-designed ball bearing. Such pictures do nothing but mislead. The motor is actually combination of proteins which form the socket and bearing, propeller, and drive shaft. One common proposed evolutionary pathway is that the socket began as an excretory system, and indeed it has many proteins in common with what is termed a "type III excretory system" which has a dissimilar but also useful function. The way the type III excretory system works is that it provides a socket, and a motor which pushes objects through the socket. When an object instead of being pushed through gets lodged, and the action of the motor trying to push it through causes it to spin, you instead get a motor. This is of course an oversimplification, but it shows that what may seem at first glance to be "irreducibly complex" may not be.
In fact, the entire premise of the "irreducible complexity" argument is poor - if you look at them closely they all share the following structure: consider structure X. Structure X is composed of many seperate parts, and the removal of any one of these causes structure X not to perform its desired function. I can see no way that structure X could have evolved by a slow evolutionary process with each small step granting a survival benefit, therefore it could not have happened. It is clear where the problem with this sort of reasoning is: just because you can't see how something might have happened doesn't mean it couldn't have happened. Especially since there are many many ways that structure X may have been formed. If structure X is composed of parts A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H, then it may be that the parts without H in place perform no useful function, but if you have all parts besides D, they do. And maybe when you discard D, it performs no useful function if you discard an additional part, but if instead of part B you have some slightly different part B', it is possible to discard C and still have a useful assemblage, so the evolutionary chain progressed from A, B', E, F, G, H to A, B', C, E, F, G, H to A, B, C, E, F, G, H to A, B', C, D, E, F, G, H.
It's like those games where you try to get from frogs to gloom by changing one letter at a time. Sure they only differ by four letters, but that doesn't mean you can get there in four steps - in fact it takes 10 steps, and at some point you have to change the one correct starting letter to an incorrect letter to make progress. Evolutionary pathways can be equally complicated, and the fact that there is no apparent way that a complicated structure may have evolved gradually does not indicate that it did not evolve - it simply indicates that its method of evolution is not readily apparent.
-
This is a very common counter-argument to irreduceable complexity. The problem with it is there would be more evidences of this in animals. You know, tons of random useless parts. Or if you prefer, tons of useless proteins. Why is it that there is a use for every protein in my body?
-
There isn't, Franc.
-
This is a very common counter-argument to irreduceable complexity. The problem with it is there would be more evidences of this in animals. You know, tons of random useless parts. Or if you prefer, tons of useless proteins. Why is it that there is a use for every protein in my body?
You seem to have misunderstood my argument, as I did not say anything which would indicate I expected to see useless structures all over the place.
I did not argue that there would be useless parts along the way to a system you call "irreducibly complex". In fact, I argued just the opposite; that every step along the way did provide some concrete improvement, but that you may just be unable to figure out what the steps along the way were, or how those steps granted the organism a survival advantage. We would not expect to see random useless parts now or in evolutionary history, except in the case when random useless parts are parts of systems which were at one point useful and some change in the environment or brought about by evolution made them superfluous, and which don't provide enough of a survival disadvantage for natural selection to have weeded them out (for example, remnants of a pelvis in certain types of snakes).
-
Skeptical gave a very good treatment of the counterargument to irreducible complexity. I have a few points I'd like to add, however.
First: The fact that all parts of a system are currently necessary for the system to function does not mean that that was the case throughout the system's history. Imagine building an arch. You cannot simply build an arch piece by piece, as all the pieces are required to be already in place before the arch can stand up. Imagine, however, that as you built the arch upwards, you constructed a scaffolding along with it, supporting the arch until the keystone was in place. With the keystone in place, the arch can support itself, and the scaffolding can be removed. Likewise, as evolution constructs complex biological systems, parts may be made redundant or superfluous. Eventually, one of two things will happen: either the superfluous parts will be removed, rendering every part of the system necessary, or else the function of these parts will change, making them integral to the system's function.
Second: Irreducible complexity is not a new concept. Michael Behe and other ID proponents were not the first to point out its existence on the microbiological scale. Indeed, long before we had the tools to discover and examine such microscopic systems, the evolutionary biologist Herman Muller predicted that evolution should in fact create such structures, based on the way evolution is known to operate. Therefore the discovery of such structures actually strengthens evolution, rather than weakening it. To say that irreducible complexity falsifies evolution is like saying that the Bible falsifies Christianity.
-
This is a very common counter-argument to irreduceable complexity. The problem with it is there would be more evidences of this in animals. You know, tons of random useless parts. Or if you prefer, tons of useless proteins. Why is it that there is a use for every protein in my body?
