Validity of Micro/macro-evolution idea

Saquist, good post - #75.

Do you (anyone) find that the way the eye and the brain interact is a perfect example of design?

Evolving into an eye=possible (not probable)
Evolving into a brain=possible (not ptobable)
Evolving into an eye and a brain that work together=Design

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What do you mean by this. The arguments of evolution have been painstakingly laid out time and time again. If you will not attend to these it is hardly surprising that you thik the arguments have never materialised.

Evolution is not dependent upon luck. Evolution is dependent upon the attributes of self organisation in open thermodynamic systems. It is dependent upon emergent properties of systems. You appear to have no knowledge of these issues, yet you feel entitled to criticise results that depend upon them. Is that sensible?

Evolution has been precisely defined. It is the change in the frequency of alleles within a population.
What biologists are working on is how such changes occur. What is your problem with that?
.

What nonsense! Here is a list of a fraction of the journals that publish work on 'figuring out evolution'. Perhaps you should read some of them.
The Evolution Journal
International Journal of Organic Evolution
Journal of Human Evolution
International Journal of Evolution Equations
Evolution and Human Behaviour
Journal of Molecular Epidemiology and Evolutionary Genetics of Infectious Diseases
Journal of Molecular Evolution
Journal of Palaeontology
Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology
Journal of Dinosaur Palaeontology
Journal of Molecular Epidemiology and Evolutionary Genetics of Infectious Diseases

You are playing with words again. And again I don't know if it is through ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. There is no third alternative. If it is ignorance you have the opportunity to be educated, yet you refuse to take that opportunity. If it is intellectual dishonesty then that would call into question the moral basis for your own self righteous posturing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

evasiveness has been covered...the issues have not.

perhaps both times you missunderstood.

context is everything. Concerning which I never said his opinions were facts...the trick is read for the facts. But his assertions are just as revealing. Unless you don't wish to address those assertions

A psychological error, it would be to attempt to convince those that do not wish to be convinced. To the mind of obstinaces everything is usually subjective. But...it's the mind that is asking why, criticaly challenging the issue that makes discoveries.

I understand they are not "necessary" for you.
Possibilty in probablity is entire relevant to me.

I'm sure you thing that is so...but before I revise my perception there must be contradictory qualifications. You have provided only your authority above...as a nameless, unpublished, unverifiable entity.

And you are choosing to believe yourself...one is seeking the other is self vanity...ego.

Fill free to list findings you aprove of and we shall see where the contradictions lie....But I don't believe you will because I don't think you know any. I believe you will search the internet for what you need...cherry picking from select portions that provide nothing in the form of clarity.

Yes, yes...let us also ignore the facts which these gentle bring up and focus on the names....smite the names...you obviously hate names....

exactly John99, this illistrates the continual problem of evolution and failure of evolution to face. I've read numerous articles on the eye and brain...the function are incredible...and better designed that any camera and the brain better programed than any computer...both well adapted. The Brain actually has limited repair function...how many times did a brain meet with damage, evolved the ability, and managed to survive?

We are indeed believing in the impossible from my standpoint.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But if you know these things as relevant...then why all the cloak and dagger. Once again. Ophiolite you have information...but you dangle it. You're a tease. I recall asking you for detail from the begining and what you came up with before was a tantrum. What's changed?

I don't know alot about thermodynamics...but that still equals to chance.

defined yet never seen...how is it defined...yet never observed...and mind you...we are talking macro evolution.

Extrapolating a process beyond a certain complexity can lead to error in the outcome. That is the problem with what you call "macro evolution"

There is absolutely no call to believe radical changes occur, by chance that alter and animal "kind" or "family into another. It's an extrapolation...one that scientist admit is carried hundreds and thousands of years into the future. How do you define that which you've never seen in action?

One day I will explore such journals if not all of them. But I'm no biologist and I can not become one by reading through a few journals.

okay, Opholite, you're made your case. I'm self righteous and dishonest and above all ignorant...So why are you still here? I think you've made the point you've wished to make.

 

Why?

It's not easy, that's for sure. That's why evidence is so handy. When you are confronted with a difficult path, having a solid foundation is critical.
Show us evidence, well laid out and not compromised by subjective interpretation, personal conflicts of interest, or contaminated by poor study design or uneeded assumptions, and you might find people, even those who don't want to admit that they are wrong, more willing to be corrected.
If you simply give up, and only preach to the chior, then you're not going to make much of a difference in life. As someone who has stated interest in teaching before, do you only want to repeat to people that which they already know? Or do you want to expand horizons? Who but those who don't want to agree are better targets for this?

How best can you convinse them, without evidence; specific and unarguable data? Opinion and authority are worthless compared to simply measured DATA.

 

Even more profound...why shoould I have to convince you at all. If you haven't been listening and you can't relate to what's posted as relevant or as evidence...then the person asking for more is not likely to regard anything other than agreement as pertinent evidence. Right?

