"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Doctor Jimbob

Improbable wrote: »

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2430337/

I wouldn't bother, his argument consists of throwing turds at a wall and hoping some of it sticks.

The Mad Hatter

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I wouldn't bother, his argument consists of throwing turds at a wall and hoping some of it sticks.

Only there's no wall.

Doctor Jimbob

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Only there's no wall.

A wall of reason?

Maybe it wasn't the best comparison.

Genghiz Cohen

So it's back to this again is it?






Don't worry, there are plenty more.

robindch

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

So it's back to this again is it?

Creationism doesn't really get much more profound than that.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

Creationism doesn't really get much more profound than that.

Really?
Have a look at this gem of Christian Creationist Science I just happened upon

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF3-00Hill.html

It's got diagrams and citations* and a conclusion and was published so it must be true.

We will know when our evolution boffins hit the link by the howls of despair which will ring across our fair and pleasant land



*Most if not all citations appear to be from the Bible.

Sarky

Why would you do that to me, Bannasidhe? Have I wronged you in some way, that you'd post up such batsh*t crazy things?

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

Why would you do that to me, Bannasidhe? Have I wronged you in some way, that you'd post up such batsh*t crazy things?

You clicked on the link didn't you?

I did warn ye....

Obliq

Ah no. Life's too short to read that. :pac:

mickrock

Improbable wrote: »

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2430337/

I've read an account by Dick Dawkins of this experiment where he nearly wets his drawers describing it. It seems to be the best evidence of evolution in action that has been observed.

The major finding was that E.coli bacteria under aerobic conditions "evolved" so that they could metabolize citrate as an energy source, which their "unevolved" ancestors can't do.

However, it needs to be said that in ANAEROBIC conditions E.coli are perfectly capable of metabolizing citrate. The sophisticated mechanisms for this are already in place. So, this "evolutionary leap" is not a real innovation at all, in the sense that something genuinely new, or a feature not present before, has been added. It is essentially no more complex than it was originally.

fitz0

mickrock wrote: »

I've read an account by Dick Dawkins of this experiment where he nearly wets his drawers describing it. It seems to be the best evidence of evolution in action that has been observed.

The major finding was that E.coli bacteria under aerobic conditions "evolved" so that they could metabolize citrate as an energy source, which their "unevolved" ancestors can't do.

However, it needs to be said that in ANAEROBIC conditions E.coli are perfectly capable of metabolizing citrate. The sophisticated mechanisms for this are already in place. So, this "evolutionary leap" is not a real innovation at all, in the sense that something genuinely new, or a feature not present before, has been added. It is essentially no more complex than it was originally.

Gee, I almost can't see those goalposts now. E.coli adapted to a new condition, becoming capable of doing something it previously couldn't do in that condition, and this isn't evolution? Do you think that evolution is straight up growing wings and losing tails?

At least you've dropped the undefined 'information.'

mickrock

fitz0 wrote: »

E.coli adapted to a new condition, becoming capable of doing something it previously couldn't do in that condition, and this isn't evolution?

Evolution would be a gradual increase in complexity over time, not just adaptations that don't add to the complexity.

fitz0

How is a new function, an ability to operate in an environment it could not previously operate in, how is this not an increase in complexity? Or at least a step on the path to increased complexity?

It's clearly shown that E.coli is capable of evolving new 'skills.' Do you think that metabolising citrate is the end?

doctoremma

mickrock wrote: »

Evolution would be a gradual increase in complexity over time, not just adaptations that don't add to the complexity.

An adaptation, caused by a genetic change, that causes an organism to gain a novel function and occupy a novel environmental niche is NOT increasing complexity?

Please define biological complexity.

Please confirm that that your criteria for evolution require a terrestrial land snail to grow wings and fly.

Genghiz Cohen

mickrock wrote: »

Evolution would be a gradual increase in complexity over time

No.
No it is not.
Evolution is change over time.

Improbable

mickrock wrote: »

=The major finding was that E.coli bacteria under aerobic conditions "evolved" so that they could metabolize citrate as an energy source, which their "unevolved" ancestors can't do.