You seem to have misunderstood my argument, as I did not say anything which would indicate I expected to see useless structures all over the place.
I did not argue that there would be useless parts along the way to a system you call "irreducibly complex". In fact, I argued just the opposite; that every step along the way did provide some concrete improvement, but that you may just be unable to figure out what the steps along the way were, or how those steps granted the organism a survival advantage. We would not expect to see random useless parts now or in evolutionary history, except in the case when random useless parts are parts of systems which were at one point useful and some change in the environment or brought about by evolution made them superfluous, and which don't provide enough of a survival disadvantage for natural selection to have weeded them out (for example, remnants of a pelvis in certain types of snakes).
I disagree, but I do understand your point better. Thanks.
-
Skeptical gave a very good treatment of the counterargument to irreducible complexity. I have a few points I'd like to add, however.
First: The fact that all parts of a system are currently necessary for the system to function does not mean that that was the case throughout the system's history. Imagine building an arch. You cannot simply build an arch piece by piece, as all the pieces are required to be already in place before the arch can stand up. Imagine, however, that as you built the arch upwards, you constructed a scaffolding along with it, supporting the arch until the keystone was in place. With the keystone in place, the arch can support itself, and the scaffolding can be removed. Likewise, as evolution constructs complex biological systems, parts may be made redundant or superfluous. Eventually, one of two things will happen: either the superfluous parts will be removed, rendering every part of the system necessary, or else the function of these parts will change, making them integral to the system's function.
Second: Irreducible complexity is not a new concept. Michael Behe and other ID proponents were not the first to point out its existence on the microbiological scale. Indeed, long before we had the tools to discover and examine such microscopic systems, the evolutionary biologist Herman Muller predicted that evolution should in fact create such structures, based on the way evolution is known to operate. Therefore the discovery of such structures actually strengthens evolution, rather than weakening it. To say that irreducible complexity falsifies evolution is like saying that the Bible falsifies Christianity.
I agree that this could be the case. Without any evidence, I would disagree. I believe that in order for such an intermidiary mechanism to exist, only for the purpose of developing a more fit structure would also imply that many of these such mechanisms exist. This would be the case regardless if they would actually lead to the development of a more fit structure.
-
There isn't.
Perhaps you could enlighten us? Im sure of all that DNA, you could show us a useless protein?
-
There isn't.
Perhaps you could enlighten us? Im sure of all that DNA, you could show us a useless protein?
It just posted.
-
The famous Narcberry protein?
Seriously, do you even try?
-
He's doing quite well, actually. For a non-/b/tard anyway.
But there are plenty of useless genes that life can poses. Like the genes that cause cancer. Pretty pointless to me, but it's there.
Hey BOG, where's that thread you said you were going to make?
-
Wasn't talking about genes, but proteins. It's a significant difference. I dont think any round-earther reads a lick of what they are debating against. As if ignorance provides credence.
-
Natural selection can most definetly lead to useless proteins.
during DNA replication, errors can occur. these lead to deviations from the original specimen. these deviations can be one of three types:
negative; the deviation harms the creatures chance at life, as it hinders its chances at getting food, escaping predators etc.
positive; the deviation gives the creature a better edge as far as survival
and last but not least, deviations that have no real bearing on the ability of the creature. its is neither useful nor hindering. however, as, over generations, these deviations 'stack up' on each other, it can lead to greater developments.
so evolutionary developments do not neccessarily have to pass through 'useful' stages
-
I fail to see how any of our explanations of Irreducible Complexity require there to be useless proteins. In these systems, most of the 'parts' are actually made up of several proteins, not just one. No proteins are 'useless'. Most proteins perform more than one function. There certainly are examples of natural systems with superfluous proteins, but those same proteins fulfill necessary functions elsewhere in the same organism. And remember, function is only relative to the environment.
-
Natural selection can most definetly lead to useless proteins.
during DNA replication, errors can occur. these lead to deviations from the original specimen. these deviations can be one of three types:
negative; the deviation harms the creatures chance at life, as it hinders its chances at getting food, escaping predators etc.
positive; the deviation gives the creature a better edge as far as survival
and last but not least, deviations that have no real bearing on the ability of the creature. its is neither useful nor hindering. however, as, over generations, these deviations 'stack up' on each other, it can lead to greater developments.
so evolutionary developments do not neccessarily have to pass through 'useful' stages
Right, but the point is that the development of a complex system which can only be developed through a long sequence of useless stages would be vanishingly improbable, so while possible, we would not expect to see such a history of development. If such a system existed, it would indeed be fair to call it "irreducibly complex", and it would indeed be good evidence against the theory of evolution. However, many of the systems which so called "ID scientists" call irreducible complexity are not, and the arguments they make that something is irreducibly complex are unscientific, and generally proceed by argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance), which is not a logically valid argument. It may be that an "ID scientist" cannot imagine how a structure may have been formed in a series of small steps, each of which confer a survival benefit, but such a sequence did occur. To truly show irreducible complexity, a scientist would have to do better than that - they would have to give a logical argument that such a sequence of events could not have occurred.
