Harsh86_Patel Posted September 15, 2012 #126 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Calling a fact a fact is an insult to the objectivity of science? I can it a triumph of science, that it has managed to give us a model of biology which is the most conclusively proven theory in the history of mankind (by sheer quantity of evidence). Since when does the fact that they never came up suggest that I've been "constantly trying to avoid" them? I don't recall any questions you've asked me which I haven't answered; I could be wrong, but please cite them specifically if you feel I've missed something. And "macro-evolution" (not a real scientific term, firstly), relies on very few, if any, assumptions. Science in general, tends not to rely on assumption. You used the same words over and over there without saying much with any coherence... To counter your (rather laboured) "short circuit" analogy, you speak of mutation as if it implies that it will be a harmful occurrence (as the "short circuit in a computer" metaphor suggests). To use a computer, again, as an analogy, think of this sort of beneficial mutation more like some sort of code (I'm not very good with computers... so this might not make much sense... but bear with me) which allows the computer to process (or any given thing) slightly better than other computers. Now, there is no really effective analogy for natural selection in computers at the moment; although artificial selection, yes (computer models which operate more effectively are selected and extrapolated upon, while less efficient ones are more likely to become obsolete). Yes, I do mean heredity when I say heredity. I know very well what it means. But that does not make it any different than what I've said already. Do you honestly think that you have a species reproducing over and over, and then, one day, there's one which is born which is labeled: "new species"? It doesn't work like that. Fortunately, evolution doesn't correspond to the pathetic counterfeit which creationists like to peddle to those who haven't actually studied the actual science. Life is a continuum of organisms, and things like "species", "genera", etc., are simply names we give groups of interbreeding organisms to help classify them and study them more efficiently. Speciation is a prolonged process, with breeding between increasingly-disparate lineages becoming gradually less and less likely to yield viable offspring, until viability in breeding is lost entirely, and the groups are labeled as different species. If one were to look at the big picture, every organism on this planet is descended from the same line, no matter the species, no matter the genus, no matter the appearance, no matter the shape, no matter the colour. But interbreeding is a tricky thing, and only organisms which are of sufficiently compatible genomic material are capable of successfully yielding offspring. For example, the tiger and the lion are two distinct species, however they are capable of interbreeding, and at times producing a hybrid creature (called either a liger or a tigon, depending on the genders of the respective parents). Both the lion and the tiger are members of the genus Panthera: the lion is Panthera leo, the tiger is Panthera tigris. They are two distinct species, yet are capable of breeding; this is because, while they are indeed disparate, their point of divergence from their common ancestor (which was also the common ancestor of leopards, etc.) was recent enough that their genomes are still of a degree of compatibility which can produce offspring. The horse and the donkey do the same in the their production of the mule, or the donkey and the zebra, in their production of the zonkey. Species which are closely related enough are still capable of interbreeding, but at some point down the line, the lineages will inevitably become to distant for these sorts of hybrids to arise (you can't mate a shark with a slug, for example; their last common ancestor lived hundreds of millions of years ago). You see, your claims of what evolutionary scientists "insinuate" couldn't mean much less to me. That you utterly misunderstand the science isn't their fault in the slightest. And I know for a fact that evolutionary biology has never insinuated what you suggest it does. Your idiotic notions of "half-formed organs" is frankly the most asinine thing I think I've ever heard. I explained to you the development of the human eye, and you never once made any reference to the need for there to be "in-betweens", as it were. Why would you think it would be different for anything else? There is in fact overwhelming evidence for transitional forms in fossil, as well as a few extant taxa; that you ignore them is your own problem, not mine, given I've already given you a list of them. Your link was bull****, but yes, I did bother to read it. Your little conspiracy theory doesn't hold any water, I'm afraid. To be quite honest, I would love if it were all evolutionary biologists funding research! I'd get loads more done... Funding is difficult to come by, sorry to say, and that applies just as well (sometimes even more so...) to we "evolutionists" (also not a scientific term). And no, modern genetic studies have not discredited evolution, I'm glad to say; on the contrary, they have helped to confirm it beyond any shadow of a (scientific) doubt. Perhaps we take a look at my dictionary's definitions of "organically"? organic |ôrˈganik| adj. Chemistry | of, relating to, or denoting compounds containing carbon (other than simple binary compounds and salts) denoting a relation between elements of something such that they fit together harmoniously as necessary parts of a whole: the organic unity of the integral work of art. | characterized by continuous or natural development I said that evolutionary biology doesn't comment on life's origin, because it doesn't. That doesn't mean that other branches of biology, ones which I have experience in, don't. Do you happen to know the odds of all of the photons of light needed to illuminate the Earth traveling all the way from the sun and coming over the horizon every morning is? Roughly in the millions of trillions... Honestly, probabilities really don't help your case when you're trying to talk about things that are real and in an open system. If we were all in a closed system and simply hypothetical ideas, then perhaps you'd have a point, but the universe seldom corresponds to what we'd expect it to do, simply based on probability (part of why science actually bothers studying and experimenting, rather than just crunching numbers all day). And sure, maybe I was referring to the Urey-Miller experiment... maybe I wasn't. Given there are more than twenty other major experiments which have demonstrated and elaborated on the same principles, I can only presume that your knowledge of abiogenesis research only extends into the 1950s... Sure, we haven't created life in the lab yet... give us a break... I mean, we've been working on it for a little more than fifty years. Our planet had billions to work with. Care to crunch the numbers on that? (Rhetorical; I frankly couldn't care less, as I've said, about the "probability"; it has very little real-world application here.) I honestly haven't read through a biology textbook in years, I can admit that. Fortunately I don't have to. I have other means of gleaning information about biology: scientific papers, studies, observations, experimentation, or, as a last resort, the internet. And I do applaud your acceptance of science and rejection of faith-based nonsense. In that case though, you should have no quarrel whatsoever with me, given that evolutionary biology, again, is the single most-overwhelmingly-supported scientific fact which mankind has ever conceived of. You'd have a more tenable case trying to argue against Einstein than Darwin. When you say "do you realise that the entire concept of evolution and not only these theories is only based on plausibility/possibility and no objective proof", you almost seem to say it as though by "do you realise", you're suggesting that there is something factual about your statement, that I should accept... Only too bad... I happen to know better than that. It doesn't matter how many times you say "evolution has no objective proof"; that doesn't make that statement any less vacuous and false than the previous time you said it. I've provided you with proofs; again, your ignorance of them has no bearings whatsoever on their veracity. The theory of evolution certainly isn't "dismissed as a fairy tale by modern genetics,epigenetics". What an utter crock. You'd have been more accurate if you said something along the lines of: "geology is dismissed as a fairy tale by modern rocks"... I didn't say that saltation was false, I said that it was unlikely, and that I don't personally subscribe to the idea; nor do the majority of biologists. Again, your silly notions of "half-formed organs" and species being "converted" into different ones is just laughable (and do not say in your next post that I'm contradicting myself, I'm not; you're simply returning to the same things I've refuted and explained over and over again). Even if I agreed with saltation, I still probably wouldn't say that a "monkey turned into a man", because that sort of change would be incredibly massive; far beyond even the most extreme claims of saltation by proponents. Perhaps I should have been more clear earlier, when discussing the chimpanzee-human divergence. It isn't as if a chimpanzee turned into a hominin; until that point, the ancestors of humans and chimpanzees were the same species. It was after the speciation that the direct ancestors of humans and modern chimpanzees arose, and then went on the yield the respective species (us, and chimps). I'll admit that my comprehension of knowledge in other fields is a bit shakier than in my specialty, biology, however we do happen to be talking about evolution; ergo, my field. Again, I haven't read a science textbook in any sort of entirety for years, though I am quite aware of the fact that the textbooks I read at university on the subject were mistaken or imprecise on some points (a few of which I have personally aided in clarifying). The links you provided do not give anything of the sort of a genuine scientific case against evolution (or else perhaps they might have bothered to actually understand evolution first); they're just the same old pathetic cases that have been made, and debunked, countless times. And honestly, if you're really so confident that evolution is wrong, and you're onto something, then you shouldn't be afraid to publish an actual scientific paper and have your "case" studied by peer review; rather than just hiding behind the pathetic fringe sites peddling their pseudoscientific garbage. I'm 100% serious: if you're so convinced that you can disprove evolutionary biology, then by all means, step forward and claim your Nobel prize. If not, then kindly sod off about it, and admit you have no case at all. Of course I am open to evolution being challenged; when did I ever say otherwise? That you feel that your particular "challenge" presents even the most meager of threats to the fortitude of evolutionary biology is almost tragic. Of course I don't ask for reliance on faith, given I've provided solid links substantiating most of the points I've made on the previous pages; and the evidence for evolution is available, thanks to the internet, to anyone and everyone who has a mind to have a look. That you evidently haven't doesn't concern me. And "ample evidence to point out the holes"? Excuse me whilst I laugh my ass off once more... You haven't given one single shred of anything even remotely resembling evidence, let alone evidence which would "poke holes" in the most robust scientific theory of all time. You say that I "very well know" the experiments which "prove" limits in allelic gene flow; I don't. Just saying "you very well know" doesn't