It is currently Tue Nov 24, 2020 3:06 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 131 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 4:55 am 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 966
Cyclone_Joker wrote:
ignorant, indoctrinated people incapable of reason

LOL

_________________
Ko wrote:
1. it's "for all intents are purposes". I don't care if you were joking.


What does B^) mean?


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 6:50 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 24, 2013
Posts: 1832
Location: Trading people for smokes.
MagicPablo666 wrote:
Huh. I'm also interested in seeing Lokiare's sources. It certainly sounds like you know a lot about the subject - more than myself - but I need a lot more before I can buy what you're selling. Which, by the way, what exactly is your alternative?

Creationists: Relatively harmless in my opinion. Religion has a track record of very harmful behavior. You don't exactly see creationists sending letter bombs to science labs, do you?
Ignorance IS harmful behavior. The fact that crestionists want their flawed theories taught in schools is ridiculous, and proof enough that they're not rational, sane thinkers.

_________________
Gehennah, true kings of poseur-slaying wrote:
Suddenly she stood there close to me, a woman too grotesque to even be
I felt quite dim but I was still aware, that I was too drunk to see or care
I said "Baby, metal is what I need; not some bloody ***** to feed"
She looked at me with stupid eyes, then I gave her my advice

"Piss off, I'm drinking! Piss off, or die!
Piss off, I'm drinking! Piss off, or die!"


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 7:45 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
Lilan wrote:
What are the top-level restrictions to how a species can change given the assumption that only the subtraction of traits is possible? When I think of a lizard changing colours from green to yellow I don't think of it in terms of the lizard losing a trait, but rather a trait changing, but I imagine the underlying mechanics follow a constant theme given your understanding. If that constant theme holds true, in what ways is it possible or impossible for a species to change?


None really. They simply don't grow new genes due to the way proteins require a network of requirements not to be a negative influence on the creature. For instance not only does a protein have to have 25-500 base pare mutations which is near impossible to get in order to change to another neutral or usable protein, those mutations have to take into account protein folding and hundreds of other variables. There are very few proteins that are usable and not negative mutations. Due to all the factors that come into it.

Mainly it doesn't matter if the change is advantageous to survival, its only ever caused by the loss of a trait. Each time scientists try to claim they found a new trait, someone sequences the DNA and finds the trait was simply recessive or that it was already there, but only able to work after some other part of the DNA was mutated in a negative or neutral manner.

So a lizard changing colors from green to yellow would mean losing the blue pigment gene to a negative mutation. Its impossible for them to just grow a yellow gene...

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 7:53 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
Yarium wrote:
I don't think you can so quickly throw out "the production of new genes" portion of the theory. There are more than just basic mutations that can create variances and differences between genes: http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/origins-of-new-genes-and-pseudogenes-835. Just because one method of new gene production doesn't work does not mean that it's impossible for genes to work at all - just that this single method is ineffective. Quickly looking through google, I found this published article; http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6105/384.abstract. It's about how the duplications that are mentioned in the earlier link can arise rather quickly and start taking on new functions, and how this leads to new genes with new functions. Now this might be proven false, but the point I'm trying to get across is that we know that changes happen, but we just don't know yet exactly how they happen. Just like cataclysmic meteors - we can see the consequences of massive meteors hitting the Earth, and can make pretty good guesses on the effects of one hitting us right now, even though we've never been around to actually see or document it happening.


We can throw it out based on how they explain it now and the fact that even with bacteria that has thousands of generations in just a few years, and how its never been observed, the fossil record doesn't back it up (the scientists twist themselves into knots trying to show creatures evolving from each other, except they are on different continents and have different features and traits that have no intermediaries like the horse chart they still use in text books today, any real scientist will look at those and find flaws left and right).

The problem is there is no direct chain between proteins. Proteins work like these two sentences "The sky is blue today" and "Today, the heavens are azure". Did one evolve from the other? No of course not, and so it is with proteins they work but they are very different, even ones that perform the same function in different species are very different. If you change one even slightly is ceases to function. The idea that this stuff happened rapidly is even worse. You would find fossils of mutated creatures left and right and due to genetic drift they wouldn't be able to breed with each other. The idea is ludicrous and unworkable.

I'm not saying its impossible that new genes can form. I'm saying the methods they use today to explain it are scientifically impossible. Not to mention there is zero evidence to show it has happened at all.

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:07 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
miss_bun wrote:
Lokiare wrote:
Jeremy wrote:
Even if Dawkins' later work turns you off, The Selfish Gene is a very good book. It's accessible to anyone who's willing to try to understand it -- you don't really need any scientific background -- and it explains evolution and a lot of the subtle effects that take place in a very interesting way. It's one of my favourite books and I highly recommend it to anyone who's interested in the topic.

When it was written (35 years ago) some of the ideas it it were new-ish, whereas now they're pretty widely accepted, which is interesting to consider when you're reading it.


That books been torn to shreds way to many times for its assumptions and falsities. You can find one such shredding here.


I don't find this shredding very compelling.

It also uses a lot of language that you seem to take issue with in your earlier post about what evolution is. I'd be interested to see some of your sources for the above data (and conclusions, assuming those aren't your own as well.)


What part is not compelling?

