It is currently Tue Dec 01, 2020 12:34 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 5:00 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 26, 2013
Posts: 680
shab wrote:
its the miracle of nature

_________________
tony3 wrote:
the problem within society is there are idiots within it
tony3 wrote:
it never ceases to amaze me how terrible and/or stupid people can be.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 5:06 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 25, 2013
Posts: 3084
Before going into the quotes...

I think part of the issue, Lokiare, is that you're expecting new genes to be created for old situations. For example, the yellow and blue snakes in the desert. Very quickly we'll see the trait of yellow become dominant. Like you said in this case, it's already there, so it's genetically very easy for it to become dominant. What's much more rare is for the snake to turn light brown if that trait never existed. Nevertheless, this process can happen. Before 1500 there were no records of white tigers... so where did they come from? Turns out a new gene was produced that inhibited the production of the striking orange coats!

http://www.livescience.com/34632-white-tiger-color-mystery-solved.html

Neato!

So what I'm saying is that it's much easier to find situations where an old gene/protein simply takes up the function of the new requirement rather than a whole new protein being created, and as such it's much more difficult to study. Carrying on...

Lokiare wrote:
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.


That's what I mean. The sentence you provided can be warped around a bunch of times to say the same things in different ways. However, when you further break it down into the basic language, you'll find that you can say lots of different things to:

Today, the heavens are azure.
(adverb), the (noun) (verb "to be") (adjective).
Oddly, the cow is flumoxed.

The result? New information!

Quote:
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.


That's not really how the Homunculus fallacy works. There is no infinite regress here, which is the basis of the homunculus fallacy. It would be a homunculus fallacy if we said that proteins require a change in the DNA which requires a change in the proteins, because then it would infinitely regress. However, even if we assume that there is a regress here (basing theories on a bad theory means that the new theory is also bad and will require a new theory), then the argument is still invalid, as it makes an assumption that the new theory will be bad. I think these discussions are evidence that non-evolutionary models are always considered and tested in addition to standard tests. However, these other models are not able to stand up to the same amount of scrutiny as the current model. Both models collapse at the end (only because we still have more to learn), but as the evolutionary model can withstand greater scrutiny to further along the line, it makes logical sense that it is closer to the "true" final answer.

By example, if an earthquake happens, and I say it happened because of tectonic plates and you say it happened because of a flying saucer, both hypothesis can be tested, and both will eventually fail. The difference is that yours will fail much sooner (no laser beams detected, etc.), while mine will fail only once we start trying to locate the exact rock that broke that triggered the cascade of tectonic pressure release. Similarily, non-evolutionary models collapse sooner under scientific scrutiny than evolutionary models - but the evolutionary model does still collapse if you look far enough, such as what you are doing. That does not mean that the theory is wrong, only that there continue to be portions of the theory that need to be filled in.

Quote:
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.
Newton's model is entirely false, sorry to say. There is no gravitational constant. In fact, in Relativistic models, there is no gravity - just a curvature of space. Objects of mass do not "pull" on each other. If I fire a rocket directly perpendicular to Earth and start falling towards it, it won't be because Earth is pulling me, or because I fired rockets in the wrong direction... my space-time momentum literally makes a straight line into a visually curved one.

Newton's theory is entirely false, not just imprecise. However, even though it is false, it is still very useful for most day to day situations, and Force is much easier to calculate than Tensors (space-time points and movements). As such, we still use it.

Evolutionary models may not be perfect, but they describe what we see so well that until a better model comes along, we might as well use it.

Quote:
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.


Unfortunately, science disagrees with you:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534703000338 - Evolution by gene duplication: an update
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/7/2 - Inventing an arsenal: adaptive evolution and neofunctionalization of snake venom phospholipase A2 genes
http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v9/n12/full/nrg2482.html - How duplicated genes find new functions
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.genet.38.072902.092831?journalCode=genet& - DUPLICATION AND DIVERGENCE: The Evolution of New Genes and Old Ideas
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6983/full/nature02424.html - Proof and evolutionary analysis of ancient genome duplication in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1460548/ - How keeping around junk DNA through gene duplication helps increase odds of beneficial new traits

(there's lots more if you do a Google search, though admittedly they tend to be locked up in paid-for peer-review journals)

That said, I was especially tempted to look at the last one on that list.

