"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Improbable

mickrock, you still haven't given me an answer as to how you explain homology of genes between species and your evidence against the specific example I have provided of human chromosome 2 being a fusion of 2 separate ancestral chromosomes that are present in chimpanzees and gorillas.

dlofnep

mickrock wrote: »

The recent examples given of beneficial random mutations are very underwhelming.

Random mutations are part of the driving force of neo-Darwinian theory, yet the scarcity of evidence for ones that give novelty, new function or increased complexity hugely undermines the grand claims of the theory. One of the two pillars of the theory is so shaky that it can't be too long before it comes crashing down.

Let's analyse another mutation then, shall we - to see how a new function arise, benefiting the clade Eudromaeosauria. Earlier members of this clade through mutations had spawned feathers. Initially, these feathers were for little more than display and preserving heat - visible in some members such as Epidexipteryx. Epidexipteryx was feathered, but did not have remiges (wing feathers), and thus - did not have the ability to fly.



Different members had varying levels of feathers, some containing very basic remiges, some more fully developed.

Sinornithosaurus and Microraptor are two examples of dinosaurs which contained remiges. Now while it's doubtful that they had the ability to actually fly under power, it's most likely that they had the ability to glide extremely well.



It is speculated that this transition occurred not once, but actually twice during the history of Eudromaeosauria. Firstly in the Jurassic, where we see the primitive Epidexipteryx about 160-170 million years ago, followed by the more featured Archaeopteryx around 148 million years ago.

The second transition is seen in the Cretaceous, where the likes of Microraptor and others delved more towards gliding/flight, while others remained ground hunters eventually evolving into the highly successful Velociraptor and Deinonychus (Who also had feathers, but not the ability of flight).

There are countless cases of these beneficial mutations seen in countless different species. Once again - you refuse to look at the evidence, and keep repeating yourself.

mickrock

Ziphius wrote: »

Can you clarify what, exactly, your criticisms of neodarwinism is? Is it simply that you cannot see how new genes arise?

My main criticism is that chance (as in random mutations) can't explain the evolution from simple to complex forms.

Also, I can't see how DNA arose in the first place by chance. I know everyone is going to say that the origin of life and its evolution are separate things but they're not really.

dlofnep

mickrock wrote: »

My main criticism is that chance (as in random mutations) can't explain the evolution from simple to complex forms.

Chance has zero to do with it. Natural Selection is anything but chance. You continue to demonstrate your ignorance of the process of Evolution, and what fundamentalist drives it.

mickrock

dlofnep wrote: »

Let's analyse another mutation then, shall we - to see how a new function arise, benefiting the clade Eudromaeosauria...




There are countless cases of these beneficial mutations seen in countless different species. .

It's speculation that random mutations are behind these developments.

dlofnep

mickrock wrote: »

It's speculation that random mutations are behind these developments.

So what would your alternative view be to small incremental changes in a species, which gradually demonstrate visible changes over larger periods of time? I'd like to hear your opposing theory. I'm all ears.

Since we can analyse through genetics all of today's species, where we can absolutely 100% demonstrate common descent between every living creature - It is hardly speculation that this driving force was also the drive of change for all species that lived before us.

Still - I'm all ears. Go for it.

mickrock

dlofnep wrote: »

Chance has zero to do with it. Natural Selection is anything but chance. You continue to demonstrate your ignorance of the process of Evolution, and what fundamentalist drives it.

The theory is random mutations+natural selection, so chance has something to do with it.

That's what the blind in the "blind watchmaker" is referring to. If you think chance has nothing to do with, are you implying that there's a guiding hand or something?

dlofnep

mickrock wrote: »

The theory is random mutations+natural selection, so chance has something to do with it.

That's what the blind in the "blind watchmaker" is referring to. If you think chance has nothing to do with, are you implying that there's a guiding hand or something?

Er no, I'm not implying that. I'm stating quite clearly that natural selection is not driven by chance. Selection favours those most adaptable to change. That's nothing to do with chance.

Let me provide you with a basic example.

Suppose we have a group of beach mice, with varying fur colour. Let's suppose we have an aerial predator (a hawk), which is the mice's greatest threat. The mice that have fur that less matches the background of the sand will stand out more, and thus - make it easier for the hawk to spot them, and eat them.