"But was it science? My criticisms of The Selfish Gene are many, but most come under the broad criticism that the book’s principal propositions are, like those of The Extended Phenotype, untestable and therefore non-scientific. But there were numerous false assumptions and skewed definitions in TSG that were carried over into TEP. One skewed definition is that of the phenotype. On page 235 TSG Dawkins defines phenotype as; “the bodily manifestation of a gene, the effect that a gene, in comparison with its alleles, has on the body, via development.” But this is not a phenotype. A phenotype is the combined effects that the environment and the genotype (all the genes of an organism) have on the development of the organism. It is only by subtle and misleading changes in emphasis such as these, (the same for gene, natural selection, etc.) that Dawkins is able to give any coherence or plausibility at all to selfish gene theory. "

This is the excerpt that is most telling. If something is untestable it is not a theory or a hypothesis even in scientific terms. It is a belief. In other words, The Selfish Gene is nothing more than some guys uninformed opinion about how genes act. Then he goes on to show that the author didn't even know the meaning of the terms they were using and their entire thesis is based on those false definitions.

He later notes in his criticism that there is no such thing as Darwinian Purpose. This is important because a lot of things fall apart if you don't have that glue there. The evolution of eyes for instance can't have happened unless evolution was pushing toward sight as a goal. It was not. So eyes could not have evolved.

The article notes that the author makes quite a few assumptions, such as the beaver dam example. This could just as easily be learned behavior. We have seen examples in recent times of learned behavior. A poisonous frog migrated to a country without poisonous frogs (I think it was England or maybe Australia) an animal that was native to the origin area of the frog was able to flip the poisonous frog over and eat its stomach (the poison was on the back). Birds soon picked up this behavior and it spread. So now grabbing a leg and flipping the frog over to eat it is standard behavior for predators in the area. Is simply learned behavior. Beavers eat fish. They could have observed that blocking rivers and streams made the fish more plentiful and started doing that themselves.

The article also shows where the author disproves his own theory in his new book...

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:12 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
Van wrote:
Oh come on guys there are better ways to show displeasure of something other than "grrr i wanna murder people' its not just weird and derailing but its just bad posting.
miss_bun wrote:
I don't find this shredding very compelling.

It also uses a lot of language that you seem to take issue with in your earlier post about what evolution is. I'd be interested to see some of your sources for the above data (and conclusions, assuming those aren't your own as well.)

The article reads like an editorial and does not substantiate almost any of its claims and dismisses Darwins proposals outright as if they are obvious ("I’ll start with “Darwinian purpose”. There is no such thing. Natural selection has no purpose" he may be right but i thought natural selection had a pretty clear end goal just by, you know, what it is: establishment and proliferation of the mightiest species in its environment) compared to a scientific debunking and the website itself seems to be based on some interesting views of academic collaboration and rigor.

Lokiare, do you have other sources, like peer reviewed journals?


Peer reviewed journals require money to access. Also this is a book and not a peer reviewed study.

As to natural selection, it actually doesn't work that way. It does not select for the mightiest species in the environment. It selects for species that can survive in the environment. For instance if losing a leg through mutation doesn't affect the creatures survivability (say say they can fly) then you will see a lot of one legged animals running around. It also doesn't select for the fittest unless the environment is extremely harsh. In less harsh environments it simply selects for survivable. As long as the creature can grow and breed, that is all that is selected for. When you view it from this angle, the bird that has the bigger wingspan, but gains no actual advantage in the environment from it will be just as likely to die out as the shorter wingspan, but equally competitive bird...

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:25 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
MagicPablo666 wrote:
Huh. I'm also interested in seeing Lokiare's sources. It certainly sounds like you know a lot about the subject - more than myself - but I need a lot more before I can buy what you're selling. Which, by the way, what exactly is your alternative?

Creationists: Relatively harmless in my opinion. Religion has a track record of very harmful behavior. You don't exactly see creationists sending letter bombs to science labs, do you?


I don't need an alternative, you are committing the following fallacies (which are pretty common when discussing evolution):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma by saying I have to have an alternative you are saying its either my way or the evolutionists way. It could be an entirely other way that is neither.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism Regardless of whether I come up with an alternative, does not determine if the theory is true.

Once you realize you are committing these fallacies, we can move forward with fruitful discussion. This thread is about the theory of evolution, and nothing else...

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:30 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
miss_bun wrote:
I think in some ways creationism is dying out, but the response to that in some communities has been homeschooling, and further insulating and isolating their kids. In some ways, it is more insidious than bombing a science lab. In texas, for instance, where most american textbooks are made, there is a lot of support for things that could be considered very antiscientific, and there is a lot of revisionist history going on as well. Some states are passing laws requiring or at least allowing creationism and/or intelligent design being taught in schools, and this definitely isn't a good thing as far as the future of science and education are concerned.


A good documentary to watch is Expelled, no intelligence allowed. It shows the bias against anything that is not evolutionary theory. People get blacklisted if they so much as mention it. One person derides it and makes a mockery of creationism and gets fired because they mentioned it in a peer reviewed paper.

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:31 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 275
Location: Klendathu
A guide on how to make seven consecutive posts and say nothing worthwhile.