cut it. Please link to a single experiment which has demonstrated this (I'll be very keen on seeing it). Also, provide substantiation for your bald assertion that "mutations, beneficial or bad, are almost naturally suppressed or wiped off". Because without evidence your empty assertions are just a waste of space on a computer screen. No, listing my particular accomplishments was by no means intended to make you "worship" me. It's interesting that you claim that I have difficulty "stating and understanding simple biological terms". Name one please? I dare you. Intriguing that you refer to ecology, specifically, as being based on "objective proof", whilst claiming simultaneously that evolutionary biology isn't. You do realize that a great deal of all work in ecology, in all biology in general, is known through the framework of evolutionary science, right? Evolution is to biology what the periodic table is to chemistry, or that rocks are to geology. It only makes sense under the framework of the scientific model. And all I was trying to do with mentioning my activities was to note that I have dedicated my life to this field; your knowledge of biology, on the other hand, is of such a quality that I can only presume it was acquired over a weekend of skimming fringe creationist websites. In other words, no "waving" of my activities was intended; only a reminder of just who you're dealing with (since you seem to regularly forget, and insist that I "don't understand science"...). Again, I applaud your denial of fairy tale in place of science. But evolution is indeed science, is indeed a theory, and there is indeed objective proof of its veracity, which has been demonstrated time and again. Evolution can, and ought, be stated as hard fact, given that it is a scientific fact. I'm sorry that this truth doesn't seem to properly correspond to your little world of "evolutionist" conspiracies and pseudoscience, but that really doesn't concern me. You're free to believe whatever you want, but don't you dare try and tell me that it's true unless you can back it up (which, again, you haven't). I love biology and have studied it all my life and let me tell you that evolution has got nothing to do with biology,biology is the study of various organisms that are alive and not a commentary on how life evolved or speculations regarding the same.There is a lot of objectivity in the field of biology and the theory of evolution is just one measly theory and a sadly a currently accepted member of this family of biological science.Human anatomy,cell biology,molecular biology,bio informatics,pharmacology,medicine,zoology,botany,..........and countless other branches of biology are based on hard scientic facts and experiments which are reproducible in a lab or can be observed in nature....same was the case 50 years back and same is the case now (though detailing and new breakthroughs through experimentation,research,publication and reproducible experiments are still happening and adding to the wealth of knowledge........and peer review in these cases is only to check if the experiment is done under the circumstances mentioned in the paper submitted and the results are reproducible and conclsuions are in line with the result..........if a paper checks out on all these criteria then choice of accepting it or rejecting it is not in the hand of the reviewer.In the above mentioned conditions i can accept the veracity of scientific knowledge that these branches of biology preach. Stating that evolution is biology(or even the crux of it) is like stating astro physics is the crux of physics. Since i sense that this debate is not going anywhere and typing pages is not going to help i will just repeat a few questions which as you claim you have answered. 1.What mechanisms do you suggest for formation of entirely new genes or gene chains and systems?Verifiable objective experimental proof for the same. 2.How did life evolve?if it did evolve what are the chances of evolution of the proto multicellular organism.(photon from the sun reach the earth not because of chance but since they are on a direct trajectory for Earth.This process is a simple process and doesn't require higher organisation.The probability of an event of a photon from the sun on a direct trajectory towards earth to reach the Earth without any obstructions is '1'. Also i would like to add that the probability of you falling if you jump of a cliff naked without any other help is also '1'.What is the probability of a random beneficial mutations leading to a beneficial physical characteristic?) 3.If you are talking about a group of populations breeding over generations and then gradually give rise to a population that is a completely new species you have to agree that the demarcation has to happen at one particular generation which wont be able to reproduce with it's predeccesor and cannot happen over generations.How do you propose to explain the same without saying 'saltation' being absolutely right? 4.Have scores of scientist working in modern technological labs been able to produce even one new species by using principles of evolution.(mark me i am not talking about hybrids or mutants achieved by biotechnological means)? And when you say that our scientists have only had 50 years the earth has had billions,i can't even comment on the fallacy of the logic you insinuate,do you think Earth had a 'intentional part' in creating and evolving life.) 5.I am telling you that if you can prove evolutionar biology and explain away all the scientific objections then why don't you write a paper and claim your Nobel prize? 6.According the premises of evolution can man one day probably billions of years later become an all knowing omnipotent entity that cannot be seen? 7.What are the observable evolving characters observed in man in the last 250000 years(i.e where are the random beneficial mutations,have they taken a break?)? 8.Since evolution is traditionally considered a gradual process then how did new organs evolve that were previously not present in lesser life forms?where are the intermediate stages?Where is the objective proof? 9.Do you realise the complexity of a simple cell?can you explain all the processes taking place and their evolution by principles of natural selection? 10.How do you explain the evolution of tumor supressors,DNA templete correction mechanisms and countless other extremely complex mechanism that are only spokes in the life cycle of a human body cell? 11.And when you add that the 'random beneficial mutations' can take place only in the germ cells to be passed on,what are the new probabalities you encounter now.(i.e mutations in normal somatic cells have no bearing)? Sorry have to stop here for now since i don't have more time will continue later if you please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbitran Posted September 15, 2012 #127 Share Posted September 15, 2012 (edited) I love biology and have studied it all my life and let me tell you that evolution has got nothing to do with biology,biology is the study of various organisms that are alive and not a commentary on how life evolved or speculations regarding the same.There is a lot of objectivity in the field of biology and the theory of evolution is just one measly theory and a sadly a currently accepted member of this family of biological science.Human anatomy,cell biology,molecular biology,bio informatics,pharmacology,medicine,zoology,botany,..........and countless other branches of biology are based on hard scientic facts and experiments which are reproducible in a lab or can be observed in nature....same was the case 50 years back and same is the case now (though detailing and new breakthroughs through experimentation,research,publication and reproducible experiments are still happening and adding to the wealth of knowledge........and peer review in these cases is only to check if the experiment is done under the circumstances mentioned in the paper submitted and the results are reproducible and conclsuions are in line with the result..........if a paper checks out on all these criteria then choice of accepting it or rejecting it is not in the hand of the reviewer.In the above mentioned conditions i can accept the veracity of scientific knowledge that these branches of biology preach. Saying that evolution has nothing to do with biology is like saying that Einstein's theory of relativity has nothing to do with physics. Yes, evolutionary theory is but one model; and yet it happens to be much more than "measly", given that it is the substrate upon which the entire modern science of biology is founded. And yes, all modern biology is influenced or directly involves evolutionary science (if you were a genuine biotechnologist, you might know how obvious that is). Human anatomy, cellular biology, molecular biology, bioinformatics, pharmacology, medicine, zoology and botany all are built upon the vast foundation of evolutionary theory. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit in with your understanding of biology, but it's a fact; and as I've said many times before, your ignorance of biology doesn't affect the facts about it in any way. Stating that evolution is biology(or even the crux of it) is like stating astro physics is the crux of physics. Since i sense that this debate is not going anywhere and typing pages is not going to help i will just repeat a few questions which as you claim you have answered. Your analogy is flawed. If you wanted to make a more accurate comparison, you'd have said something more along the lines of: evolution is to biology what classical and quantum mechanics combined are to physics. 1.What mechanisms do you suggest for formation of entirely new genes or gene chains and systems?Verifiable objective experimental proof for the same. I've already explained this. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110613012758.htm 2.How did life evolve?if it did evolve what are the chances of evolution of the proto multicellular organism.(photon from the sun reach the earth not because of chance but since they are on a direct trajectory for Earth.This process is a simple process and doesn't require higher organisation.The probability of an event of a photon from the sun on a direct trajectory towards earth to reach the Earth without any obstructions is '1'. Also i would like to add that the probability of you falling if you jump of a cliff naked without any other help is also '1'.What is the probability of a random beneficial mutations leading to a beneficial physical characteristic?) The probability of one photon reaching Earth is one. The probability of trillions of them reaching Earth at the same time is, obviously, in the trillions. It's pretty simple. The probability of random beneficial mutations leading to speciation or adaption are all but zero; however, you happen to neglect to mention natural selection, which is vital to the process of evolution, in that it is the key process by which beneficial mutations are allowed to proliferate and result in gene flow. And I'm not sure precisely what you mean by "proto-multicellular organism". I presume you're referring to bacterial mats or slime molds. Either way, again, the alleged probability is both indeterminate, as well as irrelevant. 