Gene duplication is viable, even if it results in a greater risk of deleterious mutations, due to the greater chance and probabilities (far higher than the numbers you've quoted) of hitting beneficial new traits.

_________________
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 7:20 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 1712
Lokiare wrote:
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.


To me, this is like saying math classes are biased against anything that isn't correct math. Evolutionary theory is the best explanation we have for how we got here. To teach students opposing views that are either unfalsifiable, or even verifiably wrong, is bad. Researchers are welcome to experiment and study and come to whatever conclusions they can support, but the reason anything that isn't evolutionary theory isn't being taught in schools is that every alternative is based on faith and/or unsound or invalid reasoning. I've literally never heard anyone say "I don't think evolutionary theory is right, but neither are any of those other crackpot ideas. We still need more data. The conclusions we have drawn from the data we have is premature." But no one who disagrees with evolutionary theory ever argues with the theory. They try to argue with the actual, verifiable data. Your statement of "we have never been able to witness new traits occurring" is provably false, and has been disproven in this thread multiple times.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 8:09 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 1712
Lokiare wrote:
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.


You're pulling the assumption that the gene already exists out of nowhere. You are asserting that the gene already existed based on the assumption that new traits can't evolve, and using the that assertion (that the genes already existed recessively rather than evolving) as evidence that new traits can't evolve.

Quote:
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.


This "article" by PapaGiorgio is not peer reviewed, and unscientific. I read the entire thing, and it is nothing but a bunch of questions asked by someone who is clearly biased, asks questions that serve only as evidence of his lack of understanding and relevant education, and in addition to not being peer reviewed or even published by a legitimate publication at all, he doesn't actually even make any assertions as far as I can tell, never mind any that actually debunk the study. This article contains no facts that I can see, beyond those quoted in the original study. It has about as much weight and scientific merit as a comment on someone's youtube video.

Quote:
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.


Again, I read this article. Please cite examples from the text. I couldn't find any.

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.


First of all, please cite proof of this specific number, and second realize that inbreeding mutations are new traits evolving that did not exist before. Something like 70% of inbreeding mutations are harmful, and most of the rest are either weakly expressed or completely neutral, but that does not change the fact that these are changes in the gene structure and not preexisting but recessive traits being expressed, and that some are even beneficial. You just cited evidence that debunks your entire stance.

Quote:
I highly doubt an entire organ suddenly popped into existence over 30 generations.


"I highly doubt" is not evidence, and isn't worth mentioning if you are trying to convince anyone of anything.

Quote:
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.


Cite evidence please.

Quote:
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.


You bet?

Quote:
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.


What section of variables is ignored? Science is about using the best explanation for what we see. A bunch of stuff isn't getting made up to support these explanations, we've seen these mutations. At a macro level, and at a bacterial level, which we DO have DNA sequencing for:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... ktv9VOcF8E

Quote:
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.


Just because you aren't aware of it or don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Random gene recombination happens all of the time. We see this happen at a genetic level in labs. here is no "caused by X" happening. We are talking about extrapolating ideas from things that are verifiable, that there is evidence for, and every time someone shows you evidence, you say that it has been debunked, and cite something that doesn't debunk it at all, or you ignore it.

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).


I've already answered this above, and others have any other times as well, but you're still citing the mechanism that makes evolution work, and saying it proves that it doesn't. Just because most of some types of mutations such as inbreeding produce negative results doesn't mean that the mechanism doesn't exist. In the same works you've cited, it is outlined that positive change does happen, and has been documented in lab settings, as well as in nature. At a macro and micro scale.

Quote:
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.


Okay first, how does it represent a loss of genetic data? There is no "loss of data," there is only change. All of our dna is four nucleobases combined in different ways. But secondly, there were no chimps 500 million years ago. So by your logic, everything that is a chimp already existed as a recessive gene in the first amoebas.


Quote:
Quote:
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.


What. That you can acknowledge one and not the other blows my mind. Especially since it appears to be a distinction based on pure whim, as far as I can tell.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:50 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 27, 2013
Posts: 3058
Identity: Female
it is hard to get good information on controversial topics i imagine


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:19 am 
Offline
Moderator Lead
User avatar

Joined: Sep 19, 2013
Posts: 1242
Identity: Male
Just a heads-up: I've removed some posts from this thread.