_________________
I crave only several commodities.
Jak wrote:
kill boyfren own women


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:03 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 25, 2013
Posts: 3084
Lokiare wrote:
The problem is there is no direct chain between proteins. Proteins work like these two sentences "The sky is blue today" and "Today, the heavens are azure". Did one evolve from the other? No of course not, and so it is with proteins they work but they are very different, even ones that perform the same function in different species are very different.


This sentence makes no sense. A sentence does not "evolve", and I have difficulty understanding the connection you are trying to make here. One is grammar, and the other is chemistry. Trying to compare the two seems totally unrealistic.

And saying that you can throw it out because right this moment they can't explain it perfectly makes no sense. That's not the scientific method. Sometimes it just means that a crucial piece is missing. Newton's theory of gravity does not accurately predict the orbit of Mercury (it keeps going off by a few arc-seconds... something only noticeable with precise measurement) - but it still does a great job of explaining day to day interactions, and can the orbits still very accurately. However, it wasn't until Einstein came out with General Relativity did Mercury's orbit become precisely predicted.

But before Einstein, did we throw out Newton's model? Of course not! It still worked for what we needed it to work for. And further refinement lead to Einstein's General Relativity. In fact, without the first, we would not have had the tools to discover the second! Even now, we know that Einstein's theory still doesn't perfectly explain the universe... (the theory seems to stop working under quantum situations). Have we stopped using the theory? Definitely not! In fact, without using that theory, we'll have nothing to compare new theories to.

Our current understanding of genetics isn't perfect, but we know we're on the right track because it accurately predicts most day to day events. We can then try better, and if the new theories don't answer things as well as the old theories, then we'll keep using the old ones. But we keep testing both the new and old theories with slight modifications, just in case we messed up! :D


Also, did you read the article about gene duplication I posted?



-----------

ADDITION BEFORE POSTING: Please folks - no matter how much you may disagree with Lokiare's views, do not stump to "you're stupid - nu-uh you're stupid" or "god isn't real" stuff. That's bullying, says nothing worth-while, and ventures off-topic. Wheaton's law - don't be a dick.

_________________
Quote:
"If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors." — Galef, Dakka Dakka Forums


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:16 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
Glasir wrote:
I was hoping to avoid contentious debates, but I cannot in good conscience let such faux-scientific rubbish stand without challenge.
Lokiare wrote:
Adaptation of the species to its environment is accomplished by losing traits that are a disadvantage to living in an environment.

No. It's gaining traits that are advantageous. In many cases, this is a purely semantic difference; however, this form of the hypothesis allows for actual development to take place, a crucial component of evolution. (Your version also subtly poisons the well by presenting a purely negative statement, but that's less important to the debate.)


Unfortunately no one has shown a way in which new traits can be gained or observed it anywhere in nature under any conditions (including irradiating fruit fly experiments), which means the entire hypothesis of adaptation of the species rests on a crumbling foundation. I'm not saying it isn't true. I'm saying there is no evidence to support it and therefore assuming its true and building any theory on top of it is not very scientific. Its literally an act of faith to do that.

Quote:
Quote:
For instance say a lizard has two pigment genes or traits, one of them is blue and the other is yellow. Which makes them green. Now say this lizard species migrated to the desert and started living there. Now one day a group of them lose the trait to produce blue pigments in their skin and scales and the other group loses the yellow pigments. Which would survive better? You guessed it, the yellow ones would survive better because of the color of the desert more closely matches the color of the yellow scales and skin.

Yes, this is basically what happened with peppered moths in England in the 19th century.


You mean the falsified picture they still spread where the guy admitted to gluing a bunch of black moths to a tree and taking photos of it? The traits of black or white were in the creature from the start. There is a thing called recessive genes meaning the gene is still there, it is just not expressed unless the dominant gene is absent. In the case of the coal factory turning everything black, then yes the ones with white pigments would die out due to natural selection, but some black moths would always have the recessive gene. Looks like someone needs to do some studying.

Quote:
Quote:
Some try to argue that new traits get added but that has never been observed anywhere at any time (despite repeated claims to the contrary, they are always proven wrong when the gene or DNA is sequenced). Which brings us to the second one, which has been proven wrong on so many levels that its laughable that anyone still believes it, I guess there will always be Flat Earthers though.

A small group of lizards was introduced to an island, forming a bottlenecked population. Forty years later, they had developed cecal valves, allowing a shift from a primarily insectivorous diet to an herbivorous one. Dismissively call me a Flat-Earther if you like, but that sounds a lot like adding a new trait to me.


Ok, first off, this is easily proven nonviable. In order for there to be enough genetic data to prevent inbreeding mutations, there would have to more than 10 lizards. I think somewhere it was said that you need 44 individuals to sustain a population with genetic diversity to avoid mutations of this nature (but don't hold me to it, I'm doing that from memory). Secondly no one has sequenced the DNA at this time. In other words it could simply be recessive traits or interbreeding with other lizards. Its very shaky ground if you are laying the entirety of evolution on this premise. Not to mention if you look at the two lizards species that inhabited the area they are close enough that one could be mistaken for the other and the two could have interbred because the larger heads and fatter bodies they describe could easily have come from the so called 'extinct' lizard. Dalmation Wall Lizard and Italian Wall Lizard. Again what they are doing here is holding up an observation with no real evidence and calling it evolution, its the same thing they always do. Mainly bad science. We can revisit this when they do the DNA sequencing and actually discuss science.

