Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by davewhite04, Jan 5, 2015.

  1. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Both your statements are false.

    Normally it takes more than 100,000 years for a large creature like a mammal to evolve into a new species, (i.e. cannot mate with fertile offspring with any closely related specie) but extreme selection pressure lasting 8000 years has done it once, at least. Following from my post in an earlier version (III) of this thread:

    The Santa Catarina's Guinea Pig, Cavia intermedia, also known as the Moleques do Sul Guinea Pig is a guinea pig species from South America. It is found in Brazil on only the small island of Moleques do Sul in the state of Santa Catarina. The island has a surface area of only 10.5 ha, the Guinea Pig's geographical distribution of only 4 ha is one of the world's smallest for a mammal. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Catarina's_Guinea_Pig
    {Note the tiny island is about 90% bare rocks – very little food –extreme environment pressure for 8000 years.}

    “… We can know with certainity that the evolution of a new species of mammals (called preá) in only 8000 years has occurred at least once. …
    For it to happen the gene pool was very tiny (not more than 40 animals); there were no predators who might eat the better adapted animal before it could reproduce; the entire population was under great stress for all of the 8000 years, literally on the edge of extinction, so any slight advantage was very significant aid to not being among those that starved to death. Obviously scientists were not observing 8000 years ago, but we are certain the sea level was lower then and that the tiny island these mammals live on now was part of a much larger island back then. Thus, back then they were an interbreeding part of a large population, which still exist, with little survival stress. Thus, when the sea level rose, we know they were isolated - an essential requirement for evolutionary divergence to produce a new species. …” Above from: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2208297&postcount=172
    --------------
    Below from: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2205207&postcount=83

    “…There are approximately 40 little animals, called Preá in Portuguese, living on tiny island called Moleques do Sul, which is about 8 km separated for a much larger Island called Florianopolis that have been studied by Pontifica Universidade Católic under leadership of Sandro Bonatto.

    About 8000 years ago, these two islands were one as the sea level was much lower. The tiny island is about the size of a football field and mainly rocks. But has some grass on ~10% of it.

    These Preá are so inbreed that DNA tests (type used in Brazil to determine disputed paternity, at least) cannot determine any differences. They are about half the size of the main island animals they evolved from during 8000 years of separation. Smaller size was favored by selection because of the very limited food supply. They are the only mammals on the tiny island and have no predators. - I.e. population is limited only by the lack of food for more than 40 but probably has been slightly increasing as they evolved to be ever smaller each 1000 years. (Probably no more than 20 of them lived after the connection to the main island was cut off 8000 years ago by the melting ice.)

    They are now a new species (Cavia Intermedia) but closely related to Cavia Magna of the main island. They are about the size and shape of a small rat, but with a face that looks much like a monkey, or even human, and fur covered (except the feet) with no tail. Head and back fur is brown and belly fur is whitish grey.

    Until they were discovered it was not thought by experts that a population of only 40 animals max could survive for thousands of years. They have, no doubt, lived all that time on the edge of extinction and practiced incestual mating with no ill effects, at least for the last 6000 or 7000 years. They are all now genetic identical. The ill effected off springs of inbreeding were selected out long ago as all live hungry on the edge of extinction at least in the mild winters. (Perhaps, like bears, they store fat during the summers - just my guess, not mentioned in the paper.)

    Their tiny island is part of a state park, now with special protection - only qualified researchers can legally visit, but some fishing boats do at times. The great fear is that one will leave a cat on the island. - Then this recently evolved new species will go extinct.

    Here is a photo of one being held, belly up, easily in the palm of a hand. {Original from page A14 of the Folio de Paulo of 18 March 2009.} ... These preá are sooo cute, with their little quasi-human quasi-monkey faces* peering out from great spread of surrounding facial hair. I bet they would make great pets. For protection of the species I hope some of the researchers think so also and steal a few for breading on the mainland and eventual sale as pets, before some fisherman's cat eats them all in less than a month.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    note what appears to be depressions on each side of the head about where a guinea pig’s eyes would be. Could it be possible that this is some vestal trace, at least in fur growth patterns, of where their eyes once were? If the preá have four eyes, surely that would have been mentioned in the newspaper article. Eyes do migrate with ease even in an individual in some cases. The flounder, when young has an eye on each side of head that migrates so both are on the same side. Also the number of eyes is not always two in humans. - One Chinese war lord had three, all functional.

    I also note that forward looking eyes the preá have, instead of the side looking eyes of a guinea pig are very much to be expected in this evolution as they facilitate depth perception and with no predators to eat them, there is no advantage to side mounted eyes as most prey animals have - only the "cost" of poor depth perception so side mounted eyes were selected against during the 8000 years. The preá surely scampered between rocks and jumped* over some too trying to find a blade of grass to eat before another preá did. - Good depth perception would be strongly selected for.