Pro tip: Hanging a lampshade on the fact that your post is off-topic doesn't magically make it on-topic. :teach:

_________________
It would be folly to try to conceal the true nature of Althalus, for his flaws are the stuff of legend. He is, as all men know, a thief, a liar, an occasional murderer, an outrageous braggart, and a man devoid of even the slightest hint of honor.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 7:14 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 27, 2013
Posts: 3058
Identity: Female
what is controversial is oppositions to evolutionary biology i imagine mostly because of the ties to creationism and other religious beliefs


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 9:23 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 27, 2013
Posts: 3058
Identity: Female
it is controversial in the sense that there is stigma attached to opposing it academically. (that is just a guess though i do not actually know anything about academic communities)


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:27 am 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 313
Lilan wrote:
it is controversial in the sense that there is stigma attached to opposing it academically.
Yes, and there's stigma over opposing 1+1=2, or that carbon has six protons, or that the Earth is several billion years old. Your point?


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 12:48 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 1095
Cyclone_Joker wrote:
Lilan wrote:
it is controversial in the sense that there is stigma attached to opposing it academically.
Yes, and there's stigma over opposing 1+1=2, or that carbon has six protons, or that the Earth is several billion years old. Your point?

There shouldn't be stigma. There should be an analysis of the presented evidence.

If someone's going to oppose it, they need to present scientific evidence doing so. If they don't, there doesn't need to be any stigma against it. No one needs to be stigmatized for their beliefs; we're humans, we have them. As long as it's recognized as a belief.

There also shouldn't be any stigma at all on being skeptical. Asking questions to see if there are holes in evidence or theory is fine.

Where there is stigma is in presenting an opposition as fact, without supporting evidence, and using misdirection and exaggeration to ask fake-skeptical questions.

_________________
PbP Characters
Umiki800080SDSS
Navu'ai008000KotS
ParkunFFD700Ixen

PbP Games
—DDN—The Mines of MadnessCurrent Map

RPG Personality


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 12:56 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 313
PlaneShaper wrote:
There shouldn't be stigma. There should be an analysis of the presented evidence.
There should be a stigma over repeated assertions of laughably false claims. Period, the end. That person is shown to either be irrational, morally bankrupt, or stupid and has no business being taken seriously.
Quote:
Where there is stigma is in presenting an opposition as fact, without supporting evidence, and using misdirection and exaggeration to ask fake-skeptical questions.
That's kinda where I what I was saying. I just expect people to have critical reading skills at the level where I don't have to explicitly spell everything out.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 1:12 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
Cyclone_Joker wrote:
Lokiare wrote:
Most of this post boils down to "you didn't link expensive scientific peer reviews and instead linked articles talking about those peer reviews." which is a non-argument. If you can't refute them then just admit it. You don't need to attack the source of the information with ad hominem fallacies.

Your chart is not relevant to the conversation. Its about the production of the each allel and not about how they are put together which is where the outside influence needs to be. In other words if new genetic data is not inserted from outside then there is not 'energy' being added to the process of DNA replication, only to the factory production of its parts. I'm not sure how to make the distinction any clearer...
:face:

So in this post we have Loki stating that these "fact" things are irrelevant, and unsourced opinion is just as, if not more valid, pointing out baseless opinion is not fact is "ad hominem," and that data on a subject is not relevant to said subject.

Why is anyone bothering with this anymore?
Lilan wrote:
people are having a healthy intellectual debate
"Intellectual" is not the word I'd be using, unless you want to put a "ly challenged" on the end of it.


Well first off they are blogs written by scientists so it's a kind of lay man's peer review.

Second I'm not saying the days presented in the chart isn't real or helpful or anything. I'm saying it's irrelevant to my point. it's a red herring.

third, most of these arguments fail basic logic tests and the scientific process is not followed as is pointed out in the articles.

For the most part this discussion has gotten a lot father than most usually the evolutionists bow out with ad hominem attacks, character assassination, or any number of dirty tactics not suited to a real scientific debate. I'm glad at least some have tried to be intellectually honest.

this all allows us to educate people on the facts.

so far no one has refuted my points on how new genetic data is not added to the DNA of creatures. Until someone can do this the theory of evolution as a whole is unworkable.

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 1:15 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 3118
Lokiare wrote:
For the most part this discussion has gotten a lot father than most usually the evolutionists bow out with ad hominem attacks, character assassination, or any number of dirty tactics not suited to a real scientific debate. I'm glad at least some have tried to be intellectually honest


you're being ironic, right?

he's being ironic, right?


