Denial of evolution IV

?? Molecular clocks tell you how long a species or subspecies split from a common ancestor. Since we have several species that have split from common ancestors within the scope of human history (think cats from wildcats, dogs from gray wolves, saccharomyces cerevisiae from wild yeast) we have pretty extensive means of demonstrating this.

And by measurement of actual animals, plants and microorganisms, based on a date given by human use of the organism for domestic purposes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Information science vid

Found this vid on youtube and thought I'd pass it along. Interesting take on what information science does to our ideas about evolution.

youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Meh, it’s just Intelligent Design proselytizing that’s masquerading as legitimate science.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Off to the appropriate quarantine thread it goes....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Commenting on the video has been disabled, not a good sign.

 

Fossil records are discontinuous records, that only represent a small fraction of all possible remains. The analogy I have used before is making a large shape on the ground, such as a four leaf clover, out of popcorn. The popcorn is touching, piece to piece, to make the shape continuous. Next, we will allow the birds to randomly eat the popcorn shape for many days. The leftovers which survive are our analogy of the fossil record of the shape.

From the popcorn data left, we may or may not be able to infer the exact shape we started with, nor if the shape had been continuous in whole or in part. Relative to evolution, we will be able to see change, even with a discontinuous set of data, but the discontinuous data, will make the change look discontinuous, by default. This may or may not be the case.

I don't doubt evolution. However, I don't think you can be 100% sure you are expressing the evolutionary process correctly with discontinuous data, since it will bias the interpretation to being discontinuous.

With modern human fossil data, there is a range of modern humans of all sizes, color, smart, stupid, etc. If you only had one data point, you could never infer this variety is all in one place. If you suggested that much variety, and all you have is that one data point, you could be right, but assumed wrong due to one data.

We can find a tall and short person in any crowd. If we found tall fossils dated one day and short fossils from a century earlier, we could infer there was a genetic change due to evolution. But in reality it only reflected the one data we found, since both tall and short existed sided by side.

 

@wellwisher --

So what you're basically saying is that because we can't find(read express for the purposes of this post) all numbers we can't know that one plus one equals two?

 

And so the creationist may view this as a flaw, and conclude "you have no proof", leaving mountains of evidence ignored. Furthermore, the existence of discontinuities in the layers alone speaks volumes of evidence against simultaneous creation, flood, etc.

I've always thought it odd that creationists insist on tracing humans to the first cells, when our species represents only a fraction of a percent of the timeline over which fossilization took place.

 

evolution IS MANMADE

After the dinosaurs were killed life was regenearated in far less time than evolution would or could have taken proving that everything we see was a created by the lord. differnt species dont interbreed and make new species, there isnt any living thing that is half of one animal and half something else like a dogcat, treefish. birdlizard. Dogs chase cats and hump anything so im sure they wouldhave if couldhave. Dumb DARWIN EVOLUTION IS AIR POLUTION.....MAN MADE. TIME only kills animals if they "evolved" into their enviroment penguins would fly...and so would I:bugeye::m:

evolution ha,ha .
Ill never die without giving GOD credit everything,including ME.

 

Poes like this fit better in the religion subforum.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Why?

 

You really never read very much do you? We can see your ignorance by your own comments about evolution which most will just laugh off. Perhaps one day you will really read The Origin Of Species which is free to read online when you want to.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...xPjbDg&usg=AFQjCNGvjtulCQM9UStAK1189CrMK9YVmA

 

Eugene, not everything was killed off by the K-T event. Just large megafauna, and some smaller taxa. But small reptiles, mammals, birds and fish got through.

Actually, some do (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_speciation) but most of evolution consists of micro- and macroevolution along species gradients.

Ironically, 'species' boundaries in the Canidae are pretty poorly enforced. No real margins, seemingly.

I hope you don't feel that evolution needs to be a threat to conceptions or preconceptions of God. It's not necessary. See: Stephen J Gould's 'nonoverlapping magisteria'.

 

@BILLVON: :bravo:

To argue science, you must use science and apply valid logic.

The dinosaurs were not necessarily "killed", but there was a mass extinction of unknown cause and duration. As stated above, many taxa disappeared or were decimated.

Your assumption that life "regenerates" in a particular time frame is purely speculative. No one knows what conditions the flora and fauna were recovering from, nor how long recovery would take.

Your conclusion, that recovery was too quick, therefore the lord created everything, does not follow from either your premise, which is faulty anyway, nor do there exists any fact or evidence to support creation by the lord with or without a mass extinction.

Your implied premise, that evolution requires inter-species breeding, is incorrect. Evolutionary theory rests on several concurrent processes in nature, including variation within species, and adaptation due to natural selection.

Evolution does not assume or require mating between species. If you are interested in interbreeding, you may wish to read about the breeding between humans and Neanderthals. You can also take a DNA test to find out if you carry the Neanderthal DNA. This may help you better appreciate the reality of your own place in nature.