However, it needs to be said that in ANAEROBIC conditions E.coli are perfectly capable of metabolizing citrate. The sophisticated mechanisms for this are already in place. So, this "evolutionary leap" is not a real innovation at all, in the sense that something genuinely new, or a feature not present before, has been added. It is essentially no more complex than it was originally.

Your understanding of evolution and how it works and even the basics of what it is is lacking. The ability to metabolise citrate under oxic conditions is a new adaptation to it's environment. There is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution. What you would call macroevolution is simply what you would call microevolution occurences accumulating over time. The ability to metabolise citrate in oxic conditions is a new ability, something that it could not do before.

mickrock

fitz0 wrote: »

How is a new function, an ability to operate in an environment it could not previously operate in, how is this not an increase in complexity? Or at least a step on the path to increased complexity?

An increase in complexity would be new genes, new biological information, new biological systems. Not a tinkering with what's already there.

Darwinists have the burden of proof to show how very complex biological system arose from very simple ones. Saying it's just an accumulation of trivial changes isn't good enough. That's just as bad as saying that the flying spaghetti monster did it.

King Mob

mickrock wrote: »

An increase in complexity would be new genes, new biological information, new biological systems. Not a tinkering with what's already there.

You see there's your problem, your definition of complexity relies on your definition of "information", which you've yet to elaborate on for some reason.

Could you please define it and explain what would constitute an increase in "information"?

mickrock wrote: »

Darwinists have the burden of proof to show how very complex biological system arose from very simple ones. Saying it's just an accumulation of trivial changes isn't good enough. That's just as bad as saying that the flying spaghetti monster did it.

Out of curiosity, what are you pretending you believe is the origin of life and biological diversity?

Doctor Jimbob

mickrock wrote: »

An increase in complexity would be new genes, new biological information, new biological systems. Not a tinkering with what's already there.

Darwinists have the burden of proof to show how very complex biological system arose from very simple ones. Saying it's just an accumulation of trivial changes isn't good enough. That's just as bad as saying that the flying spaghetti monster did it.

Why?

fitz0

mickrock wrote: »

An increase in complexity would be new genes, new biological information, new biological systems. Not a tinkering with what's already there.

How do you think evolution works?

oldrnwisr

mickrock wrote: »

An increase in complexity would be new genes, new biological information, new biological systems. Not a tinkering with what's already there.

Darwinists have the burden of proof to show how very complex biological system arose from very simple ones. Saying it's just an accumulation of trivial changes isn't good enough. That's just as bad as saying that the flying spaghetti monster did it.

In the words of Moe Syzlak: "If you're so sure what it ain't how about telling us what it am."

You see you've come into this thread talking about information and complexity without defining your understanding of these terms despite repeated requests and even then when pressed you show that you're working from this awful strawman of evolution in the first place. Could you do us all a favour and define what you mean by information and complexity in the context of this debate and if possible read what evolution actually is. Then we might have a chance to move this debate forward.

Now, in the meantime, let me just explain something about the relationship between evolution and complexity because unless we clear up this misunderstanding of yours. Evolution has nothing to do with complexity. As Gengiz explained it is simply change over time or more precisely the change in allele frequency within a population over time. Evolution is not a ladder, more a treadmill. It's not about getting more complex, bigger, better. It is about organisms becoming more adapted to their surroundings. If their environment doesn't change then there's no reason for them to either. Crocodiles for example, are very similar to their ancestors from millions of years ago because they occupy similar environments.

Look at it like this. Take a normal human living in a modern suburban lifestyle. This person needs a certain skillset to cope with modern life, the ability to drive, socialise, gather food, pay bills etc. Changing the surroundings of this person has an effect on their skills. Let's say that this person was to give up the suburban life for a hermitic existence. The number of required skills would fall significantly because they are no longer necessary to adapt to their environment. So it is with organisms. Since we evolved from animals which once fed on grass, at one point in our evolutionary history we had the ability to digest it. As our diet changed due to changing environment, this ability was no longer necessary and was discarded, the only reminder of this ancient ability being our appendix. An organism doesn't have to become more complex as it evolves just more suited to its environment.