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 1:24 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 27, 2013
Posts: 3058
Identity: Female
Cyclone_Joker wrote:
Lilan wrote:
it is controversial in the sense that there is stigma attached to opposing it academically.
Yes, and there's stigma over opposing 1+1=2, or that carbon has six protons, or that the Earth is several billion years old. Your point?


That trying to oppose something that society strongly feels is true, even if they are wrong, is difficult. There's a reason for there being a lack of legitimate material attacking evolution beyond the inability for such materials to be legitimate.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 1:33 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 313
Lokiare wrote:
Well first off they are blogs written by scientists so it's a kind of lay man's peer review.
No, no it isn't.
Quote:
Second I'm not saying the days presented in the chart isn't real or helpful or anything. I'm saying it's irrelevant to my point. it's a red herring.
Aw, that's adorable! Did loki learn a new word?
Quote:
For the most part this discussion has gotten a lot father than most usually the evolutionists bow out with ad hominem attacks, character assassination,
You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
Quote:
or any number of dirty tactics not suited to a real scientific debate.
What, like facts?
Quote:
I'm glad at least some have tried to be intellectually honest.
So am I. Shame you're not among them.
Ko wrote:
he's being ironic, right?
Oh I wish.
Lilan wrote:
That trying to oppose something that society strongly feels is true, even if they are wrong, is difficult.
No, not really.
Quote:
There's a reason for there being a lack of legitimate material attacking evolution beyond the inability for such materials to be legitimate.
No, no there really isn't. In fact, that post is so inane that I'm having trouble believing that it's not some horribly depressing joke.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 1:45 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 27, 2013
Posts: 3058
Identity: Female
Cyclone_Joker wrote:
Lilan wrote:
That trying to oppose something that society strongly feels is true, even if they are wrong, is difficult.
No, not really.
Quote:
There's a reason for there being a lack of legitimate material attacking evolution beyond the inability for such materials to be legitimate.
No, no there really isn't. In fact, that post is so inane that I'm having trouble believing that it's not some horribly depressing joke.


I often hear stories about scientists in earlier eras promoting their work and people trying to take their head for it. More recently there was the story about professor who's work promoted racial profiling, and he had to teach his classes via video, because there were so many people threatening him. I imagine that even if your idea isn't so out there that people react violently, you would still have to overcome a rather large bias to have your ideas taken seriously.

Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe in evolution, my only point is that if you're someone who seriously wants to oppose evolution and feels that the science supports it, you're going to have a hard time doing so, regardless of the actual content of your case.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 1:46 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 25, 2013
Posts: 3084
Except, Lokaire, that would be Moving the Goalposts, another logical fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts. Scientifically, I have no problem with you asking what the proof on how new DNA sequences or proteins develop (despite me offering a list of sources), but if all you're going to do is continue to ask for the next post to be passed each time, then you are constructing a logically unsound standpoint. You are free to believe what you will, but requesting further and deeper proof each time is not a sound way to debate. It IS a good way to do science, but you will inevitably hit a wall of lack of understanding.

It's like when a child just keeps asking "why?". It doesn't matter how much you explain it, another "why?" is always around the corner. It will be impossible for there not to be. That said, you cannot throw out all the science that leads up to that last why just because you don't understand the last one or are unable/unwilling to do the work yourself.

Gene Duplication is a recognized means of adding new information to the genetic code. You may not agree with that and may question the studies, but it answers your question. I cannot answer questions about those studies for you, and so you declaring the studies frivilous, or falsely claiming that you simply know better than them, is ludicrous. That would be a Straw Man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_fallacy

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


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 1:50 pm 
Offline
YMtC Idol Winner
User avatar

Joined: Sep 26, 2013
Posts: 1067
Lokiare wrote:
so far no one has refuted my points on how new genetic data is not added to the DNA of creatures. Until someone can do this the theory of evolution as a whole is unworkable.
...How so?

Let's assume for a moment that you're absolutely right that no new genetic data can be added to DNA through mutation. How does that, for even a moment, disprove the theory of evolution as a whole? Evolution does not require the addition of DNA--it's just as applicable to cases where already-existing DNA is suppressed or formerly-recessive traits become dominant, as you yourself have argued happens, and that doesn't require any new genetic data being added. It also does not require any particular method of DNA alteration.