Quote:
Also: what do you mean by "the second one"? I can't find the corresponding antecedent.

Quote:
Statistical perspective:
"Proteins are complex coils of several hundred amino acids. Take a typical protein to be a chain of 200 amino acids. The observed range is from less than 100 amino acids per protein to greater than 1000. There are 20 commonly occurring amino acids that join in varying combinations to produce the proteins of life. This means that the number of possible combinations of the amino acids in our model protein of 200 amino acids is 20 to the power of 200 (i.e. 20 multiplied by itself 200 times), or in the more usual 10-based system of numbers, approximately 10 to the power of 260 (i.e. the number one, followed by 260 zeros!). Nature has the option of choosing among the 10 to power of 260 possible proteins, the 3 million proteins of which all viable life is composed. In other words, for each one correct choice, there are 10 to power of 254 wrong choices!

I'd like to take a concrete example for this, so there are actual factual numbers to talk about rather than vague suppositions. Let's pick hemoglobin.

Hemoglobin is a protein consisting of a chain of 141 amino acids; it fulfills the vital role of carrying oxygen around the body. Using math analogous to yours, the chance of it occurring randomly from a blob of amino acids is 20-141, or approximately 10-183. Yikes! It's a wonder we're alive at all.

Except that that number is the result of an laughably naïve, unrealistic computation. We're assessing this probability after the fact: we know what hemoglobin looks like, and we're trying to figure out the probability of creating exactly what we see now without considering all possible alternative configurations. Just look at the differences between the hemoglobin found in humans and that in other species -- there's a difference of a single amino acid between humans' and chimpanzees', 25 between humans' and rabbits', and up to 100 between humans' and that of some fish. (Observation: these correspond nicely to the phylogenetic trees suggested by -- you guessed it -- evolution.) And that's not even getting into the differences just among humans... In fact, research has suggested that only 25 of the 141 amino acids in hemoglobin are actually necessary for it to effectively perform its oxygen-carrying function. This would give odds of 20-25, or about 10-33. It's obviously still not a certain thing, but given the timescale and volume involved it is not at all surprising that such a thing could occur. Moreover, even this vastly increased probability assumes, incorrectly, that all amino acid chains are equally likely to be produced, which is straight-up false.

And I feel it's important to note: biologists do not completely understand how proteins originated. These probabilities, and any you may give in response, are premature and bound to be inconclusive, but it is the best we can do for now.

Furthermore: evolution and biogenesis are fundamentally different questions. So there's an argument that this entire thread of discussion is technically off-topic. But anyways...


Yep, nice of you to throw a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_fallacy. "We don't know how it happened, but it did, therefore everything based on it is true and it holds up our theory. I explain in a different place how it doesn't matter about the above because it takes a different of 25-500 base pairs to change one workable protein into another and its not random base pairs either. Its specific ones that have to change in specific ways or the entire protein becomes worthless or even harmful.

Quote:
Quote:
In other words the chance of a mutation of any kind appearing in any given DNA replication is 10-10 which means 10 divided by itself 10 times which means 0.000000001. Now that's just one mutation occurring in one DNA replication after being checked by the cell. What does it take to convert one protein into another? Well a protein has around 100 to 1000 bases to form. Lets go with the easiest one 100. Now it can have a 25 percent difference between the next nearest protein, meaning 25 DNA changes need to occur for it to happen. Now using the lizard with blue and yellow pigment genes above it would take (10-10)25 for it to evolve one protein into the next nearest protein. Go ahead, count the zeros I'll wait. That's all while not creating negative effects that will cause the creature to die off in the first place. Its also not counting in things like protein folding which further lowers the chance of it happening or all the other factors like protein networks of interactions with other parts of the cell which could cause it to simply die. Then all of this has to take place in the reproductive cells in order to be passed on which further narrows it down making it a much much higher chance of not happening.

The actual number, considering all error guards, has been measured at slightly less than 1 error per 109 nucleotides; 10-10 is an acceptable estimate. The real fault in this argument that your assumption that you need to transform, say, 25% of a DNA strand to effect a nontrivial change. For example, the genetic defect responsible for sickle-cell anemia consists of a change in a single nucleotide (in the gene that codes for hemoglobin).


I'm talking about a positive change. It only takes one base pair change to become destructive. It takes 25%-50% of base pairs that create a protein to make it into the next closest protein that actual is not negative (that's not even counting positive).

Quote:
On a side note, I am not sure why you're talking about proteins here -- you introduced this section with "we will look at the chance of DNA changing". The relevant unit in DNA transcription is nucleotide bases; that for proteins would be amino acids.


You don't see how proteins are related to DNA? Well let me explain some simple biology. Proteins are coded from DNA. In other words you have to talk about DNA if you are going to talk about mutations in protein.

Quote:
Quote:
Nope sorry, no energy is added to the process of DNA replication. Its a complete closed entropy system. Light is added to the earth. Plants convert that light into sugars with the help of other chemicals and processes and that produces the parts that is used in the DNA replication system, but no actual energy is transferred. Its like a factory that makes computers. The factory makes the computers but doesn't supply the power to turn them on.

This is nonsense. Of course there is energy being transferred between the systems in question -- in this case, it takes the form of the chemical energy binding the molecules together. In particular, the energy used in replicating DNA comes from the hydrolysis of bonds between phosphate groups on the base being incorporated to the new DNA strand.