So why should I try to convince you?

 

In you, nothing has changed. There are a wealth of textbooks, journal articles and the like which explain in level of detail you wish the nature and mechanics of evolution. You refuse to consult these. Why?

Correct. You don't know a lot about thermodynamics. In an open system with high energy flow, wherein the system is far from equilibrium, it will self organise. This has been observed in all kinds of chemical, biochemical, physical and biological systems.
This is the central point you seem incapable of understanding, or unwilling to understand. Don't take my word for it, go do a simple search on the web. I shall not waste my time doing this for you until you have shown at least some willingness to do some of this work yourself. [My so called tantrum was in response to your behaviour. You asked for references. I provided them. You refused to consult them.]

We have observed macro-evolution in the fossil record. By its very nature we should not expect to see it in the laboratory. WE have also observed plentiful evidence of it in genomes.

The work being conducted often involves a reductionist approach, so we are doing the exact opposite of extrapolating beyond a certain complexity. Rather we are interpolating between ever more precisely defined steps in a simple process.

I've seen it in action in the fossil record and I've seen its footprints in the genomes.

I am not suggesting you should read these. You made an absolute statement that "most scientist feel that the work on figuring out evolution is done." I was demonstrating that such a statement was nonsense. Will you at least accept that, or does your character flaw prevent you ever admitting you are mistaken?

Because stubborn intransigence appalls me; because refusal to look at the facts disgusts me; because self righteousness sickens me; because your narrow minded outlook requires to be attacked both on the objective level and on a personal level.
For the most part I shall leave the measured dissection of your nonsense to RiverWind, iceaura and others. I shall do some of this, but I shall also continue to point out your personal deficiencies until you change, or I die or get bored. Why do I do this? Because those deficiencies are central to your inability to accept what there is overwhelming evidence for, that could and does fill entire libraries. Your inability to understand the reality of evolution lies in your selective perceptions and unfounded self confidence.
Time and again you have noted that, for example, you are not a biologist, you don't knwo much about thermodynamics, etc. Yet you then make pronouncements that relate intimately to this very topic. This needs to be challenged, now and into the future.

 

Likewise Ophiolite, but time is of the essence If you have an argument you should make. I require your guidance to manuver through your argument..you provide none...

Hense..I will review your "refrences" at my own discretion. Why would it be anyother way when you've failed to explain your knowledge from those sources...and I suspect that this will illistrate the lack of direction in the rest of your post as I proceed to reply...

I'm shocked..you've managed to explain at least something. However...of course there is an however...no illistration to drive home your point. I'd like to know more. You leave pertinent information out.

Nothing has changed indeed.

Of course Ophiolite understanding comes with knowledge or explanation...know of which you've imparted.

I won't be using the web. You see..I go to the Library. You remeber what those places look like?

You shouldn't, I think you're unqualified to teach. You selfishly hold on to your knowledge and dangle it for supremcy. Wasting your time is an understatment of what you've been doing from the outset with me...You were a bully and you want me to back down.

I call it like I see it. I never refused. You're lying now and grandizing yourself for your audience.

Never have we observed macro-evolution in the fossil record. You refer to appearance.

I don't undersand. A reductionist approach...How so?

Perception is imprecise.

No, not really when a scientist like yourself relates that evolution is a fact and then proceeds to continue to research his "facts."

To compromise on the facts is illogical. It either is or isn't.

I have no disgust toward you. and you have thrown out facts on improbable and coincidence, unavailabitly, and unkowns....with worlds such as wrong and irrelevant.

I wonder what it would feel like to feel as you do. Dismisive and flagrantly ineffuctual as a teacher. I was once told that if a teacher can't teach a wlling student then it is always the teachers fault.

Let me know when you get over that.

Requires no...narrow minded, no...you don't like being wrong, Ophilolite. It's stuck in your craw that you can't explain this propperly. You don't like that I contest your word and your lack of expanation.

Knock yourself out.

I predict bored.

Because you're not a good conversationalist?

I love circumstantial evidnence as much as the next guy which in this case is yourself...but as an objective participant the circumstantial never proves antying. It only makes suggestion variable to the personage making the calims, which is yourself.

hmmm.

Actually that was the first time I stated that. So we see that the lenses through which you view your world aren't allows based on the facts...but...upon emotion...indignities...that which I've visited upon you because of your rough-neck approach. The "pronoucements" you calim that I've made have all been quoted from your fellow scientist.

If you didn't understand the purpose of giving and quoting refrences and statements.. (That which you've failed to do) now you know...so that you can not claim that these are my words.

I'm sensing this is very difficult for you Ophilolite. Why don't you try again in a few months after I've considered your information and related it to the books I've already read. Go cool off, look at your approach and attempt to find out where you went wrong. A little self analysis never hurt anyone.

 

Now while Ophilolite has mad this about me and himself...again. Let's stay on topic.