The only thing that that assumption would mean is that either A) somehow all genetic data is preexisting (which is perfectly allowable within evolutionary theory) or B) there exists some other method of genetic data being added to DNA (which, again, is perfectly allowable within evolutionary theory).

_________________
Level 2 Magic Judge
:w: ~ :u: ~ :b: ~ :r: ~ :g:
Knowledge knows no bounds.

And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anyone who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it! That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction; it doesn't make the word any more real than any other word. If you love a word, it becomes real.
--Erin McKean, Redefining the Dictionary


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 2:13 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
Yarium wrote:
Before going into the quotes...

I think part of the issue, Lokiare, is that you're expecting new genes to be created for old situations. For example, the yellow and blue snakes in the desert. Very quickly we'll see the trait of yellow become dominant. Like you said in this case, it's already there, so it's genetically very easy for it to become dominant. What's much more rare is for the snake to turn light brown if that trait never existed. Nevertheless, this process can happen. Before 1500 there were no records of white tigers... so where did they come from? Turns out a new gene was produced that inhibited the production of the striking orange coats!

http://www.livescience.com/34632-white-tiger-color-mystery-solved.html

Neato!


Not really. I've never argued against the loss of genetic data as being against survival of the fittest and adaptation to environment.

You can read the details here, where they explain:

"The SLC45A2 gene makes a protein of the same name, which consists of 560 amino acids. A single mutation in the gene—a change in just one DNA letter—switches one of those 560 amino acids from an alanine to a valine. This distorts the protein’s shape, and potentially prevents it from taking part in the creation of red-yellow melanin. Every white tiger has two copies of this mutated gene, and can only make the distorted protein. That’s all it takes to change their coats from orange to white."

In other words the proteins that cause normal coloring stop functioning due to a negative mutation that prevents them from working. Like I've said, people pull articles and studies like this out all the time, but fail to actually read the details.

Quote:
So what I'm saying is that it's much easier to find situations where an old gene/protein simply takes up the function of the new requirement rather than a whole new protein being created, and as such it's much more difficult to study. Carrying on...


See above. That isn't what happened. A loss of a protein caused the loss of the red and yellow melanin production.

Quote:
Lokiare wrote:
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.


That's what I mean. The sentence you provided can be warped around a bunch of times to say the same things in different ways. However, when you further break it down into the basic language, you'll find that you can say lots of different things to:

Today, the heavens are azure.
(adverb), the (noun) (verb "to be") (adjective).
Oddly, the cow is flumoxed.

The result? New information!


Sure but none of that came from an iterative process that is checked and rechecked. It would be like trying to change one letter at a time while your computer auto-spell checked it and changed it back or threw up errors.

Quote:
Quote:
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.


That's not really how the Homunculus fallacy works. There is no infinite regress here, which is the basis of the homunculus fallacy. It would be a homunculus fallacy if we said that proteins require a change in the DNA which requires a change in the proteins, because then it would infinitely regress. However, even if we assume that there is a regress here (basing theories on a bad theory means that the new theory is also bad and will require a new theory), then the argument is still invalid, as it makes an assumption that the new theory will be bad. I think these discussions are evidence that non-evolutionary models are always considered and tested in addition to standard tests. However, these other models are not able to stand up to the same amount of scrutiny as the current model. Both models collapse at the end (only because we still have more to learn), but as the evolutionary model can withstand greater scrutiny to further along the line, it makes logical sense that it is closer to the "true" final answer.


I already addressed this in a post above. Yes there is an infinite regress, it just takes different forms in each iteration. The idea behind it is 'well something we don't know about does that'. They start with 'somehow new genetic traits are added' then they regress that to 'somehow mutations cause genetic traits to be added' then they regress to 'genetic mutations are caused by bad copies of alleles' and then regress to... well you get the point. Its along the lines of 'Well something we don't know about does that', then 'something we don't know about does the previous' and then 'something we don't know about does the latter' and on and on and on. A masked Homunculus argument if I've ever seen one.

Quote:
By example, if an earthquake happens, and I say it happened because of tectonic plates and you say it happened because of a flying saucer, both hypothesis can be tested, and both will eventually fail. The difference is that yours will fail much sooner (no laser beams detected, etc.), while mine will fail only once we start trying to locate the exact rock that broke that triggered the cascade of tectonic pressure release. Similarily, non-evolutionary models collapse sooner under scientific scrutiny than evolutionary models - but the evolutionary model does still collapse if you look far enough, such as what you are doing. That does not mean that the theory is wrong, only that there continue to be portions of the theory that need to be filled in.