3.If you are talking about a group of populations breeding over generations and then gradually give rise to a population that is a completely new species you have to agree that the demarcation has to happen at one particular generation which wont be able to reproduce with it's predeccesor and cannot happen over generations.How do you propose to explain the same without saying 'saltation' being absolutely right? No, I don't have to agree that saltation is correct, nor would I have to say that the demarcation has to be made at any particular point. Yes, one can have gradual degrees of diminishing compatibility between progressively speciating lineages without having to resort to the notion of saltation. I've already explained that process. Eventually, horses and donkeys and lions and tigers will be too distantly related to be compatible in reproduction; during this period of speciation, the ability for these respective pairs to produce hybrids such as mules or ligers/tigons will gradually fade (unless their disparate lines begin to grow closer to one another again, over successive generations of interbreeding, which would likely become more and more successful in such a scenario; it's possible that someday the ligers/tigons and mules will be viable, reproducing species, though I would argue that this is somewhat improbable). For example, female mules have, on occasion, been shown to be capable of siring viable offspring (though males have so far been shown to be sterile); the resulting offspring are referred to as "Molly/John mules" (depending on gender), and are fathered by a purebred horse or donkey. If over time the probability of mule stallions being capable of successfully reproducing with mule mares increases, it is possible that the mule may become a viable species in and of itself (thus, on a cladogram, the mule might be represented as a convergence of the horse and donkey lines). 4.Have scores of scientist working in modern technological labs been able to produce even one new species by using principles of evolution.(mark me i am not talking about hybrids or mutants achieved by biotechnological means)? And when you say that our scientists have only had 50 years the earth has had billions,i can't even comment on the fallacy of the logic you insinuate,do you think Earth had a 'intentional part' in creating and evolving life.) William R. Rice and George W. Salt found experimental evidence of sympatric speciation in the common fruit fly. They collected a population of Drosophila melanogaster from Davis, California and placed the pupae into a habitat maze. Newborn flies had to investigate the maze to find food. The flies had three choices to take in finding food. Light and dark (phototaxis), up and down (geotaxis), and the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis) were the three options. This eventually divided the flies into 42 spatio-temporal habitats. They then cultured two strains that chose opposite habitats. One of the strains emerged early, immediately flying upward in the dark attracted to the acetaldehyde. The other strain emerged late and immediately flew downward, attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from the two strains were then placed together in the maze and allowed to mate at the food site. They then were collected. A selective penalty was imposed on the female flies that switched habitats. This entailed that none of their gametes would pass on to the next generation. After 25 generations of this mating test, it showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. They repeated the experiment again without creating the penalty against habitat switching and the result was the same; reproductive isolation was produced. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent I, and several others, have already mentioned this. I've noted other examples already also. Your ignorance of our answers doesn't make them disappear. 5.I am telling you that if you can prove evolutionar biology and explain away all the scientific objections then why don't you write a paper and claim your Nobel prize? Why would I, personally, need to "prove" a theory which has already been proven beyond doubt by thousands of other biologists over the past century and a half? Evolutionary biology has already been proven; and all of the "scientific objections" have already been explained away. Yours is a completely moot point; that your knowledge of evolution seems to be grounded in the 19th Century is not my concern. 6.According the premises of evolution can man one day probably billions of years later become an all knowing omnipotent entity that cannot be seen? Given the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience are logically untenable, I would say no. As to whether or not evolution would yield invisible people someday, I would say that it is exceptionally unlikely; biology would tend to deny that possibility (unless you're thinking some sort of camouflage, like a chameleon or cephalopod). In any case, I see no reason why natural selection would favor any of these features. Presuming the human lineage continues on for billions of years into the future for the sake of argument, I cannot possible predict what forms might emerge; but either way, the idea of humanity rising to godlike status would be far more likely achieved through technological rather than biological means. 7.What are the observable evolving characters observed in man in the last 250000 years(i.e where are the random beneficial mutations,have they taken a break?)? For one, eye colour. In humans, the inheritance pattern followed by blue eyes is considered similar to that of a recessive trait (in general, eye color inheritance is considered a polygenic trait, meaning that it is controlled by the interactions of several genes, not just one).[13] In 2008, new research suggested that people with blue eyes have a single common ancestor. Scientists tracked down a genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes. "Originally, we all had brown eyes," said Eiberg.[39] Eiberg and colleagues showed in a study published in Human Genetics that a mutation in the 86th intron of the HERC2 gene, which is hypothesized to interact with the OCA2 gene promoter, reduced expression of OCA2 with subsequent reduction in melanin production.[40] The authors concluded that the mutation may have arisen in a single individual probably living in the northwestern part of the Black Sea region (around modern Romania) 6,000–10,000 years ago during the Neolithic revolution.[39][40][41] Eiberg stated, "A genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a 'switch,' which literally 'turned off' the ability to produce brown eyes." The genetic switch is located in the gene adjacent to OCA2 and rather than completely turning off the gene, the switch limits its action, which reduces the production of melanin in the iris. In effect, the turned-down switch diluted brown eyes to blue. If the OCA2 gene had been completely shut down, our hair, eyes and skin would be melanin-less, a condition known as albinism. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_colour Here's another answer to your question: http://discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/09-they-dont-make-homo-sapiens-like-they-used-to 8.Since evolution is traditionally considered a gradual process then how did new organs evolve that were previously not present in lesser life forms?where are the intermediate stages?Where is the objective proof? "Is traditionally considered a gradual process"? I think you mean: "has always been considered a gradual process" (unless you're counting Lamarck... which would be daft of you). "New" organs almost invariably descend from preexisting ones, which simply take on new function. For instance, the evolution of the eye has already been discussed; it descended gradually through a continuum of stages, beginning essentially with a simple collection of photosensitive cells (which, as has also already been discussed, are present even in the most primitive organisms). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye 9.Do you realise the complexity of a simple cell?can you explain all the processes taking place and their evolution by principles of natural selection? Yes, I realize the complexity of a modern cell. And yes, the principles of natural selection very well explain their evolution. As with most things, if you bothered to read a simple Wikipedia article once in a while instead of fallacious creationist sites, you'd already have answers to your questions. 10.How do you explain the evolution of tumor supressors,DNA templete correction mechanisms and countless other extremely complex mechanism that are only spokes in the life cycle of a human body cell? I've already answered your question: natural selection. I already explained it in more detail a page or two ago: I'm not going to bother to write it all out again. Natural selection favors organisms which are better suited to survive; it should go without saying that an organism with superior resistance to tumor formation will be better suited to survive. 11.And when you add that the 'random beneficial mutations' can take place only in the germ cells to be passed on,what are the new probabalities you encounter now.(i.e mutations in normal somatic cells have no bearing)? Sorry have to stop here for now since i don't have more time will continue later if you please. Not sure I understand what you're asking... Are you insinuating more "probabilities" again? Yes, only germinal mutations can be passed on through gametes, but how is that remedial biological fact relevant? Edited September 15, 2012 by Arbitran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harsh86_Patel Posted September 16, 2012 #128 Share Posted September 16, 2012 You have just radically altered my perception of biotechnologists... If you can claim to have the prefix "bio-" in your occupational title, then I should have expected an actually knowledge of biology (again, I'll grant you that your understanding of molecular and cellular terminology is impressive, but your knowledge of evolutionary biology is staggeringly poor). Every single thing you've stated about evolution has so far been pathetic creationist rehash; I should have thought that an alleged biotechnologist would, if he were genuinely attempting to "poke holes" in evolutionary theory, oh, I don't know... come up with his own "proofs"? Because honestly, all you've done so far is rewrap old creationist arguments which have been debunked long ago; well, that, and parade your own glaring lack of education in evolutionary biology. I can only presume that you are likely not an authentic biotechnologist, and are likely simply pretending to be one in order to give some attempt at elevating your status to one which might be more credible in this debate. Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but given your displayed, deplorably exiguous comprehension of even the most remedial of topics with pertinence to evolutionary biology (or most biology in general), I remain highly skeptical of your claim. I should think that a genuine biotechnologist would be well-versed enough in biology to know how comically-stupid the "monkey transformed into a human" argument is; but then, maybe you could have made it through sheer luck? Or deceit perhaps? In any case, I reiterate: the idea that a claimed "biotechnologist" could have such an appalling lack of comprehension of evolutionary biology is very, very hard to believe... That is exactly what i am trying to tell you that evolutionary biology on a macroscale has become rudimentary and falsified by our present knowledge of molecular biology,genetics etc.If the foundations on which you build your theory no longer confer with your theory then where does the theory stand?I think you would prefer that 'a monkey gave birth to a man' more so you can have that.I don't need to comprehend when i talk of science i like to see objective proof.The understanding of cell complexity has changed leaps and bounds hence most scientists and researchers have started believing in God again and not evolution.(Doesn't mean i believe in God) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harsh86_Patel Posted September 16, 2012 #129 Share Posted September 16, 2012 Saying that evolution has nothing to do with biology is like saying that Einstein's theory of relativity has nothing to do with physics. Yes, evolutionary theory is but one model; and yet it happens to be much more than "measly", given that it is the substrate upon which the entire modern science of biology is founded. And yes, all modern biology is influenced or directly involves evolutionary science (if you were a genuine biotechnologist, you might know how obvious that is). Human anatomy, cellular biology, molecular biology, bioinformatics, pharmacology, medicine, zoology and botany all are built upon the vast foundation of evolutionary theory. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit in with your understanding of biology, but it's a fact; and as I've said many times before, your ignorance of biology doesn't affect the facts about it in any way. Your analogy is flawed. If you wanted to make a more accurate comparison, you'd have said something more along the lines of: evolution is to biology what classical and quantum mechanics combined are to physics. I've already explained this. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110613012758.htm The probability of one photon reaching Earth is one. The probability of trillions of them reaching Earth at the same time is, obviously, in the trillions. It's pretty simple. The probability of random beneficial mutations leading to speciation or adaption are all but zero; however, you happen to neglect to mention natural selection, which is vital to the process of evolution, in that it is the key process by which beneficial mutations are allowed to proliferate and result in gene flow. And I'm not sure precisely what you mean by "proto-multicellular organism". I presume you're referring to bacterial mats or slime molds. Either way, again, the alleged probability is both indeterminate, as well as irrelevant. No, I don't have to agree that saltation is correct, nor would I have to say that the demarcation has to be made at any particular point. Yes, one can have gradual degrees of diminishing compatibility between progressively speciating lineages without having to resort to the notion of saltation. I've already explained that process. Eventually, horses and donkeys and lions and tigers will be too distantly related to be compatible in reproduction; during this period of speciation, the ability for these respective pairs to produce hybrids such as mules or ligers/tigons will gradually fade (unless their disparate lines begin to grow closer to one another again, over successive generations of interbreeding, which would likely become more and more successful in such a scenario; it's possible that someday the ligers/tigons and mules will be viable, reproducing species, though I would argue that this is somewhat improbable). For example, female mules have, on occasion, been shown to be capable of siring viable offspring (though males have so far been shown to be sterile); the resulting offspring are referred to as "Molly/John mules" (depending on gender), and are fathered by a purebred horse or donkey. If over time the probability of mule stallions being capable of successfully reproducing with mule mares increases, it is possible that the mule may become a viable species in and of itself (thus, on a cladogram, the mule might be represented as a convergence of the horse and donkey lines). William R. Rice and George W. Salt found experimental evidence of sympatric speciation in the common fruit fly. They collected a population of Drosophila melanogaster from Davis, California and placed the pupae into a habitat maze. Newborn flies had to investigate the maze to find food. The flies had three choices to take in finding food. Light and dark (phototaxis), up and down (geotaxis), and the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis) were the three options. This eventually divided the flies into 42 spatio-temporal habitats. They then cultured two strains that chose opposite habitats. One of the strains emerged early, immediately flying upward in the dark attracted to the acetaldehyde. The other strain emerged late and immediately flew downward, attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from the two strains were then placed together in the maze and allowed to mate at the food site. They then were collected. A selective penalty was imposed on the female flies that switched habitats. This entailed that none of their gametes would pass on to the next generation. After 25 generations of this mating test, it showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. They repeated the experiment again without creating the penalty against habitat switching and the result was the same; reproductive isolation was produced. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent I, and several others, have already mentioned this. I've noted other examples already also. Your ignorance of our answers doesn't make them disappear. Why would I, personally, need to "prove" a theory which has already been proven beyond doubt by thousands of other biologists over the past century and a half? Evolutionary biology has already been proven; and all of the "scientific objections" have already been explained away. Yours is a completely moot point; that your knowledge of evolution seems to be grounded in the 19th Century is not my concern. Given the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience are logically untenable, I would say no. As to whether or not evolution would yield invisible people someday, I would say that it is exceptionally unlikely; biology would tend to deny that possibility (unless you're thinking some sort of camouflage, like a chameleon or cephalopod). In any case, I see no reason why natural selection would favor any of these features. Presuming the human lineage continues on for billions of years into the future for the sake of argument, I cannot possible predict what forms might emerge; but either way, the idea of humanity rising to godlike status would be far more likely achieved through technological rather than biological means. For one, eye colour. In humans, the inheritance pattern followed by blue eyes is considered similar to that of a recessive trait (in general, eye color inheritance is considered a polygenic trait, meaning that it is controlled by the interactions of several genes, not just one).[13] In 2008, new research suggested that people with blue eyes have a single common ancestor. Scientists tracked down a genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes. "Originally, we all had brown eyes," said Eiberg.[39] Eiberg and colleagues showed in a study published in Human Genetics that a mutation in the 86th intron of the HERC2 gene, which is hypothesized to interact with the OCA2 gene promoter, reduced expression of OCA2 with subsequent reduction in melanin production.[40] The authors concluded that the mutation may have arisen in a single individual probably living in the northwestern part of the Black Sea region (around modern Romania) 6,000–10,000 years ago during the Neolithic revolution.[39][40][41] Eiberg stated, "A genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a 'switch,' which literally 'turned off' the ability to produce brown eyes." The genetic switch is located in the gene adjacent to OCA2 and rather than completely turning off the gene, the switch limits its action, which reduces the production of melanin in the iris. In effect, the turned-down switch diluted brown eyes to blue. If the OCA2 gene had been completely shut down, our hair, eyes and skin would be melanin-less, a condition known as albinism. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_colour Here's another answer to your question: http://discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/09-they-dont-make-homo-sapiens-like-they-used-to "Is traditionally considered a gradual process"? I think you mean: "has always been considered a gradual process" (unless you're counting Lamarck... which would be daft of you). "New" organs almost invariably descend from preexisting ones, which simply take on new function. For instance, the evolution of the eye has already been discussed; it descended gradually through a continuum of stages, beginning essentially with a simple collection of photosensitive cells (which, as has also already been discussed, are present even in the most primitive organisms). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye Yes, I realize the complexity of a modern cell. And yes, the principles of natural selection very well explain their evolution. As with most things, if you bothered to read a simple Wikipedia article once in a while instead of fallacious creationist sites, you'd already have answers to your questions. I've already answered your question: natural selection. I already explained it in more detail a page or two ago: I'm not going to bother to write it all out again. Natural selection favors organisms which are better suited to survive; it should go without saying that an organism with superior resistance to tumor formation will be better suited to survive. Not sure I understand what you're asking... Are you insinuating more "probabilities" again? Yes, only germinal mutations can be passed on through gametes, but how is that remedial biological fact relevant? 1.They fields of biology you mentioned have nothing to do theory of evolution, it was thought initially that breakthroughs in these fields would help support evolution but it has only helped in destroying this theory.Molecular biology has is not based on evolutionary theory, and you can read the definitions of a ll the other subjects you mentioned and you will find that they have nothing to do with Darwin's stupid theory.On the contrary Evolutionists constantly try to broach upon these subjects to try and give some credence to their theory but they never get it.(Also you can talk about 'Darwin's missing fossils' which after 150 years of search you have still not found).Evolutionist only matter in any other branch of biology because like i said before they are in positions to grant funds and no other reason.Great scientists and researchers in all these other biological fields you mentioned have no use for your pet theory as their science is based on experimentation and objective proof and not extrapolations. 2. Since you finally talked about the Drosophila experiment which i suggested to you in one of the previous post,you should also not what happened to those mutation after subsequent generations were produced,the mutations were eliminated naturally.And again no new species was formed,the drosophila remained a drosophila,all that was induced was reproductive isolation.Evolutionist just extrapolated this to speciation (lol XD) some scientist they call themselves. 3.Do you realize that what appears to you on a surface as a 'small change' in an organism has a extremely huge number of implications at the cellular and genetic level,this is something we didn't know until last 20 odd years and every time we look closer we find life to be more and more complex on a cellular and genetic level.This the the reason that many scientists in all these other fields of biology have become convinced that evolution cannot account for such complexity and have become Theistic. 4.Like i said before all evolutionist can do is parade 'variation' and 'adaptation' which are natural and well studied and accepted processes and extrapolate them to 'speciation' without any objective or laboratory proof.(i am saying this in the context of the eye color example you gave which is impacted by switching on and off certain genes and due to the regulatory genes,when i asked proof for evolution i didn't ask for proof for 'variation' i asked objective proof for 'speciation' which is the crux of evolution............don't try you will find none.....) 5.This is the first time you have talked some sense (sadly it is by rejecting your own premise of evolution) that man probably after billions of years cannot turn into an omnipotent,allknowing,invisible being since you feel that natural selection wouldn't support it,i don't know why you feel natural selection wouldn't support such a being but still.I am happy that you are bewildered at this possibility of man evolving into something like what i described even after millions of years,as such type of bewilderment is what makes me doubt evolution in the first place. Now what i would like you to do is go back to the time when according to the evolutionist the first form of life had just come into existence, no do you think these first form of life if it could,would even try to comprehend that after billions of years they would have evolved into us Humans.I don't think it could the same way you don't think that man can evolve into an omnipotent invisible being even after billions of years of evolution. 