And Ophiolite I hope you don't take any of that personally. It's not my aim to offend you. I'm sure you're respected and beloved in the circles you travel.

If you feel like explaning thermodynamic's relation to evolution I will be more than willing to listen.

 

Something that will contradict your understanding here is Water.

a river flows = Nature (Physics)
A Dam is built = Design (Physics/Engineering)
A river finds a new way around the Dam = Nature (Physics)

Intelligence was obviously there to build the Dam, however the physics of water and the geological properties around the Dam are atomic components that require nothing but basic physics for the water to find a new route.

The same kind of hypothesis can be used in Genetic evolution, yes there might be the occasional occurance's of the equivalent to the 'Dam' (i.e. Pug dog, Manx cat) however these interactions are after the fact, they are built on top of 'Natural' evolution and Mutation evolution occurs after that point.

 

Yes. I have one.

 

I wish you well with that project.

 

You got it, now...be up beat...

 

Intresting analogy. I'm not sure I've made compete sense of it.

 

This is merely conjecture and opinion. Who are we to say what is possible or impossible, especially with the limited knowledge of the natural world? Saying it is design is as much motivated by desire and bias as saying it occured without any specific motivation. Either conclusion is based on almost pure assumption.

We have no basis whatsoever with which to label anything as designed or not. All the design we know is human design. And even then, that design is build out of necessity and is based upon natural factors. Perhaps instead of debating whether anything was designed or not, we should be debating what exactly is design and what exactly is intelligence. Because, at the moment, those two seem as ambiguous as the idea of god itself.

 

You know Roy...I honestly don't know but...we have to start somewhere. Those numbers are sort of after the fact.

This theory was created under a premise that wrong. Spontaneous generation of life. This has been proven wrong. Life, according to everything we know comes from other Life.

Compound that with Darwins results on that famous Island I can't spell. Those finches returned to there previous incarantions a hundred years later. A fact that is rarely highlighted in the text books. He didn't live to see that result but results are the same. This is disproved.

We've never seen a creature morph one into another...so what leads us to the conclusion that they can? Similarities in make up? A beak here a claw there that "looks" similar.

We know this is wrong. Chimps look nothing like humans yet there genetic make up shares more like DNA than any creature on the planet. Botantist once belived just from "appearance" that certain plants had certain ancestory the same with animals...but that all change with the genetic revolution. Nothing is what it appears to be.

Looking at the fossil record and making conclusion is just as incorrect as comparing a gorilla as humans closest genetic match. I know this. This information is for everyone to see...

So where is the fact of macro evolution? Where do we, as Opilolite put see it..."in action"? If we don't see it how can this be a fact?

 

Because we are talking in a public forum in a thread discussing the "Validity of Micro/macro-evolution idea". If you aren't going to try and convinse me, then you are wasting the time of everyone here; yourself included.

 

Due to a request from one of the other moderators and the fact that current there is still some discussion going (in comparison to other threads that usually fall apart by the third page in a thread), I've been asked very kindly to move this thread to Biology and Genetics

On the subject itself, evolution has been proven by the various forms of Mosquito's and rodent's that have evolved within the tunnels of the London Underground. Since this man-made tunnel complex is only a few centuries old and the life expectancy of these particular variants of specie is short (allowing thousands of generations to occur within the time frame), they are currently the best conclusive proof that evolution occurs and that the only "design" that such animals deal with is based upon the environment which their generations of ancestors live in.

You should be able to find references to such species via google and perhaps even references to particular books you can find in a library.

 

That would seem to defy to use of "macro" evolutions

We have a problem of definition...is any change in an animal to be flagged as evolution? This is sciences fault for stating that evoution is a fact...as though it was observerd like what you relate Stryder. It is this thinking and all encompassing blanket of "every biological function is evolution" that cast contradiction after contradiction on what evolution is...

An animal group changing is not evolution...just as those famous Finches on Darwin's Island changed and then changed back a hundred years later...These precedents tell us that these rats will change...maybee even no longer become breedable with one another or they may merge again indistingushable from the progenitors.

evolution any change...or evolution a long term change....The confusion is evident...no one agrees on how it should be taught...what's the driving force behind....what is it...how has it been defined or even what it looks like when you see it...Is it macro or micro....if so where does one stop and the other begin?

The miss step will always to assume that one process will have a conclusion over a period of time that none have observed...Yet it fact...as though it has been observed.

Contradiction is a nasty word to scientist concerning evolution...Improbably is another explitive...but what better describes the publics confusion...When polled on evolution America gave anything but a clear answer. Yes, No, unsure....

Would the same result occur with a Poll on gravity? Hardly the same sort of fact...evolution...gravity. There is definitely a difference.

 

Your problem seems to be that you don't believe life on earth to be hundreds of millions of years old. Your distinction between macro and micro evolution is entirely arbitrary. As such your thread belongs on the religion forum since that seems to be the guiding factor in your conclusions.