What is the consequence of this? The mice which better match their backdrop are more inclined to live long enough to reach sexual maturity and pass on their genes (including fur colour), while those who do not have the right fur colour will be less inclined to reach sexual maturity, and thus - not pass on their genes.

The result of this is that over time, the group of mice will gradually become more and more in tune with the colour of the sand - and the colour variations of the mice will only favour those of a light-brownish nature.

So while the mutations are random, the actual process of natural selection has nothing to do with chance.

Ziphius

mickrock wrote: »

My main criticism is that chance (as in random mutations) can't explain the evolution from simple to complex forms.

Also, I can't see how DNA arose in the first place by chance. I know everyone is going to say that the origin of life and its evolution are separate things but they're not really.

Ok, let's leave aside your second point for the time being. You are correct in saying that chance alone cannot explain the diversity of life. However, this is not what Darwinian theory predicts. Instead chance mutations are selected. Those that confer a fitness advantage to the individual are passed on to the next generation. Those that affect the individual negatively are lost.

If a population splits into two distinct geographical locations gradually over time they will diverge due to different selective forces acting on them. Eventually this may lead to new species.

Now this is all well and good but how does it explain the evolution of brand new organs rather than simply refining existing ones?

Well, for one thing even slight changes in existing genes can have major impacts on the organisms body plan. These are generally genes that control the timing of developmental events. So for example, the webbing between the toes of a bird, the length of a limb or of teeth can be affected dramatically by simple changes in the gene.

Secondly new genetic material can be added to the genome. A single base pair can be added in genome (an insertion) or an entire gene or chromosome can be duplicated. There are many examples of this such as the Hox genes I mentioned earlier. Duplication of chromosome is very common in plants and can be induced artificially using the chemical colchicine.

Thirdly new genes can be added by other organisms. Retro viruses do this. But there is also examples of plant genes transferring into animals The seaslug
Elysia chlorotica has genes from algae allowing it to photosynthesize.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysia_chlorotica

These new genes will undergo the same selective pressures that occur to the original genes and, again, over time they will diverge and evolve.

Now back to the origin of DNA. It is linked to evolution but it's not a flaw of evolutionary theory if it cannot explain it. Just as a theory of star formation need not explain the origin of the universe. Perhaps when we find more evidence we can provide a more definitive answer. Evolution simply tells use that all life (on earth) is descended from a common ancestor and modified by natural selection.

Ziphius

mickrock wrote: »

It's speculation that random mutations are behind these developments.

It doesn't have to be random mutations. Perhaps it was prehistoric genetic engineering or a supernatural deity willed these new mutations into existence. It doesn't take away from neodarwinian theory. Darwinisms says that beneficial genes are passed on and deleterious ones are removed, How they got there isn't really its province.

Improbable

Still ignoring me mickrock?

Improbable wrote: »

mickrock, you still haven't given me an answer as to how you explain homology of genes between species and your evidence against the specific example I have provided of human chromosome 2 being a fusion of 2 separate ancestral chromosomes that are present in chimpanzees and gorillas.

mickrock

Ziphius wrote: »

It doesn't have to be random mutations. Perhaps it was prehistoric genetic engineering or a supernatural deity willed these new mutations into existence. It doesn't take away from neodarwinian theory. Darwinisms says that beneficial genes are passed on and deleterious ones are removed, How they got there isn't really its province.

Hmm, that's a turn up for the books!

Sarky

No, it's not. That has ALWAYS been what evolutionary theory was about.

DB21

Sarky wrote: »

No, it's not. That has ALWAYS been what evolutionary theory was about.

There's no point. He won't listen. Second part of his usernam is very apt, as that is what this "debate" has been akin to talking to.

Ziphius

mickrock wrote: »

Hmm, that's a turn up for the books!

How so?

mickrock

Sarky wrote: »

No, it's not. That has ALWAYS been what evolutionary theory was about.

What has?

mickrock

Ziphius wrote: »

How so?

When you said it wasn't Darwinian's province how genetic changes got there.

mickrock

DB21 wrote: »

There's no point. He won't listen. Second part of his usernam is very apt, as that is what this "debate" has been akin to talking to.

Leave it out, son.

Improbable

4th and last attempt to get you to respond to this.

Improbable wrote: »

mickrock, you still haven't given me an answer as to how you explain homology of genes between species and your evidence against the specific example I have provided of human chromosome 2 being a fusion of 2 separate ancestral chromosomes that are present in chimpanzees and gorillas.