6.Tumor supressors and DNA correction mechanisms correct any form of genetic mutation hence they cannot be accounted for by evolution,they suppress and remove your 'random genetic mutations'. 7.If one has to believe things based only on faith then there are quite a few options and evolution is one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harsh86_Patel Posted September 16, 2012 #130 Share Posted September 16, 2012 Saying that evolution has nothing to do with biology is like saying that Einstein's theory of relativity has nothing to do with physics. Yes, evolutionary theory is but one model; and yet it happens to be much more than "measly", given that it is the substrate upon which the entire modern science of biology is founded. And yes, all modern biology is influenced or directly involves evolutionary science (if you were a genuine biotechnologist, you might know how obvious that is). Human anatomy, cellular biology, molecular biology, bioinformatics, pharmacology, medicine, zoology and botany all are built upon the vast foundation of evolutionary theory. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit in with your understanding of biology, but it's a fact; and as I've said many times before, your ignorance of biology doesn't affect the facts about it in any way. Your analogy is flawed. If you wanted to make a more accurate comparison, you'd have said something more along the lines of: evolution is to biology what classical and quantum mechanics combined are to physics. I've already explained this. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110613012758.htm The probability of one photon reaching Earth is one. The probability of trillions of them reaching Earth at the same time is, obviously, in the trillions. It's pretty simple. The probability of random beneficial mutations leading to speciation or adaption are all but zero; however, you happen to neglect to mention natural selection, which is vital to the process of evolution, in that it is the key process by which beneficial mutations are allowed to proliferate and result in gene flow. And I'm not sure precisely what you mean by "proto-multicellular organism". I presume you're referring to bacterial mats or slime molds. Either way, again, the alleged probability is both indeterminate, as well as irrelevant. No, I don't have to agree that saltation is correct, nor would I have to say that the demarcation has to be made at any particular point. Yes, one can have gradual degrees of diminishing compatibility between progressively speciating lineages without having to resort to the notion of saltation. I've already explained that process. Eventually, horses and donkeys and lions and tigers will be too distantly related to be compatible in reproduction; during this period of speciation, the ability for these respective pairs to produce hybrids such as mules or ligers/tigons will gradually fade (unless their disparate lines begin to grow closer to one another again, over successive generations of interbreeding, which would likely become more and more successful in such a scenario; it's possible that someday the ligers/tigons and mules will be viable, reproducing species, though I would argue that this is somewhat improbable). For example, female mules have, on occasion, been shown to be capable of siring viable offspring (though males have so far been shown to be sterile); the resulting offspring are referred to as "Molly/John mules" (depending on gender), and are fathered by a purebred horse or donkey. If over time the probability of mule stallions being capable of successfully reproducing with mule mares increases, it is possible that the mule may become a viable species in and of itself (thus, on a cladogram, the mule might be represented as a convergence of the horse and donkey lines). William R. Rice and George W. Salt found experimental evidence of sympatric speciation in the common fruit fly. They collected a population of Drosophila melanogaster from Davis, California and placed the pupae into a habitat maze. Newborn flies had to investigate the maze to find food. The flies had three choices to take in finding food. Light and dark (phototaxis), up and down (geotaxis), and the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis) were the three options. This eventually divided the flies into 42 spatio-temporal habitats. They then cultured two strains that chose opposite habitats. One of the strains emerged early, immediately flying upward in the dark attracted to the acetaldehyde. The other strain emerged late and immediately flew downward, attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from the two strains were then placed together in the maze and allowed to mate at the food site. They then were collected. A selective penalty was imposed on the female flies that switched habitats. This entailed that none of their gametes would pass on to the next generation. After 25 generations of this mating test, it showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. They repeated the experiment again without creating the penalty against habitat switching and the result was the same; reproductive isolation was produced. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent I, and several others, have already mentioned this. I've noted other examples already also. Your ignorance of our answers doesn't make them disappear. Why would I, personally, need to "prove" a theory which has already been proven beyond doubt by thousands of other biologists over the past century and a half? Evolutionary biology has already been proven; and all of the "scientific objections" have already been explained away. Yours is a completely moot point; that your knowledge of evolution seems to be grounded in the 19th Century is not my concern. Given the concepts of omnipotence and omniscience are logically untenable, I would say no. As to whether or not evolution would yield invisible people someday, I would say that it is exceptionally unlikely; biology would tend to deny that possibility (unless you're thinking some sort of camouflage, like a chameleon or cephalopod). In any case, I see no reason why natural selection would favor any of these features. Presuming the human lineage continues on for billions of years into the future for the sake of argument, I cannot possible predict what forms might emerge; but either way, the idea of humanity rising to godlike status would be far more likely achieved through technological rather than biological means. For one, eye colour. In humans, the inheritance pattern followed by blue eyes is considered similar to that of a recessive trait (in general, eye color inheritance is considered a polygenic trait, meaning that it is controlled by the interactions of several genes, not just one).[13] In 2008, new research suggested that people with blue eyes have a single common ancestor. Scientists tracked down a genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes. "Originally, we all had brown eyes," said Eiberg.[39] Eiberg and colleagues showed in a study published in Human Genetics that a mutation in the 86th intron of the HERC2 gene, which is hypothesized to interact with the OCA2 gene promoter, reduced expression of OCA2 with subsequent reduction in melanin production.[40] The authors concluded that the mutation may have arisen in a single individual probably living in the northwestern part of the Black Sea region (around modern Romania) 6,000–10,000 years ago during the Neolithic revolution.[39][40][41] Eiberg stated, "A genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a 'switch,' which literally 'turned off' the ability to produce brown eyes." The genetic switch is located in the gene adjacent to OCA2 and rather than completely turning off the gene, the switch limits its action, which reduces the production of melanin in the iris. In effect, the turned-down switch diluted brown eyes to blue. If the OCA2 gene had been completely shut down, our hair, eyes and skin would be melanin-less, a condition known as albinism. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_colour Here's another answer to your question: http://discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/09-they-dont-make-homo-sapiens-like-they-used-to "Is traditionally considered a gradual process"? I think you mean: "has always been considered a gradual process" (unless you're counting Lamarck... which would be daft of you). "New" organs almost invariably descend from preexisting ones, which simply take on new function. For instance, the evolution of the eye has already been discussed; it descended gradually through a continuum of stages, beginning essentially with a simple collection of photosensitive cells (which, as has also already been discussed, are present even in the most primitive organisms). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye Yes, I realize the complexity of a modern cell. And yes, the principles of natural selection very well explain their evolution. As with most things, if you bothered to read a simple Wikipedia article once in a while instead of fallacious creationist sites, you'd already have answers to your questions. I've already answered your question: natural selection. I already explained it in more detail a page or two ago: I'm not going to bother to write it all out again. Natural selection favors organisms which are better suited to survive; it should go without saying that an organism with superior resistance to tumor formation will be better suited to survive. Not sure I understand what you're asking... Are you insinuating more "probabilities" again? Yes, only germinal mutations can be passed on through gametes, but how is that remedial biological fact relevant? 1.They fields of biology you mentioned have nothing to do theory of evolution, it was thought initially that breakthroughs in these fields would help support evolution but it has only helped in destroying this theory.Molecular biology has is not based on evolutionary theory, and you can read the definitions of a ll the other subjects you mentioned and you will find that they have nothing to do with Darwin's stupid theory.On the contrary Evolutionists constantly try to broach upon these subjects to try and give some credence to their theory but they never get it.(Also you can talk about 'Darwin's missing fossils' which after 150 years of search you have still not found).Evolutionist only matter in any other branch of biology because like i said before they are in positions to grant funds and no other reason.Great scientists and researchers in all these other biological fields you mentioned have no use for your pet theory as their science is based on experimentation and objective proof and not extrapolations. 2. Since you finally talked about the Drosophila experiment which i suggested to you in one of the previous post,you should also not what happened to those mutation after subsequent generations were produced,the mutations were eliminated naturally.And again no new species was formed,the drosophila remained a drosophila,all that was induced was reproductive isolation.Evolutionist just extrapolated this to speciation (lol XD) some scientist they call themselves. 3.Do you realize that what appears to you on a surface as a 'small change' in an organism has a extremely huge number of implications at the cellular and genetic level,this is something we didn't know until last 20 odd years and every time we look closer we find life to be more and more complex on a cellular and genetic level.This the the reason that many scientists in all these other fields of biology have become convinced that evolution cannot account for such complexity and have become Theistic. 