Nice try. No, if it fails, it fails. Its time to discard the parts that don't work and start looking for alternatives. Instead of regressing and trying to find another thing that caused an impossibility to happen. It isn't that some parts are unknown. Its that some parts are proven false. its time to get rid of those parts so we can progress the science.

Quote:
Quote:
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.
Newton's model is entirely false, sorry to say. There is no gravitational constant. In fact, in Relativistic models, there is no gravity - just a curvature of space. Objects of mass do not "pull" on each other. If I fire a rocket directly perpendicular to Earth and start falling towards it, it won't be because Earth is pulling me, or because I fired rockets in the wrong direction... my space-time momentum literally makes a straight line into a visually curved one.
Quote:

His models worked math wise for the tests they were performing at the time. When we needed more precise models and math we made them.

Its the same thing as asking someone what 12876 + 234 is and them replying with slightly over 13 thousand instead of saying 13,110.

As to the other part. You've got the cart before the horse. There is no 'curvature of space'. The curvature you are talking about is the result of a math model that represents gravity and only looks like a curve to humans.

Newton's theory is entirely false, not just imprecise. However, even though it is false, it is still very useful for most day to day situations, and Force is much easier to calculate than Tensors (space-time points and movements). As such, we still use it.

Evolutionary models may not be perfect, but they describe what we see so well that until a better model comes along, we might as well use it.


No sorry. Newtons model sufficed because it worked. The evolutionary models as I've shown don't actually work. They don't even come close or have a single instance where they accurately process the data we have.

Quote:
Quote:
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.


Unfortunately, science disagrees with you:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534703000338 - Evolution by gene duplication: an update
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/7/2 - Inventing an arsenal: adaptive evolution and neofunctionalization of snake venom phospholipase A2 genes
http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v9/n12/full/nrg2482.html - How duplicated genes find new functions
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.genet.38.072902.092831?journalCode=genet& - DUPLICATION AND DIVERGENCE: The Evolution of New Genes and Old Ideas
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6983/full/nature02424.html - Proof and evolutionary analysis of ancient genome duplication in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1460548/ - How keeping around junk DNA through gene duplication helps increase odds of beneficial new traits

(there's lots more if you do a Google search, though admittedly they tend to be locked up in paid-for peer-review journals)

That said, I was especially tempted to look at the last one on that list.

Gene duplication is viable, even if it results in a greater risk of deleterious mutations, due to the greater chance and probabilities (far higher than the numbers you've quoted) of hitting beneficial new traits.


Sorry no. I've already debunked this. Those articles are extremely old (well in scientific discovery terms) the first one is 2003. It was refuted by another scientists in 2010: "Gene duplication results in the copying and preservation of biological information, and not its transformation as something original." It is "insufficient in explaining the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms." --Bozorgmehr, Joseph Esfandiar Hannon. 22 December 2010. Is Gene Duplication a Viable Explanation for the Origination of Biological Information and Complexity? Complexity, published online, DOI 10.1002/cplx.20365, pp. 1-14.

In fact due to the way proteins work even altering a single protein into a neutral state can cause irreparable harm because gene duplication is intentional and has a biological function. For instance Some people digest starches based on the number of duplicate genes for making the enzyme amylase. More copies of the gene mean more enzyme production. We can see this when people have corrupted duplicate enzyme amylase genes which don't allow them to digest starches.

They've also found purposes for transposons. The last decade has provided a growing list of examples of transposon functions, including the 2006 discovery of one that regulates a nerve cell development gene common to all mammals and even the "living fossil" coelacanth. Transposons that regulate the expression rates of plant gene products have also been found. Without proper gene regulation provided by transposons that are already intact and fully integrated into the genome, organisms may die.

Also there is not such a thing as "Junk DNA", they've found out that it serves a purpose and is not leftover neutral mutations. The problem is the scientists just threw it out instead of actually testing to see what it does or what it was for. Another mistake on their part.

Everything you've linked has been debunked to the point that most evolutionists don't even use it anymore...

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 2:23 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 3118
jesus this thread is actually the dumbest **** I've ever read


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 5 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