    * Note also their hind legs have evolved to be good for jumping, like a rabbit, and very different from those of the main land guinea pigs they evolved from in only 8000 years.

    From version II of this thread, here is more on them: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/denial-of-evolution-ii.91631/page-9#post-2208297 As ignorant new posters keep appearing, I'll probably need to dig up these post again for version V of this thread when it is created.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 17, 2015
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    they weren't "created from the elements in a test tube".
    science has not "created" life billvon.
    replication is not life billvon.
    the simplest form of life is the living cell.
    there has been talk about virii that might be alive, but i believe that's all it was, talk.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    where does the data come from that says it takes such and such time for a large creature to evolve into a "new species".
    on top of that, when you say "new species" you are essentially talking about heredity and adaptation.
    how to you equate this with what was written in the article i posted?
    this large creature adapts into essentially the same large creature, when it's timeline ends, it's replaced with a new genome with completely different properties.
    this is what the record shows.
    it is TYPICAL of the record billy
    yes, i believe you already posted this.

    as for the rest of your post, for the moment i'm only interested in what the science article is about.
    i would honestly like to have a clear mind on the topic, and i don't.
    i can't resolve the ayala quote, i can't resolve the article.

    a word to the wise: *
    if you post any links in this thread then be sure to either:
    download the article in question.
    or
    save the page to your HDD.

    * i don't say this as a slight to sciforums.
    a number of my best links on this subject has simply quit working.
    for example, this one:
    ethics.harvard.edu/lab/blog/301-bad-apples-and-dirty-barrels
    maybe someone can track it down or something.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2015
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    That's because plants don't 'morph' directly into men, leopold.

    Leo, are you sure about that?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryogenesis

    Really? Well how's this happen, then? God?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryogenesis

    From one little cell seem to come all the components necessary to 'morph' into a man.

    It does. There are series all over the place. The fossil record absolutely supports descent with small modifications.

    It has been. Numerous times. It was taken out of context. Done.

    Ah, speaking as the biologist here, yes, they can.
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,089
    So a creature that could eat, excrete and reproduce, could alter its environment to suit it, even make basic decisions would not be alive unless it had cells?

    In that case the answer to your puzzle is simple - replicating non-life (such as scientists at Scripps have created) appeared on the Earth billions of years ago. It ate, replicated, mutated, died, evolved and moved into lots of ecological niches until it finally developed a simple membrane around its replicating elements. At that point evolution created life.

    Congratulations! Through your narrow definitions of life, you've solved the puzzle of abiogenesis.

    Viruses cannot replicate outside a cell. These complex molecules have no problem replicating without cells.
     
  9. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,385
    Ah yes, the creationist troll line of idiocy. I see you have taken the advice of those creationist sites you frequent on how to make a stupid argument.

    I have to say, you are outdoing yourself. A plant morphing into a man? Really Leo? The cabbage patch kids argument. And the shameful idiocy of your argument continues.

    How do you think you started out as? Or didn't your bible stretch that far for your biology lesson?

    Actually, the fossil record is quite good for our species.

    It was resolved years ago. You are the only person still hung up on it.

    Yes they can.
     
  10. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    Just out of curiosty are you as well a Satanist am not judging or assuming just asking its not personal?
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2015
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,471
    As I have already pointed out, the validity of the theory of evolution doesn't rest on the truth or otherwise of a minor article from 1980.

    Let's imagine for a moment that scientists were actually unable to make any sense at all out of the fossil record. Would that mean there is no evidence for evolution, then? Far from it.

    Evolution is supported by multiple lines of evidence from disparate fields. These include:

    1. The fossil record.
    2. Comparative anatomy.
    3. Biogeography.
    4. Comparative embryology.
    5. Comparative molecular biology (genetics).
    6. Comparative biochemistry.

    Here are a couple of links that outline some of the evidence for evolution.

    http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/index.shtml
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

    There's even a "Biology Workbook for Dummies" that outlines the various lines of evidence:

    http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/what-evidence-supports-the-theory-of-evolution.html

    Strangely, of the many sites on the web that outline the evidence for evolution, none of them say "If it ever turns out that Roger Lewin made a mistake in his Science paper published in 1980, then all of this evidence is false and evolution is wrong after all."
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,471
    leopold:

    I already responded to that. Chances are that he just didn't think it was important. Also, people don't generally sue science journals when mistakes are made (which happens often enough).

    Like I said, he probably knew the NAIG guy. It was a personal communication, after all.

    The error in Science really isn't important. It's only critical as far as you are concerned, because for some reason you insist that the truth or otherwise of evolution rests on one line in one article written 30 years ago.