Yes, but its not being added to the part that matters: the mutation of base pairs. If you had some outside mechanism inserting positive or neutral mutations into the system, then you could say it was an open system. Its not though because nothing is doing that. The system of DNA replication is closed. It is subject to entropy. The system of propagation of species is not because energy is being produced to keep living things propagating from the sun. Do you see what I'm trying to say here?

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
IIRC, it's been demonstrated with fruit flies that populations with the same origin kept in significantly different conditions can be rendered unable to breed with each other. That was a while ago that I heard that, though, so I don't know if it's been taken farther.


Speciation is actually more complicated than just "can't interbreed" and is still, after centuries, a matter of debate. But it's a reasonable, simple statement, so let's go with it.

The Drosophila experiments I've found have largely been about inducing reproductive isolation through environmental preference -- researchers exposed populations of flies to different conditions for a number of generations, then recombined them. They found, in general, that the populations remained reproductively separate.

Another example is the domestic sheep, which speciated through animal husbandry and can no longer procreate with the mouflon, their direct ancestors.

Fruit flies and other fast-developing creatures notwithstanding, a problem with observing speciation is that it takes a lot for reproductive isolation, and therefore a lot of time. Given how recent the entire concept of "science" is (in geological terms), we simply have not had time to actively observe speciation on a large scale. We can see non-breeding populations of creatures that share massive proportions of DNA and extrapolate a speciation event[1] occurred, but direct observation is simply not possible.

[1] "Event" is not the right word, in my opinion, as it implies a sudden change rather than a gradual shift apart. But it's fairly standard and will serve.


I could go into way more detail, but it is easier for a species to separate through a negative or neutral mutation than it is for it to do it through a positive one. There are a number of factors that play into speciation: number of genes, specific genes (mainly reproductive ones), etc..etc... none of which prove or disprove evolution or the creation of new traits. In other words speciation when talked about like this is simply a red herring.

Quote:
Quote:
This is a process where the reproductive DNA gets degraded between groups to the point that they don't match up enough to breed. I could go into way more detail, but I won't unless someone asks me to. Warning: its very technical and unless you are a geneticist or a really smart person that has delved into it, it will probably sound like gibberish...

I'd be interested.


See above. If you want just ask and I'll explain the specifics in a wall of text.

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:21 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
Lilan wrote:
The idea that one system is reliable and trying to push that system on as many people as possible could create problems, even if the system in question works pretty well. I think that there's some value in people being taught in different ways.


I'd be happy if they didn't let children graduate grade school without demonstrating critical thinking skills and the ability to follow instructions.

That alone would revolutionize the world. Of course we don't teach them critical thinking until high school or college if at all and following instructions isn't really ever taught. Its just assumed they pick it up somewhere. I have family members who can't cook a decent meal even with a simple easy to read recipe and it has caused them a ton of grief throughout their life...

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:47 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
Yarium wrote:
Lokiare wrote:
The problem is there is no direct chain between proteins. Proteins work like these two sentences "The sky is blue today" and "Today, the heavens are azure". Did one evolve from the other? No of course not, and so it is with proteins they work but they are very different, even ones that perform the same function in different species are very different.


This sentence makes no sense. A sentence does not "evolve", and I have difficulty understanding the connection you are trying to make here. One is grammar, and the other is chemistry. Trying to compare the two seems totally unrealistic.


It was an example for people to wrap their minds around how proteins work. Small changes destroy the usefulness of a protein, but you can have huge changes (25-500 specific base pair changes) that make a protein that does nearly the exact same thing.

Quote:
And saying that you can throw it out because right this moment they can't explain it perfectly makes no sense. That's not the scientific method. Sometimes it just means that a crucial piece is missing. Newton's theory of gravity does not accurately predict the orbit of Mercury (it keeps going off by a few arc-seconds... something only noticeable with precise measurement) - but it still does a great job of explaining day to day interactions, and can the orbits still very accurately. However, it wasn't until Einstein came out with General Relativity did Mercury's orbit become precisely predicted.


This is an example of the homunculus fallacy. Its fine to say 'we don't know how that happened', its not fine to base other knowledge and theories on your assumption of how something works, as they do often in Evolution.

Quote:
But before Einstein, did we throw out Newton's model? Of course not! It still worked for what we needed it to work for. And further refinement lead to Einstein's General Relativity. In fact, without the first, we would not have had the tools to discover the second! Even now, we know that Einstein's theory still doesn't perfectly explain the universe... (the theory seems to stop working under quantum situations). Have we stopped using the theory? Definitely not! In fact, without using that theory, we'll have nothing to compare new theories to.


The problem here is that these parts of the theory have been proven false. Whereas Newton's model wasn't found to be false, only imprecise. In other words if they showed that his model didn't work at all, then they would have thrown it out. If we found even a few instances where these evolutionary theory models worked and had proof, I'd have no problem including them into the 'maybe this is how it is' category. Unfortunately its base speculation at this point.

Quote:
Our current understanding of genetics isn't perfect, but we know we're on the right track because it accurately predicts most day to day events. We can then try better, and if the new theories don't answer things as well as the old theories, then we'll keep using the old ones. But we keep testing both the new and old theories with slight modifications, just in case we messed up! :D


Also, did you read the article about gene duplication I posted?