If you have an opportunity to study science, you will at some point encounter the works done on animal behavior, which also rely on many aspect of evolution. These behaviors generally have an underlying cause for survival, and the example you give involves instincts and acquired behavior.

If anything made by humans is flawed, then you should first examine your wooden arguments (referencing New Testament "plank in your eye").

Your statement implies that human work is inferior, presumably to divine work. Using that argument, you will have trouble defending the source material from which you derive the idea, since only humans have ever written anything. If you believe that the scriptures you read were written by a deity, then of course that is a spurious idea with no evidence to support it. If you believe the human hand was divinely guided, then you will have equal difficulty in proving that Charles Darwin was not divinely guided.

For example, it would appear that the lord gave Darwin an exceptional curiosity in nature. Presumably the lord guided Darwin and the authorities in England to assign him to the Beagle as science officer. Next, the lord guided the Beagle safely to many exotic places where Darwin grew in his knowledge and wisdom - arguably, a divine gift. Then the lord provided for Darwin a puzzle to solve in the curious nature of the Galapagos Islands. And the lord would then have furnished Darwin the wisdom and fortitude to write his findings, and though he struggled to publish them, the lord apparently sent him a messenger to spark the act of releasing his work.

Furthermore, the lord has given Darwin's work to you free of charge, with the intellect to comprehend what this message contains.

Therefore it is illogical to conclude that all human produced work is invalid.

Evolution regards killing (premature death) as a stress to the species, for which they tend to adapt, if the stress gets too high. The penguin would seem to satisfy your intent above for a "birdfish", or something like that. The wings have been adapted to swimming. They are the same bones in wings used for flight, and are homologous (similar) to the bones in your own arms. Other adaptations in the penguin, obviously, are to negotiate ice, and survive freezing temperatures, both dry and wet.

Your theoretical lifespan has probably already been extended due to many correct findings arising out of the understanding of evolution. For example, you probably have been vaccinated and spared from death from any number of infectious diseases. These vaccines, the science behind them, stands on the pillars of Darwin's divinely inspired work.

 

Wow, that's the revised version?
Eugene...I am really, really tired of arguing with people who are determined not to believe in evolution.

Notice I don't say don't believe, but determined not to.
Anti-evolutionists (like yourself) choose not to accept it for religious reasons. They will therefore believe any sort of daft argument that seems to discredit evolution, without actually understanding evolution at all.

So I direct you to here: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
If you nose around on that site, you will find that new species have been observed happening, that the probability for life starting on it's own in the early seas was almost certain given the timescale and the chemistry, and other facts that your preacher doesn't want you to know about.

If your faith is secure, why would knowing the truth shake that faith, hmm? If your God is mighty, how can a bunch of scientists threaten Him?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Billy T, let's not over-simplify in our explanations.

In addition to copying mistakes, there are numerous other methods for genetic change, including:

horizontal gene transfer: genes from other organisms, notably retroviruses and some bacteria, can be wholly copied into the germ cells of an organism via infections, and then find beneficial use (but let's not go hog-wild infecting everyone with the hope the infection will be beneficial - most of the time it is not!).

replication of genes: instead of a single copy of a gene, duplicate copies can be made.

reorientation of a gene: genes can be flipped-around, and inserted backwards, which can then be manipulated over time.

reorientation of a chromosome: an entire section of a chromosome can be inverted and fused to an existing chromosome -- a notable example is in Homo sapiens which differ from other members of the primate family in one particular chromosome which shows as two chromosomes in all other primates.

All of these types of events are usually fatal, but sometimes the exact right conditions might exist to provide a favorable situation, allowing for the genetic change to be propagated to progeny.

 

To Walter:

Yes I agree there are dozens of mechanism (even the popular cosmic ray, you did not mention) that can cause the off spring to have DNA uniquely different than all possible mixes of it parent's DNA could produce without one of these (or others) Errors. For speaking to one as ignorant of all this as wellwisher appears to be, speaking of "copy errors" is very appropriate, I think. Certainly no need to discuss the mechanisms leading to these errors in the copy given to the offspring.

Your: "let's not go hog-wild infecting everyone with the hope the infection will be beneficial - most of the time it is not!"

I certainly tried to not give that impression by guessing that 99.99+% of the randomly made / new DNAs were selected AGAINST or made individuals that were not even viable.

On second thought, I was too firm in trying to block that "all is for the better'' idea. Probably, again just guessing, ~0.1% of the errors the offspring gets are neutral - don't make any difference so are not "selected against" as I asserted in the first guess. For example, the green sensitive retinal cells in humans come with two slightly different, genetically determined, chemical forms of that rodopsin but it makes so little difference that it is hard to measure which you have (while living at least).

 

Point well taken. I tend to say "mutation" as a catch-all, but indeed nature has found so many ways to introduce variation, some quite elaborate and complex.

 

Wow, lots of provocation.

Did anyone see the guy talking about Dawkins and Hawking on Oreilly a few weeks ago?

 

Nope, that would have required watching Oreilly.