    Yes. But you don't really understand the majority of the article, do you? You don't have the background to know what the real argument was about that Lewin was reporting on.

    You're right. It stands. What does it stand as? A minor error in an unimportant side-note to what was going on in evolutionary biology 30 years ago.

    Really, who cares? Not biologists. Not scientists. Only the odd creationist, like yourself.

    Journalists misquote people all the time. Of course I believe the man himself.

    Yes. The fossil record is by no means complete. So what?

    I already walked you through why, above.

    It would be unfair for a moderator to edit or delete your posts without publically stating why he or she did it, wouldn't it?

    Should I have said that you think a moderator fairly edited your posts, then? See, because I thought you had a complaint.

    There's no reason to doubt the authenticity of the personal communication to NAIG from Ayala, as far as I can see.

    If you don't believe it's real, tell me why.

    Like I said before, you can't have a double standard when it comes to Ayala. Either you trust his words, or you don't.

    The error in the article is minor. I can't see any reason why Ayala would want to kick up a fuss over it.

    Really? Where can I see posts of yours arguing for evolution?

    Bah bowm! Wrong.

    That's abiogenesis, not evolution.

    And anyway, how else do you propose life started?

    Bah bowm! Wrong.

    See my post above on the multiple lines of evidence for evolution. Several of those lines of evidence also provide time scales.

    Bah bowm!

    You share over 99% of your DNA with other human beings.
    You share about 98.5% of your DNA with chimpanzees.
    You share about 90% of your DNA with any other mammal you care to name: rabbits, sheep, whales, whatever.
    You share about 50-60% of your DNA with bananas.

    And that's just one of the lines of evidence that shows that human beings and plants share a common ancestor.

    Bah bowm! Wrong.

    Every day, more evidence is published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that small (genetic) changes accumulate.

    I'm not sure what you're talking about, but based on how wrong you've been so far, this is probably wrong too.

    So you think nothing is alive?

    If you agree that some things are alive, then how do you think life started? Tell us, leopold.

    What has religion got to do with evolution?

    You're not interested in seeing any evidence. You won't even bother looking at the links I posted above. You can't fool me, leopold.

    Yes it does.
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,471
    A Satanist is a worshipper of Satan, right? And Satan is supposed to be an evil angel, or an evil supernatural prince, kind of like a bad God, right?

    Why do you think that somebody who believes the science of evolution would simultaneously worship a supernatural evil being?
     
  14. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    Why don't you ask Spidergoat ??
     
  15. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    Why don't you asked Spidergoat? invite him into the conversation. ask yourself what are you willing to loose?
     
  16. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,385
    What could possibly have led you to ask such a question?
     
  17. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    the living cell is the simplest form of life that biologists know of.
    have you found a new form of life?
    let's not get stupid here billvon.
    you can classify fire as life if you wanted to.
    so, let's not muddy the water, or try to confuse people, okay?
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,471
    What about viruses? Are they alive?
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,471
    Why spidergoat?

    He can join the conversation any time he likes. This is a discussion forum.
    ---
    For myself, I can say that I believe in evolution and I don't worship Satan. Does that help you at all?
     
  20. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    This is the reason for evolution, to prove the non existence of God elimination of singularity to set the foundation of consciousness becoming dominated by dual realms and ego glorification of man becoming a God. This is why they eat the apple in the first place the Adamities Thus they descended and became a permanent slave to gravity coincidentally the apple hit Issac Newton on his head
    "The author of the rational world he has inspired the scientific perspective" ((Someguy1)) signifying hell and animal like realms. Then they eventual was on a pursuit of knowledge the tree they eat from for their masters taught them lessons of the scionic disciplines as well as gave them the basics tools to discovery it. That tool is basically science and it's subcategories. This is why there is a church of scientology they have mastered the secrets of levitation and all sorts of reality bending techniques, the mathematical proofs are hidden in plane sight so you cannot say they never told you the truth. But you remain ignorant only to save face and perpetuate fear and disbelief. We all may use science because pure knowledge is not of the ego to use science as a means of objection is fine, but once a belief is attached upon it in this case "scientology" it is no longer science but then is and has become a religion "Scientology" check out the link and you will understand the rest...
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/proof-of-the-existence-of-god.144082/ Remember to scroll to the bottom to read Spidergoats description of what's going on.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2015
  21. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    evolutionist: see that pond of goo over there?
    one of these days it will give you an opinion on a dali.
    the theory of relativity will spew from its lips.

    if someone told me that, i would laugh my ass off.
     
  22. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    debatable.
    maybe, could be, might be, no, yes, i don't know.
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,089
    At least up until a few years ago.
    Debatable. Have they found the _beginnings_ of life? Definitely.
     

Share This Page