Yes. Unfortunately duplicate genes produce many problems in an organism including cancer, toxins, overproduction of enzymes, diseases, increased cell size, reduced production within a cell, etc...etc...

As I said in another post proteins if changed even a small amount cease to function and can even cause negative side effects. So in order for a gene to mutate into another useful gene for the production of proteins very specific changes have to take place. There are a finite number of combinations of proteins that actually work within an organism due to the traits of the organism. What really throws this out though is that some genes code for multiple proteins which means one change in them could stop production of 3-4 other proteins that are needed, and duplication could cause massive overdoses or negative changes in an organism. The only way it would work is if it was duplicated and rendered inoperable and neutral at the same time and then you have to have a mated organism with the same exact change in order to keep the change. We are talking insane odds mathematically and then when you take into account that natural selection is just as likely to kill off neutral mutations as positive or negative ones and the fact that all of this has to happen inside the reproductive cells (of which most female animals are born with them meaning a very limited time for mutations when formed) it gets just flat out insane.

Gene duplication experiments have been done over and over and over and they always end in failure because gene duplication in mammals is deadly. In other words even if lower forms of life evolved through gene duplication (which I've shown above that its unlikely) mammals would never have evolved.

Quote:
-----------

ADDITION BEFORE POSTING: Please folks - no matter how much you may disagree with Lokiare's views, do not stump to "you're stupid - nu-uh you're stupid" or "god isn't real" stuff. That's bullying, says nothing worth-while, and ventures off-topic. Wheaton's law - don't be a dick.


I agree with this last part. I simply ignore the posts that don't provide facts or debate ideas and the posters lose street cred with me...

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 11:01 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 515
Lokiare wrote:
Unfortunately no one has shown a way in which new traits can be gained or observed it anywhere in nature under any conditions (including irradiating fruit fly experiments)

See the paper reviews I link below, and their sources.

Quote:
You mean the falsified picture they still spread where the guy admitted to gluing a bunch of black moths to a tree and taking photos of it?

Kettlewell's original experiments were flawed, yes (though I would like to see a reputable citation for a claim of that level of fraud). In 1998 Majerus repeated these experiments, performing them with actual scientific rigor, and the results showed that the basic ideas in Kettlewell's paper were correct. The paper describing this more recent study concluded that "industrial melanism in the peppered moth is still one of the clearest and most easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action."

Quote:
There is a thing called recessive genes meaning the gene is still there, it is just not expressed unless the dominant gene is absent. In the case of the coal factory turning everything black, then yes the ones with white pigments would die out due to natural selection, but some black moths would always have the recessive gene.

This is a real-world example analogous to your lizard story, which I was agreeing with.

Quote:
Looks like someone needs to do some studying.

Indeed. I recommend Majerus' Melanism: Evolution in Action. Or, if you're short on time, the paper I linked above.

Quote:
Ok, first off, this is easily proven nonviable. In order for there to be enough genetic data to prevent inbreeding mutations, there would have to more than 10 lizards. I think somewhere it was said that you need 44 individuals to sustain a population with genetic diversity to avoid mutations of this nature (but don't hold me to it, I'm doing that from memory). Secondly no one has sequenced the DNA at this time. In other words it could simply be recessive traits or interbreeding with other lizards. Its very shaky ground if you are laying the entirety of evolution on this premise. Not to mention if you look at the two lizards species that inhabited the area they are close enough that one could be mistaken for the other and the two could have interbred because the larger heads and fatter bodies they describe could easily have come from the so called 'extinct' lizard. Dalmation Wall Lizard and Italian Wall Lizard. Again what they are doing here is holding up an observation with no real evidence and calling it evolution, its the same thing they always do. Mainly bad science. We can revisit this when they do the DNA sequencing and actually discuss science.

The important observation is not the development of larger heads and fatter bodies. It is the development of cecal valves, a structure that is i
that appears very infrequently in lizards, and not at all in the source population or the native species of lizard.

I agree that DNA sequencing results would be nice to have.

"Laying the entire foundation of evolution on this premise"? Hello, Mr. Strawman. Here are two reviews of recent studies providing an abundance of evidence and examples of observed evolution over short time periods.

Quote:
Also: what do you mean by "the second one"? I can't find the corresponding antecedent.

Still waiting.

Quote:
Yep, nice of you to throw a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_fallacy. "We don't know how it happened, but it did, therefore everything based on it is true and it holds up our theory." I explain in a different place how it doesn't matter about the above because it takes a different of 25-500 base pairs to change one workable protein into another and its not random base pairs either. Its specific ones that have to change in specific ways or the entire protein becomes worthless or even harmful.

What. No. It's "We don't know exactly how it happened, but here are numbers demonstrating that the probabilities in question are vastly higher than you claim."

And, wow, "homunculus fallacy"? I haven't seen that one since I was reading about the philosophy of vision, and certainly never seen it referenced in evolutionary debate. Points for novelty, I guess, though you may want to check your understanding of the fallacy.

Quote:
I'm talking about a positive change. It only takes one base pair change to become destructive. It takes 25%-50% of base pairs that create a protein to make it into the next closest protein that actual is not negative (that's not even counting positive).