Now as for information and complexity and evolution, again you've fundamentally misunderstood the relationship between information and evolution. For example, we have approximately 3x10^9 base pairs in our genome and approximately 30,000 genes. A whisk fern by comparison has 2.5x10^11 or about 80 times more DNA than we do. However, this has no bearing on the relative complexity of the two. In fact there is no consistent relationship between the complexity of an organism and the amount of information (in terms of genes) in their genome. This is a long standing puzzle in biology and is referred to as the C-value paradox. (The C value is the total amount of DNA in the haploid genome)

On a side note, regarding information and evolution and your idea that complexity is garnered through new genes and new information, how do you propose that this is achieved. After all at a simple level, the language of DNA is composed of only four letters, A, T, C and G. It is through different groupings of these letters (i.e. base pairs, codons, introns, genes, chromosomes) that the informational content of the organism is derived. In the end, any change in an organism is merely a rearrangement of these four letters. What I don't understand though is how you think this poses any kind of problem for evolutionary theory. After all, language evolves in the same way. There are only ever going to be 26 letters in the English language and yet we've managed to add massive amounts of information by arranging them into different groups. When this happens with DNA and new and novel functions are gained by the organism (nylonase, for example) somehow this doesn't count as an increase in information. Really?

I don't think this debate is headed in any worthwhile direction, but if you want I can recommend some reading that if you put in the effort can help you sort out your misunderstandings about evolution. What do you say?

doctoremma

^^^swoon^^^

sephir0th

doctoremma wrote: »

^^^swoon^^^

There's no better way to a woman's heart than eloquently describing biological evolution.

dlofnep

The worst thing about this is that he will ignore everything said there, and ultimately - such a brilliant and informative post will go to waste on him. But not on the rest of us

robindch

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Evolution has nothing to do with complexity. As Gengiz explained it is simply change over time or more precisely the change in allele frequency within a population over time. [...] It's not about getting more complex, bigger, better. It is about organisms becoming more adapted to their surroundings.

<pedant>

I think it's better phrased as the process of parent organisms delivering more children into an environment than can survive in it, thereby using the environment to determine which descendant alleles survive into adulthood so that they can reproduce themselves and continue the process.

The concept of "adaption of organisms" is mildly misleading since there are generations of organisms, none of which are identical and, crucially, none of which adapt. Although the organisms contain genes which produce phenotypes which do appear to adapt, hence the shorthand.

</pedant>

mickrock

oldrnwisr wrote: »

In the words of Moe Syzlak: "If you're so sure what it ain't how about telling us what it am."

The main problem you have is that you seem to have forgotten that neo-Darwinism is just a theory. You treat all of it like it is irrefutable fact. "We evolved from animals that once fed on grass" is just a supposition, as is the idea of common descent from a first life form.

You say that evolution has nothing to do with complexity. But the fact is that there are degrees of complexity in living forms which neo-Darwinism is supposedly able to explain so I'm just questioning whether the theory is up to the job of explaining the facts.

I'm aware that the amount of DNA in an organism isn't necessarily related to is complexity.

Regarding the relationship between information and complexity how about:
Information=Specified Complexity

The letter A is specified but not complex. A book full of random letters is complex but not specified. A normal book is both specified and complex and so it carries a lot of information. A similar idea can apply to DNA to quantify the information content.

You ask how I propose new genes and new information came about. I've no idea, but neo-Darwinism doesn't look like the answer, as the evidence is so flimsy.

PopePalpatine

mickrock wrote: »

The main problem you have is that you seem to have forgotten that neo-Darwinism is just a theory.

Your problem is that you don't understand what "theory" means in a scientific context.

fitz0

mickrock wrote: »

The main problem you have is that you seem to have forgotten that neo-Darwinism is just a theory. ... the evidence is so flimsy.

DB21

mickrock wrote: »

The main problem you have is that you seem to have forgotten that neo-Darwinism is just a theory.

BINGO!!!!! I just won creationist bingo!!!

Sarky

I think I'm going to turn this thread into a drinking game. Drink each time someone posts:

"just a theory"
"science doesn't know everything"

One shot of whiskey for each consecutive smiley face.