Ziphius

mickrock wrote: »

When you said it wasn't Darwinian's province how genetic changes got there.

Ok. How, exactly, the mutations arose isn't really the issue. How they spread through a population and how populations diversify over time is what neodarwinism explains. Random mutation is the most parsimonious explanation -- it's been observed many times -- but there are others.

Remember, many Christian religions accept evolutionary biology as fact. The Romans Catholic and Anglican churches for example see no contradiction with a Christian faith and evolutionary biology.

I don't see why someone cannot be a both a Christian and an evolutionary Biologist.

robindch

mickrock wrote: »

My main criticism is that chance (as in random mutations) can't explain the evolution from simple to complex forms. Also, I can't see how DNA arose in the first place by chance. I know everyone is going to say that the origin of life and its evolution are separate things but they're not really.

Mick - it's possible, though unlikely, that I wasn't clear enough in the warning post from earlier this evening. So let me be much more clear.

Many posters have taken time out of their day to answer the honest questions that you have post. Instead of thanking them, you have barely acknowledged a word that's been written and you have generally ignored their helpful efforts completely. This is inappropriate behavior in this forum. Please also note that this is a change in moderation policy for this thread which, previously, permitted creationists to post whatever they liked without any requirement to adhere to the usual rules of honest debate.

You have three choices at this point: (a) either address their points and rebut them with evidence; (b) concede that the balance of evidence supports their point of view; or (c) disappear without trace.

Your call.

nagirrac

Why are atheists so interested in Evolutionay Biology (will this thread get to a million comments)? Is it because it is the one theory that can be used to convince yourself there is no God? Is the thinking along the lines of "how could we possibly be made from God stuff if we are only a short head past an ape"?

The thinking cannot reasonably be because of how life emerged because we do not know at all how life emerged. Evolutionary Biology is hard, not as hard as Quantum Mechanics, but hard enough. Most people do not understand evolution and have no interest in it, regardless of beliefs.

Sycopat

nagirrac wrote: »

Why are atheists so interested in Evolutionay Biology (will this thread get to a million comments)? Is it because it is the one theory that can be used to convince yourself there is no God? Is the thinking along the lines of "how could we possibly be made from God stuff if we are only a short head past an ape"?

The thinking cannot reasonably be because of how life emerged because we do not know at all how life emerged. Evolutionary Biology is hard, not as hard as Quantum Mechanics, but hard enough. Most people do not understand evolution and have no interest in it, regardless of beliefs.

The basic concept of evolution is quite simple. Lots of people understand it. It's (literally) leaving cert level biology. Anyone who has done leaving cert biology should understand it to some degree.

The most recent census showed a skew in the atheist population toward higher degrees.

This forum has a lot of people with an interest in science, many general, some specific.

It's therefore more likely to be because there are a number of people who frequent this board with a high level of biology.

What surprises me is their patience with this thread.

It is also, as robindichs posts over the last few pages demonstrate, a topic which is often brought up by non-atheists. Mostly because they seem to think evolution is as controversial and lacking in support as ,say, psychics.

So most atheists will pick up an introduction to the topic of evolution by hanging around long enough.

Evolution itself says nothing about the existence or non-existence of gods though. It just explains biodiversity without need for constant direct modification in a way which is consistent with what we know about the physical age of the universe, and what we know about the chemical processes which make up of life. What creationists seem to have a problem with is that it contradicts certain biblical stories, such as the flood, the direct creation of man, and the age of the world.

It doesn't (can't) disprove the possibility of god or gods, but it is incompatible with a few specific flavours, including many fundamentalist abrahamic religions.

Turtwig

nagirrac wrote: »

Why are atheists so interested in Evolutionay Biology (will this thread get to a million comments)? Is it because it is the one theory that can be used to convince yourself there is no God? Is the thinking along the lines of "how could we possibly be made from God stuff if we are only a short head past an ape"?

The thinking cannot reasonably be because of how life emerged because we do not know at all how life emerged. Evolutionary Biology is hard, not as hard as Quantum Mechanics, but hard enough. Most people do not understand evolution and have no interest in it, regardless of beliefs.

Can't obviously answer for all atheists, but for me:

Because it's one super awesome and elegant theory. That's it really.

doctoremma

nagirrac wrote: »

Is it because it is the one theory that can be used to convince yourself there is no God? Is the thinking along the lines of "how could we possibly be made from God stuff if we are only a short head past an ape"?