The reason sickle-cell anemia is common is that it does confer benefits -- in particular, increased resistance to malaria. And where did it originate? Regions with high malaria incidence. Hm.

Quote:
Yes, but its not being added to the part that matters: the mutation of base pairs. If you had some outside mechanism inserting positive or neutral mutations into the system, then you could say it was an open system. Its not though because nothing is doing that. The system of DNA replication is closed. It is subject to entropy. The system of propagation of species is not because energy is being produced to keep living things propagating from the sun. Do you see what I'm trying to say here?

No.

You seem to be going far, far beyond what the second law of thermodynamics implies. The system of DNA transcription is an thermodynamically open system because energy is being transferred in, in the form of chemical bonds.

Quote:
If you want just ask and I'll explain the specifics in a wall of text.

Quote:
I'd be interested.

_________________
ego-sig


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 1:48 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
Glasir wrote:
Lokiare wrote:
Unfortunately no one has shown a way in which new traits can be gained or observed it anywhere in nature under any conditions (including irradiating fruit fly experiments)

See the paper reviews I link below, and their sources.

Quote:
You mean the falsified picture they still spread where the guy admitted to gluing a bunch of black moths to a tree and taking photos of it?

Kettlewell's original experiments were flawed, yes (though I would like to see a reputable citation for a claim of that level of fraud). In 1998 Majerus repeated these experiments, performing them with actual scientific rigor, and the results showed that the basic ideas in Kettlewell's paper were correct. The paper describing this more recent study concluded that "industrial melanism in the peppered moth is still one of the clearest and most easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action."


No, its a good example of naturally selecting for an advantageous gene that already exists which does nothing to hold up the idea that new genetic data was introduced somewhere. Huge difference. In other words it neither supports the evolutionary theory nor disproves it. Going back to my original posts on the subject. The Evolutionary Theory is a hodge podge of other theories and hypotheses crammed together. With actual testable things like adaptation to environment to select for the best genes (proven) crammed right alongside introduction of new genetic data through mutation (unproven, never observed, and each new revelation makes it less and less likely to be proven) which is an assumption and not real science. Once you realize The Theory of Evolution is actually several other things crammed together, and you start dissecting them one at a time you see that the theory falls apart and shouldn't even be a theory because a theory is propped up by evidence and/or multiple trials where not a single contradiction is found. So in actuality the Theory of Evolution is nothing more than an unprovable hypotheses if you take it as a whole.

Quote:
Quote:
There is a thing called recessive genes meaning the gene is still there, it is just not expressed unless the dominant gene is absent. In the case of the coal factory turning everything black, then yes the ones with white pigments would die out due to natural selection, but some black moths would always have the recessive gene.

This is a real-world example analogous to your lizard story, which I was agreeing with.

Quote:
Looks like someone needs to do some studying.

Indeed. I recommend Majerus' Melanism: Evolution in Action. Or, if you're short on time, the paper I linked above.


I've already seen his work debunked, but if you haven't you may want to check out http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/fraud-in-my-sons-textbook-my-part-of-a-conversation-with-a-professor-at-a-local-college/ You'll have to forgive that it is on a religious website, the actual article is fact filled and very scientific.

First it shows that his experiments were flawed and not statistically sound, then it shows he like many others made many assumptions and ignored important data like the fact that the coloration can be altered by the larvae being eaten before they are colored, the natural resting place is in fact under branches and leaves and not on the trunk of the tree, and other facts. At best the author is misinformed, at worst he's intentionally perpetrating these false hoods.

Quote:
Quote:
Ok, first off, this is easily proven nonviable. In order for there to be enough genetic data to prevent inbreeding mutations, there would have to more than 10 lizards. I think somewhere it was said that you need 44 individuals to sustain a population with genetic diversity to avoid mutations of this nature (but don't hold me to it, I'm doing that from memory). Secondly no one has sequenced the DNA at this time. In other words it could simply be recessive traits or interbreeding with other lizards. Its very shaky ground if you are laying the entirety of evolution on this premise. Not to mention if you look at the two lizards species that inhabited the area they are close enough that one could be mistaken for the other and the two could have interbred because the larger heads and fatter bodies they describe could easily have come from the so called 'extinct' lizard. Dalmation Wall Lizard and Italian Wall Lizard. Again what they are doing here is holding up an observation with no real evidence and calling it evolution, its the same thing they always do. Mainly bad science. We can revisit this when they do the DNA sequencing and actually discuss science.

The important observation is not the development of larger heads and fatter bodies. It is the development of cecal valves, a structure that is i
that appears very infrequently in lizards, and not at all in the source population or the native species of lizard.


I highly doubt an entire organ suddenly popped into existence over 30 generations. As I said, there wasn't enough genetic data in 10 lizards to produce a viable population of lizards for more than a few generations without extreme birth defects and infertility which would have wiped them out. So we already know the data is skewed. It could be that an entirely different species of lizard with that organ was introduced interbred and then died off or became so mingled you couldn't tell the difference. Really its pointless to discuss without the DNA results. Especially as we are talking about odds of getting struck by lightning 17 times on a clear day to convert one protein into another, let alone an entirely new organ being produced in 30 generations.

Quote:
I agree that DNA sequencing results would be nice to have.

"Laying the entire foundation of evolution on this premise"? Hello, Mr. Strawman. Here are two reviews of recent studies providing an abundance of evidence and examples of observed evolution over short time periods.