So far, nobody has done this. Indeed, there is a great deal of evidence for evolution (although not all of the details have yet been explained), but no concrete evidence showing it did not occur. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the only reasons for disbelieving the theory are religious, rather than rational.
-
Evolution still has yet to be debunked.
-
Indeed it has. Most likely because it's (more or less) a true theory, although as scientists we must always be open to later evidence that the theory is wrong, or requires modification.
-
Hey BOG, where's that thread you said you were going to make?
I'm gathering materials.
-
Natural selection can most definetly lead to useless proteins.
during DNA replication, errors can occur. these lead to deviations from the original specimen. these deviations can be one of three types:
negative; the deviation harms the creatures chance at life, as it hinders its chances at getting food, escaping predators etc.
positive; the deviation gives the creature a better edge as far as survival
and last but not least, deviations that have no real bearing on the ability of the creature. its is neither useful nor hindering. however, as, over generations, these deviations 'stack up' on each other, it can lead to greater developments.
so evolutionary developments do not neccessarily have to pass through 'useful' stages
I agree. My contention is that we find mutations "in the small", but across the entire human population there should be more evidence of such "deviations".
-
(http://www.outlookindia.com/images/photoessays/tallest_shortest_man_HPE_20060109.jpg)
-
I love it when beast chimes in. (nice pic btw)
These types of anomalies are singular. They represent one gene gone bad. What I am suggesting, is that many genes must deviate in order to create a functioning protein, there would be many many genes gone bad.
-
I love it when beast chimes in. (nice pic btw)
These types of anomalies are singular. They represent one gene gone bad. What I am suggesting, is that many genes must deviate in order to create a functioning protein, there would be many many genes gone bad.
That would be a 'hopeful monster'. Mutations on that scale just don't happen. Novel features are built from many small mutations over many generations. Besides, it is hard to say that the mutations in that photo are the result of one gene. It isn't one gene per discrete physical feature; it isn't that ordered. Some features are controlled by a single gene, others are controlled by many genes, some of which may control other features as well.
-
I love it when beast chimes in. (nice pic btw)
These types of anomalies are singular. They represent one gene gone bad. What I am suggesting, is that many genes must deviate in order to create a functioning protein, there would be many many genes gone bad.
That's completely false. Through every step of evolution we can see very small (ultimately one gene difference) changes that result in a positive outcome. Just because you don't know what you're talking about, it doesn't mean evolution is wrong, rather, that you're just stupid.
-
I love it when beast chimes in. (nice pic btw)
These types of anomalies are singular. They represent one gene gone bad. What I am suggesting, is that many genes must deviate in order to create a functioning protein, there would be many many genes gone bad.
That's completely false. Through every step of evolution we can see very small (ultimately one gene difference) changes that result in a positive outcome. Just because you don't know what you're talking about, it doesn't mean evolution is wrong, rather, that you're just stupid.
What would be the PURPOSE of that? (kidding) :P
Positive? Always?
-
That's how natural selection works. Life forms with a higher chance of surviving survive more. Thus the species becomes made up of life forms with that higher chance of survival. Life forms with a lower chance of survival survive less. Hence animals only evolve from natural selection in a direction that gives them a better chance of survival given their current environment.
-
Well obviously the results are always positive. How can something that wasn't mean to survive, survive? Obviously the ones that DO survive are the fittest for the time.
Is this so hard? :(
-
Semantics evolve I see.
-
I love it when beast chimes in. (nice pic btw)
These types of anomalies are singular. They represent one gene gone bad. What I am suggesting, is that many genes must deviate in order to create a functioning protein, there would be many many genes gone bad.
That would be a 'hopeful monster'. Mutations on that scale just don't happen. Novel features are built from many small mutations over many generations. Besides, it is hard to say that the mutations in that photo are the result of one gene. It isn't one gene per discrete physical feature; it isn't that ordered. Some features are controlled by a single gene, others are controlled by many genes, some of which may control other features as well.
As the creature becomes more complex, the genes would in fact relate and begin to incorporate into each other but the original steps were likely to be independent of others.