I don't think evolution negates the existence of god/s (and nor do those religious people who accept evolution). If they want to speculate that it's a god-driven process, a tool of his creation, blah blah whatever.

What evolution DOES do, and what I think presents a key problem for believers, is negate important parts of the Bible. Most obviously, with evolution, there would be no Adam and Eve. Without Adam and Eve, you have no "fall of man" and no need for humanity to be saved by Jesus (although I have heard arguments to work evolution into this, usually suggesting that Adam and Eve were the first humans to demonstrate selfishness and vanity instead of goodness and cooperation in earlier humans).

Thus, evolution undermines the very premise on which Christianity is built. That's why, IMO, creationists spend so much effort refuting it, and don't invest equal time arguing over the other challenges to creationism (geology, astronomy and so forth). I don't see (although happy to have it pointed out to me) how astronomical findings to support an old earth cut straight through a major world religion in the same way that evolution does.

mickrock

I've noted the mod's warning, so at least for now I'll bow out and end with this post.

Let's liken the genetic information in the first unicellular life form to a computer program (which somehow has formed by chance). The role of natural selection is played by a person familiar with programming. Random changes are made to the program which he can either accept or reject.

Almost all the changes he'll reject because they'll corrupt the program and he'll let the beneficial ones be incorporated. Since each change is random it is unrelated to the one that preceeded it and to the one that will follow.

If this process is allowed to continue for a long time will we end up with a far more sophisticated program with new functions and applications? By a similar process, can the genetic code in a single cell evolve into the genetic code of a horse?

I don't think so. A far more reasonable explanation would be that intelligence was involved. I'm not religious but don't see how intelligence cannot be the cause.

Farewell.

Mr. Boo

mickrock wrote: »

I've noted the mod's warning, so at least for now I'll bow out and end with this post.

Let's liken the genetic information in the first unicellular life form to a computer program (which somehow has formed by chance). The role of natural selection is played by a person familiar with programming. Random changes are made to the program which he can either accept or reject.

Almost all the changes he'll reject because they'll corrupt the program and he'll let the beneficial ones be incorporated. Since each change is random it is unrelated to the one that preceeded it and to the one that will follow.

If this process is allowed to continue for a long time will we end up with a far more sophisticated program with new functions and applications? By a similar process, can the genetic code in a single cell evolve into the genetic code of a horse?

I don't think so. A far more reasonable explanation would be that intelligence was involved. I'm not religious but don't see how intelligence cannot be the cause.

Farewell.

This computer programmer story is not analogous to the theory of natural selection either. It implies some sort of higher, intelligent forcing of your initial life-form. As such it once again shows your lack of understanding of evolution, despite the myriad ways in which it has been illustrated (and re-illustrated) quite elegantly in this thread.

i.e. FFS :rolleyes:

Mr. Boo

fatmammycat wrote: »

As a matter of interest John J May is trying to hawk a weight loss book these days, will nary a mention of his 'evilution' book.

http://www.loser.ie/

So this guy's just an out-and-out snake-oil salesman, and he had some serious supporters judging by older posts on this thread. F*ckin lulz.

Doctor Jimbob

mickrock wrote: »

I've noted the mod's warning, so at least for now I'll bow out and end with this post.

Let's liken the genetic information in the first unicellular life form to a computer program (which somehow has formed by chance). The role of natural selection is played by a person familiar with programming. Random changes are made to the program which he can either accept or reject.

Almost all the changes he'll reject because they'll corrupt the program and he'll let the beneficial ones be incorporated. Since each change is random it is unrelated to the one that preceeded it and to the one that will follow.

If this process is allowed to continue for a long time will we end up with a far more sophisticated program with new functions and applications? By a similar process, can the genetic code in a single cell evolve into the genetic code of a horse?

I don't think so. A far more reasonable explanation would be that intelligence was involved. I'm not religious but don't see how intelligence cannot be the cause.

Farewell.

Not a very good understanding of evolution, but it's still an infinitely better effort at debate than JC ever came up with. So, marks for effort I suppose.

doctoremma

mickrock wrote: »

A far more reasonable explanation would be that intelligence was involved

Whoever or whatever it was, it's a bit of stretch to call it "intelligent", given the vast numbers of instances of "unintelligent" design in the living world.

I could design an eye better.