4.Like i said before all evolutionist can do is parade 'variation' and 'adaptation' which are natural and well studied and accepted processes and extrapolate them to 'speciation' without any objective or laboratory proof.(i am saying this in the context of the eye color example you gave which is impacted by switching on and off certain genes and due to the regulatory genes,when i asked proof for evolution i didn't ask for proof for 'variation' i asked objective proof for 'speciation' which is the crux of evolution............don't try you will find none.....) 5.This is the first time you have talked some sense (sadly it is by rejecting your own premise of evolution) that man probably after billions of years cannot turn into an omnipotent,allknowing,invisible being since you feel that natural selection wouldn't support it,i don't know why you feel natural selection wouldn't support such a being but still.I am happy that you are bewildered at this possibility of man evolving into something like what i described even after millions of years,as such type of bewilderment is what makes me doubt evolution in the first place. Now what i would like you to do is go back to the time when according to the evolutionist the first form of life had just come into existence, no do you think these first form of life if it could,would even try to comprehend that after billions of years they would have evolved into us Humans.I don't think it could the same way you don't think that man can evolve into an omnipotent invisible being even after billions of years of evolution. 6.Tumor suppressors and DNA correction mechanisms correct any form of genetic mutation hence they cannot be accounted for by evolution,they suppress and remove your 'random genetic mutations'. 7.If one has to believe things based only on faith then there are quite a few options and evolution is one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metaskeptic Posted September 16, 2012 #131 Share Posted September 16, 2012 Considering how much coast line has been lost since the last ice age I would say it is possible that a civilization could be lost to us. How long did it take sea levels to rise? Suppose you lived in a coastal city near the end of the ice age, would u have noticed rising sea levels? Graham Hancock's underworld goes into this in great detail. Ignoring any evidence, it seems reasonable that if we know that there was some kind of civilization 10,000 years ago (eg because of Gobliki Tepe high above sea level) then we should assume that there would have been a coastal civilization to. It would be odd to just have an exclusively highland civilization. And when you include that a vast continental sized swathe of land was flooded as the sea levels gradually (and sometimes cataclysmically) rose over 100 meters we should expect to see evidence of submerged civilizations. I think this evidence is potentially there, though it is ridiculed by the mainstream. Facinating! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted September 16, 2012 #132 Share Posted September 16, 2012 What i am stating is when we talk about the evolution of the eye we should first ponder how the protoeye and the gene coding for that proto eye evolved along with the optic nerve?Once a gene template for the protoeye has evolved then it can undergo variations to give different phenptypes,so when i talk of the evolution of the eye i am talking about the evolution of the first gene template that codes for the protoeye. Now we come to my friend pointing out that bacteria have photosensitivity and incredibly small generation times but stating this in respect to evolution of the eye which is a multicellular organ in itself and is a smaller part of a bigger multicellular organism having cells interacting continuosly with each other.When you talk of a bacterial cell it has no higher cellular organisation and is pretty flexible entity genetically hence it's use to generate various proteins etc by modern biotechnologist.So talking about evolution of an eye which deals with 'Vision' and not basic photosensitivity in a multicellular complex organism with multiple tissue types and talking about a gene which imparts photosensitivity in single cell bacteria which is eons behind in complexity when compared to anything related to evolution of the eye.Also like i said stating evolution you can also explain how man can grow wings and fly away justy the way you explained how formation of optic nerve is not very complicated but when you factor in the probabilities of these things happening then probably you will get an idea of how much close to an apparent miracle it is. When you talk about other organs,there are other organs which are simpler in function and complexity when compared to the eye and hence seem comparitively easier to explain,but what you pointed out is true that all these organs of varying level of complexity coming together and giving rise to a human seems like a near impossibility if only judged by existing concepts of evolution. When i said sentient i meant sentient as i was talking about intelligent life even if it is a cockroach as it would still have 'free will' and choice. Now when we talk about photsensitive group of cells in clamydia i would like to point out that you are already assuming that chlamydia as an organism evolved a eye organelle independantly after it established itself as a species just to make it sound reasonable that complex eyes could evolve since simpler versions of photosensitive cells are present in other organism and again i would repeat that you can point out hundred variations of the eye in different organism with varying level of complexity but when you try to explain how it first came into existence and organised iteself into a complex organelle with natural selection supporting each intermediate stage then it becomes difficult to digest.Why have chlamydia not grown a complex eye like ours since they multiply much faster and are more simpler and probably have existed way before complex multicellular organism came into play.Evolution and its present concept fail to explain presence of different species,it fails to explain how one species can evolve into another completely different species You would have appeared to have missed a critical section in the quotation from Gehring (2002:12). To reiterate: Analogous to jellyfish, the eye organelle is located directly at the base of the effector organ, the flagellum, and the information is transmitted directly from the eye organelle to the flagellum without an intervening information processing organelle. Thus, the development of the optic nerve would appear to have occurred at a later temporal point than the development of early photoreceptors. As a side note, you would appear to have some degree of difficulty with the concept of genetic mutations. Given your technical background, one would speculate that you are familiar with some of the mechanisms involved. . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted September 16, 2012 #133 Share Posted September 16, 2012 Can you please tell me who were the distant ancestors of modern man according to the theory of evolution?'Apelike' Are such adjectives used for these hypothetical ancestors by our evolutionists .Since you are so up in arms against a monkey turning into a man then how can you suggest that a single cell bacteria like organism turned into a man over however long a period of time?How does one species evolve into a completelty different species? Evoltuionist tell us that all species in the world had a common ancestor at some point of time and then we all evolved following different chains of evoltion,if you have no problem in accepting this statement then you should proudly accept that a monkey can turn into a man and probably thats what happened probably over a long period of time. And if you are pro evolution then you shouldn't have a problem in accepting that a individual organism did undergo a major mutation (and didn't become impotent or sterile) at some point of time,was then favoured by natural selection,mass reproduced with other organism of it's species to give rise to a completely new species.Can you tell me why a monkey can't turn into man if you believe evolution in it's present state is valid? Am unaware that anyone has made such a direct statement. One of the apparent flaws in your understandings is that you do not take into account the environmental aspects. In this regard, it is advisable to bear in mind the numerous ecological niches filled by a plethora of species. Each of these species has, with varying degrees of success, been the result of long-term changes that allow a given species to reproduce within a given environmental framework. Such a species would be considered to be successful. As environmental changes occur, species are faced with often significant challenges, as witnessed by the number of extinct species (estimated to be some 99% of all the species that have ever existed). These environmental pressures act to select for beneficial mutations (alleles) that may or may not be already present. As to your comments regarding the osteological evidence for intermediary and/or branching representatives of the hominid/hominin lineage, you are aware of the ever-growing volume of such? . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmt_sesh Posted September 16, 2012 #134 Share Posted September 16, 2012 Graham Hancock's underworld goes into this in great detail. Ignoring any evidence, it seems reasonable that if we know that there was some kind of civilization 10,000 years ago (eg because of Gobliki Tepe high above sea level) then we should assume that there would have been a coastal civilization to. It would be odd to just have an exclusively highland civilization. And when you include that a vast continental sized swathe of land was flooded as the sea levels gradually (and sometimes cataclysmically) rose over 100 meters we should expect to see evidence of submerged civilizations. I think this evidence is potentially there, though it is ridiculed by the mainstream. Facinating! It is more the case that mainstream science pays little mind to such ideas because there remains no evidence to support them. For the moment let's imagine a coastal civilization existing 10,000 or more years ago. Are we to expect that all members of this civilization witnessed rising waters but chose to remain until they all drowned? That's not a rational approach to the issue. Invariably, such a civilization would abandon its settlements and move inland, out of danger, and rebuild. The rise in sea levels was gradual, not abrupt. Nevertheless, no such evidence exists for a true civilization anywhere in the world in the Paleolithic or early Neolithic periods. While an impressive Neolithic achievement in Anatolia, Göbekli Tepe does not represent the status of a true civilization. The site remains strikingly absent of any evidence for inhabitations and nothing there can tell us anything meaningful about the socio-political structure of the ancient people who created the monuments there. It's the term "civilization" that's bandied about too loosely, perhaps. In all cases of which I can think, true civilizations were established on urban centers. There was a well-defined sense of socio-political hierarchy and central authority regulating an almost exclusively agricultural domain whose surpluses supported a professional class of people (e.g., bureaucrats, artisans, priests) . And while it's not true in all cases, most true civilizations developed or incorporated some form of writing. With these criteria for defining a civilization, the oldest in the world remains Sumer, in what's now southern Iraq. This occurred around 3300 BCE. Pharaonic Egypt was a close second. So in all reality, 10,000 or more years ago, you might well have small villages such as Catalhöyük in Anatolia or the Natufians of the Levant, but no real civilizations. To date, no evidence has surfaced to counter this fact. In closing, I would not put too much weight on the writings of Graham Hancock. He is neither an historian nor a professional researcher. His ideas would never survive the scrutiny of a legitimate peer-review environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmt_sesh Posted September 16, 2012 #135 Share Posted September 16, 2012 I have to say, Harsh, even though I am not the best person on this board to argue the topic of evolution, my educational background leaves me quite certain that you really don't understand the basics of evolution. Comments like monkeys turning into men or the apparatuses of vision suddenly appearing from nowhere, are not espoused by the theory of evolution. And numerous times I've read where you refer to the origin of life or the creation thereof, and this is not even part of evolutionary science. Anyone familiar with evolution will have to admit that it does not and cannot answer all of the questions. Still, that is the nature of science: the theory is refined as more evidence surfaces. In some cases, a theory must be abandoned if new evidence clarifies the need to do so. But despite your oft-repeated mantra about new evidence, it has not done anything to diminish or disprove evolution. The theory has become only stronger as time has gone by. And although evolution is not perfect, it remains far and away the best-supported theory for how species adapt and develop. No form or avenue of creationism can stand against it. By its very nature, in fact, creationism (whatever form it takes) is anti-science. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmt_sesh Posted September 16, 2012 #136 Share Posted September 16, 2012 And finally for now, on the subject of evolution vs. creationism, today's Dooensbury hit the nail on the head. It's funny how timely these things can be. I don't know how long this will be up, so enjoy it while it's there: Doonesbury, September 16, 2012 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted September 16, 2012 #137 Share Posted September 16, 2012 (edited) http://www.newgeolog...entation32.html One may wish to be cautious in regards to utilizing such a reference to support your position, as can be evidenced in their own presentations. The "group" (of 3?) would appear to have no papers appearing in credible journals, has not been successful in their attempts to present their findings at the AGU conference, and has been publicly critiqued in the press. In addition, there would appear to be less-than-professional flaws in their methodology and presentation. Lastly, their rationale for discounting the principle of superposition is hardly credible in the light of current understandings. Edit: Typo. Edited September 16, 2012 by Swede 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted September 16, 2012 #138 Share Posted September 16, 2012 And finally for now, on the subject of evolution vs. creationism, today's Dooensbury hit the nail on the head. It's funny how timely these things can be. I don't know how long this will be up, so enjoy it while it's there: Doonesbury, September 16, 2012 Touche! . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbitran Posted September 17, 2012 #139 Share Posted September 17, 2012 That is exactly what i am trying to tell you that evolutionary biology on a macroscale has become rudimentary and falsified by our present knowledge of molecular biology,genetics etc.If the foundations on which you build your theory no longer confer with your theory then where does the theory stand?I think you would prefer that 'a monkey gave birth to a man' more so you can have that.I don't need to comprehend when i talk of science i like to see objective proof.The understanding of cell complexity has changed leaps and bounds hence most scientists and researchers have started believing in God again and not evolution.(Doesn't mean i believe in God) This is how I know you're not a real scientist. You're clueless. Not only hasn't modern science disproved evolutionary biology (on the contrary), but nor do "most" scientists and researchers believe in God (unless 4% on average qualifies as "most" now...). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orangepeaceful79 Posted September 17, 2012 #140 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Something I'd like to throw in here... feral children - human children raised by animals - are a staple of fiction (Tarzan, Mowgli) but there are a few well-authenticated cases of real feral children. And in every case, children who were raised from infancy for several years by animals were mentally crippled. Intelligence, it seems, does not develop if there's no culture to support it. So it's entirely possible that early h. sapiens, physically identical to us, may not have been very bright at all, until a culture had accrued that let him develop his mental potential. And that might have happened only recently. Although an interesting thought I'd add is that feral children raised by animals may not be intelligent in ways that we are able to measure with tests designed for the kind of intelligence that our culture nurtures and cultivates. The propensity for intelligence may still be there, albeit a feral child might have skills and intelligences in other areas (similar to those of whatever animal raised it) that we as typical humans might not have. Its a moot point, but something I was thinking of. I'd say that the hardware would be there but wouldn't have been shaped by our standards. The child on the other hand may have hyper-developed senses that would allow it to hunt or find food, which is another kind of intelligence altogether. Of course this is all speculation, I have nothing whatsoever to back it up. My apologies for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harsh86_Patel Posted September 17, 2012 #141 Share Posted September 17, 2012 And finally for now, on the subject of evolution vs. creationism, today's Dooensbury hit the nail on the head. It's funny how timely these things can be. I don't know how long this will be up, so enjoy it while it's there: Doonesbury, September 16, 2012 Does God mean christianity or any other relegion?If God exists does it mean that all these relegions are true or actually word of God? Equating God with the 'creation of Earth' episode in Abrahamic relegions is not defunct. By the reasoning that goes in this comic strip, you rather speak lies and fill a gap if you don't know the truth is intellectual laziness.If evolution is false and a bad theory doesn't mean that the only alternative we have is what is written in the Bible.An alternative theory which explains the doubts better along with objective scientific proof can be looked for,but sadly the search wont start until you scrap this erroneous doctrine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harsh86_Patel Posted September 17, 2012 #142 Share Posted September 17, 2012 One may wish to be cautious in regards to utilizing such a reference to support your position, as can be evidenced in their own presentations. The "group" (of 3?) would appear to have no papers appearing in credible journals, has not been successful in their attempts to present their findings at the AGU conference, and has been publicly critiqued in the press. In addition, there would appear to be less-than-professional flaws in their methodology and presentation. Lastly, their rationale for discounting the principle of superposition is hardly credible in the light of current understandings. Edit: Typo. The link i gave is not a research paper,it is highlighting a lot many issues that are present in the theory of evolution.The arguments used by them are totally scientific and based on observable scientific fact.Though it is a creationist site,it is not using the bible to contest evolution,it is pointing out anamalies in the theory using modern scientific knowledge.Though very much like evolutionists who parade 'variation' and 'adaptation' and extrapolate it to evolution ,these sites do provide scientific objections in the theory of evolution and extrapolate it to mean that the Bible/Xyz other book is right.Like i said presentation and methodology does not matter when you state scientific facts,as long as the facts stated are verifiable and true.Did you know that the lead scientist who worked on the human genome mapping project later converted to christianity,does that mean that his work is all wrong because he is relegious? All i say is that 1)there are glaring holes in the 'Theory of evolution' which is accepted by evolutionists themselves 2)The theory of evolution is based on lot of assumptions and extrapolations and any doubt you would actually put forward will be answered by 'random beneficial mutations' and 'it takes billions of years' 3)It should be stated as a theory and not a fact,especially by evolutionists so they can be objective and scientific when they try to improve on the theory and try to look for scientific proof 4)Every time a widely accpeted scientific objection comes to light,all that evolutionist do is try to dance around it or give rise to new suppositions (they know what alternatives they are giving are suppositions and not scientific facts) 5)Evolution is to biology what 'astro physics' is to physics, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Spartan Posted September 17, 2012 #143 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Seriously Harsh, you are utterly clueless. You spout theories that are outdated, but you dont stand firm on anything. What do you believe in, rather than play musical chair with theories?? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harsh86_Patel Posted September 17, 2012 #144 Share Posted September 17, 2012 This is how I know you're not a real scientist. You're clueless. Not only hasn't modern science disproved evolutionary biology (on the contrary), but nor do "most" scientists and researchers believe in God (unless 4% on average qualifies as "most" now...). I am not a scientist,but only a student of science and the strange part is that you are the one who seems clueless when it comes to your pet theory and the major objections it faces 'and' you claim that you are a scientist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harsh86_Patel Posted September 17, 2012 #145 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Seriously Harsh, you are utterly clueless. You spout theories that are outdated, but you dont stand firm on anything. What do you believe in, rather than play musical chair with theories?? Yes in this discussion we are spouting a outdated theory,it is called 'the theory of evolution'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Spartan Posted September 17, 2012 #146 Share Posted September 17, 2012 No Harsh. The theory of evolution is nt outdated. its you. and by the way - you are acknowledged as a troll. You wont accept evidence nor would you provide evidence of your own. You wont accept the truth, but rather cling to outdated notions. A true troll! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbitran Posted September 17, 2012 #147 Share Posted September 17, 2012 (edited) I am not a scientist,but only a student of science and the strange part is that you are the one who seems clueless when it comes to your pet theory and the major objections it faces 'and' you claim that you are a scientist. Interesting, what precisely am I "clueless" about? Evolutionary biology is my strong suit, after all, not yours. Who are you to say who is "clueless"? You'll have to earn the right to do that; though I doubt you will (unless you actually go back to school, learn about science, and become a biologist yourself). Evolutionary biology faces not one single scientific objection, however meager, let alone "major" objections. The idiocies which you've repeatedly touted as "objections" are a farce; all of which have already been thoroughly debunked, long ago. Oh, and I'm glad that you admit you aren't a scientist. It's rather shameful that you lied about that in the first place, but the fact you were about to recant is (almost) admirable. Unfortunately, that isn't enough to give your case any weight; on the contrary. Edited September 17, 2012 by Arbitran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harsh86_Patel Posted September 17, 2012 #148 Share Posted September 17, 2012 No Harsh. The theory of evolution is nt outdated. its you. and by the way - you are acknowledged as a troll. You wont accept evidence nor would you provide evidence of your own. You wont accept the truth, but rather cling to outdated notions. A true troll! Thank you Spartan for your comments,very enriching.Which evidence are you talking about? Show me a new species that is created under laboratory condition and scientific observation(a drosophila nomatter how much you mutate it stays a drosophila so don't quote that example again).Show me creation of life artificially.Just two things and evolution will become a perfectly provable scientific law and not only a theory or hypothesis.Now as a person who believes in science,i am forced to call an assumption an assumption and an extrapolation as an extrapolation.Read any research paper pro-evolution and count the number of times "can","could","might" come in the inferrence section and you will realise why i doubt the theory.I am not clinging to any notions which are older then the theory of evolution so i don't lnow how you call my 'notions' outdated but nevermind.Now evolutionist use words like 'random beneficial mutations' and when you count on the word 'random' to explain anything then the very next question you would ask yourself is the probability of the random event happening,...i have tried asking Arbitran about the probabilities of what evolutionist insinuate and he has always conveniently avoided it or probably because he has never asked himself. If you notice in the start of the debate the only thing i asked him was probability of evolution of man,let alone the probability of a 100 peptide chain assembling itself in a coherent manner on it's own,never got any answers.Now the reason why i asked him this is as soon as you compute the chances of this happening by natural processess,the number that comes up if you can ever compute it makes evolution of man seem very improbable and nothing less then a miracle.Now Arbitran gives a lame question of a trillion photon reaching Earth from the Sun, if they are on a direct trajectory to reach earth and without any barriers to block them probabiltiy of the event is still '1',I never denied the theory but i just pointed out the objections to the theory in it's present form and also the enquired the chances or probability of things happening assuming evolution is true.Now since you alreeady made it clear that you are an engineer and probably don't know much about the concepts of biology i talk about, and you still declare Arbitran to be right and me not accepting the "Truth" and call me names,i don't know what you have for Arbitran.You can acknowledge me to be whatever you wan't. P.S.-if evolution and it's 'random beneficail mutations' are true then there is a chance ,probably 1 in 1000 trillions million billiob gazallion that i might actually turn into a Troll a 'True Troll' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harsh86_Patel Posted September 17, 2012 #149 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Interesting, what precisely am I "clueless" about? Evolutionary biology is my strong suit, after all, not yours. Who are you to say who is "clueless"? You'll have to earn the right to do that; though I doubt you will (unless you actually go back to school, learn about science, and become a biologist yourself). Evolutionary biology faces not one single scientific objection, however meager, let alone "major" objections. The idiocies which you've repeatedly touted as "objections" are a farce; all of which have already been thoroughly debunked, long ago. Oh, and I'm glad that you admit you aren't a scientist. It's rather shameful that you lied about that in the first place, but the fact you were about to recant is (almost) admirable. Unfortunately, that isn't enough to give your case any weight; on the contrary. Last time just for you-(things you probably don't have a clue about)1.Has any new species been created and scientifically documented in the Lab, using principles of evolution? 2.Has life been created artificially under any conditions (is there any objective scientific proof)? 3.What are the chances of 100 nucleotide gene assembling due to 'random beneficial mutations' happening over say 1 billion years in a coherent manner (to code for a biologically sensible activity)? 4.What are the limits of 'variation'? (ask a farmer who breeds animal and he will tell you) 5.How many scientific objections has the theory of evolution faced,how many times have new principles/theories been introduced due to modern scientific break throughs,do you think the theory of evolution is not being continously modified and changed? 6.Is the theory of evolution devoid of any assumptions,how heavily does it rely on assumptions? 7.Can a generation of monkeys breeding with each other for as many generations as you seem fit over as much time period you think is fit give rise to a generation of MAN? I implore you debunk the queries i raise and i will believe everything else you say about anything else without questioning you on anything if i find the explainations satisfactory.And since you and Spartan think i am trolling (God knows what you people think you'all are doing) this will be my last post on this subject.You can post whatever you want in respect to these queries and i will read what you have to say and leave it at that. P.S.-i never once claimed that i was a scientist, i said i was a biotechnologist since i have studied biotechnology and graduated in it,but you can still call me a liar if that makes you feel good.Only your tendecies to assume and extrapolate wrongly are perfect for a 'evolutionists'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arbitran Posted September 18, 2012 #150 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Thank you Spartan for your comments,very enriching.Which evidence are you talking about? Show me a new species that is created under laboratory condition and scientific observation(a drosophila nomatter how much you mutate it stays a drosophila so don't quote that example again). No, generations of flies which are mutated sufficiently will eventually yield a new genus (new species have already been produced; as has been pointed out to you many times). Show me creation of life artificially. It hasn't been done. But then, evolutionary biology is largely focused on natural processes, not artificial processes. Just two things and evolution will become a perfectly provable scientific law and not only a theory or hypothesis. Since when are you the one who gets to decide what qualifies as a scientific theory (the "only a theory" argument is creationist; and it's absolutely asinine). Evolutionary biology is provable, and has been proven. Now as a person who believes in science,i am forced to call an assumption an assumption and an extrapolation as an extrapolation.Read any research paper pro-evolution and count the number of times "can","could","might" come in the inferrence section and you will realise why i doubt the theory. Can, could, and might, are all the hallmarks of speaking scientifically. It would be thoroughly unscientific to speak in absolutes, as if we can be 100% sure about anything (which we can't, incidentally). And it's interesting that you say any research paper "pro-evolution"... can you give even a single example of a genuine, peer-reviewed, scientific paper which is anti-evolution? I am not clinging to any notions which are older then the theory of evolution so i don't lnow how you call my 'notions' outdated but nevermind. You speak as if evolutionary theory has been static since Darwin's day... Now evolutionist use words like 'random beneficial mutations' and when you count on the word 'random' to explain anything then the very next question you would ask yourself is the probability of the random event happening,...i have tried asking Arbitran about the probabilities of what evolutionist insinuate and he has always conveniently avoided it or probably because he has never asked himself. I have indeed asked myself the probabilities, but as an irrelevant side-thought; as I've said, probability has very little to say about real-life situations, such as evolution (although, as I've also said before, evolution is genuinely inevitable when one has a hereditary system based upon sexually-transmitted deoxyribonucleotides). If you notice in the start of the debate the only thing i asked him was probability of evolution of man,let alone the probability of a 100 peptide chain assembling itself in a coherent manner on it's own,never got any answers. You didn't get answers from me, specifically, because it's irrelevant. Now the reason why i asked him this is as soon as you compute the chances of this happening by natural processess,the number that comes up if you can ever compute it makes evolution of man seem very improbable and nothing less then a miracle.Now Arbitran gives a lame question of a trillion photon reaching Earth from the Sun, if they are on a direct trajectory to reach earth and without any barriers to block them probabiltiy of the event is still '1',I never denied the theory but i just pointed out the objections to the theory in it's present form and also the enquired the chances or probability of things happening assuming evolution is true. And, as I said, the probability of the photons reaching Earth at the same moment should roughly equate to the probability of humans (or any other species) evolving. Photons, yes, have a given trajectory; but evolution can have a "trajectory" of sorts also. Photons of light happen to have a trajectory which points them to Earth after having collided and ricocheted off of billions of particles within the sun; the evolution of any given species is likewise determined by the sum of the processes which led to it. Any given photon wasn't preselected to reach Earth; nor was any given species preset to evolve. The evolution of all organisms on our planet is the collective process (which is far less random than solar photon emission, given the principle of natural selection) of reproduction, which inevitably, given the process of mutation, gives rise to increasingly diverse forms. Evolution is comparatively probable, as opposed to photon emission, which, again, is entirely random. Given natural selection isn't entirely random, it must therefore be more probable to occur. It's quite simple really. Now since you alreeady made it clear that you are an engineer and probably don't know much about the concepts of biology i talk about, and you still declare Arbitran to be right and me not accepting the "Truth" and call me names,i don't know what you have for Arbitran.You can acknowledge me to be whatever you wan't. One need not understand science to respect and acknowledge its findings. The_Spartan, on the other hand, while not a specialist, clearly knows enough about biology to recognize your fallacies. Which is very fortunate. P.S.-if evolution and it's 'random beneficail mutations' are true then there is a chance ,probably 1 in 1000 trillions million billiob gazallion that i might actually turn into a Troll a 'True Troll' Again with the worthless probabilities... You speak so much about probability, and yet this demonstrates that you don't know a damn thing about it. Even I know that your calculation, however tongue-in-cheek it might have been, is utter bull****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now