That link is forbidden to me for some reason. Most of the examples given though I bet are easily disproved as recessive genes or a loss of data allowing some already existing mechanism to work. I've gone over dozens of these kinds of articles and they always claim to have proven evolution as fact, but upon closer inspection they always fail to show anything other than recessive genes or loss of genetic traits.

Quote:
Quote:
Also: what do you mean by "the second one"? I can't find the corresponding antecedent.

Still waiting.


Still waiting for what? Maybe if you would post that in context I could clarify what I meant.

Quote:
Quote:
Yep, nice of you to throw a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_fallacy. "We don't know how it happened, but it did, therefore everything based on it is true and it holds up our theory." I explain in a different place how it doesn't matter about the above because it takes a different of 25-500 base pairs to change one workable protein into another and its not random base pairs either. Its specific ones that have to change in specific ways or the entire protein becomes worthless or even harmful.

What. No. It's "We don't know exactly how it happened, but here are numbers demonstrating that the probabilities in question are vastly higher than you claim."


Except you can't make a mathematical model based on a lack of knowledge or information. Its those unknown unknowns that get you. The probabilities you talk about ignore an entire section of variables in favor of a 'lets just assume this for now' which totally goes against science.

Quote:
And, wow, "homunculus fallacy"? I haven't seen that one since I was reading about the philosophy of vision, and certainly never seen it referenced in evolutionary debate. Points for novelty, I guess, though you may want to check your understanding of the fallacy.


I understand perfectly. The Homunculus argument is about a regressive middle man. Each time it comes up evolutionists fall back to another middle man that is purely hypothetical and when that one is proven wrong, they regress and say that middle man was created by another middle man, usually this stops when they hit the three times regressed DNA like structure forming on the heads of crystals and get laughed out of the room by any serious scientists who know how impossible that is.

Your confusion might be that the homunculus regressed middle man changes in each iteration. That is still the right fallacy. For instance they start with new genetic data is created, we ask how that happens, they say mutation, we point out how absurd that is and they say of mutation is caused by X (where X is another regressed middle man) and the cycle continues as each new theory has holes poked into it.

Quote:
Quote:
I'm talking about a positive change. It only takes one base pair change to become destructive. It takes 25%-50% of base pairs that create a protein to make it into the next closest protein that actual is not negative (that's not even counting positive).

The reason sickle-cell anemia is common is that it does confer benefits -- in particular, increased resistance to malaria. And where did it originate? Regions with high malaria incidence. Hm.


Yet it still represents a loss of genetic data and not an addition. As I said before adaptation to an environment due to the loss of genetic data is a proven phenomenon. It does not prove in any way shape or form that things grow new genetic data and that amoebas gave rise to chimps.

Quote:
Quote:
Yes, but its not being added to the part that matters: the mutation of base pairs. If you had some outside mechanism inserting positive or neutral mutations into the system, then you could say it was an open system. Its not though because nothing is doing that. The system of DNA replication is closed. It is subject to entropy. The system of propagation of species is not because energy is being produced to keep living things propagating from the sun. Do you see what I'm trying to say here?

No.

You seem to be going far, far beyond what the second law of thermodynamics implies. The system of DNA transcription is an thermodynamically open system because energy is being transferred in, in the form of chemical bonds.


That's the production of the DNA and RNA chemical bonds, that system is open. The copying of the DNA over to the RNA and the causation of mutations is a closed system no new genetic data is inserted.

By analogy one system where gears are produced using heat energy on metal is an open system because the heat energy is coming from an outside source. Then when the gears are put into a machine by a worker there is not direct energy transfer to the gears. The gears are always put in the same place and if an error is made by the worker, it doesn't suddenly produce a new function. The machine just stops working.

Quote:
Quote:
If you want just ask and I'll explain the specifics in a wall of text.

Quote:
I'd be interested.


I forgot what this was in reference to. Maybe if you would quit cutting up quotes we could get somewhere...

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 1:52 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 3118
Lokiare wrote:
I forgot what this was in reference to. Maybe if you would quit cutting up quotes we could get somewhere...


ROFL


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 1:54 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
Ko wrote:
Lokiare wrote:
I forgot what this was in reference to. Maybe if you would quit cutting up quotes we could get somewhere...


ROFL


I could backtrack and find out, but I'm too lazy...

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 2:05 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 3118
the joke is that all you do it cut up quotes


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 2:07 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 275
Location: Klendathu
Lokiare wrote:
Ko wrote:
Lokiare wrote:
I forgot what this was in reference to. Maybe if you would quit cutting up quotes we could get somewhere...


ROFL


I could backtrack and find out, but I'm too lazy...

I'd let you know what the joke is, but it's very technical and unless you are a satirist or a really smart person that has delved into it, it will probably sound like gibberish...

_________________
I crave only several commodities.
Jak wrote:
kill boyfren own women


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 2:12 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 515
It's apparent that either you are misunderstanding me, perhaps intentionally, or we are simply talking past each other. In either case, I'm abandoning this conversation as futile.

Perhaps I'll be back when there are fewer stressors in my life. I certainly don't need this one right now, with my employer in the process of institutional suicide and all. But I doubt it.

_________________
ego-sig


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 131 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group