"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

mickrock

Sycopat wrote: »

Which makes me sad because one of my favourite things about the origin of species is how darwin argues so well for evolution based entirely on observations made without the benefit of so many things many modern biologists take for granted.

You mean things like the length of finches beaks and the colour of peppered moths?

How do these sorts of adaptations explain the creation of completely new functions, organs or systems?

pauldla

mickrock wrote: »

Are you using a bacteria that develops a resistance to antibiotics as evidence for the emergence of the diversity and complexity of life by Darwinian means?

That's some extrapolation!

One of the most extraordinary extrapolations in scientific history, I think, and one the greatest insights a human has ever had. Good on ye, Darwin.

robindch

mickrock wrote: »

You mean things like the length of finches beaks and the colour of peppered moths? How do these sorts of adaptations explain the creation of completely new functions, organs or systems?

It's a bit like walking.

You can spend an hour walking into town. That's a small change in position and easy to understand. It's equivalent to the the small genetic change required to change the color of moths so that they match the trees they live in.

Then, you can spend a month walking to the other side of the country. That's a much bigger change in position, but it happens by putting lots of small changes together one after an another. A bit like the Aye-aye's "long finger" adaption.

Then, you could spend a few years walking to the other side of the world. That a massive change of position, but again, it's just lots of small changes of position put together. And it's equivalent to, say, the front fins of a whale evolving from five-fingered hands into things that look like regular fish fins (even if they still contain five fingers, showing their evolutionary history).

Add more time and some reason for the change, then you'll get more change.

It's quite easy to understand really.

mickrock

robindch wrote: »

Add more time and some reason for the change, then you'll get more change.

Yes but only within certain limits. The changes will be a variation on what's already there, so nothing new can be produced.

It doesn't make sense that novelty and innovation can arise by gradual, incremental steps using a blind, undirected mechanism. And there's no evidence for it.

Ziphius

mickrock wrote: »

Yes but only within certain limits. The changes will be a variation on what's already there, so nothing new can be produced.

It doesn't make sense that novelty and innovation can arise by gradual, incremental steps using a blind, undirected mechanism. And there's no evidence for it.

Nope. New genes can evolve de novo from non-coding sections.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1002379

The Mad Hatter

What limits? Where do they come from?

PopePalpatine

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

What limits? Where do they come from?

Because Post 19.

Sarky

Ziphius wrote: »

Nope. New genes can evolve de novo from non-coding sections.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1002379

They certainly can. My masters thesis was based on studying genes just like that; genes that code for enzymes called Polyketide synthases for example arose from fatty acid biosynthesis genes, a modular set of genes that can vary quite a bit. Any bacterial cell has several FAB genes, so redundancies can be common. Once a gene is redundant (or mutation causes it to stop functioning), it is far more susceptible to change than essential genes. Eventually, given enough time, mutation and environment, such redundant FAB genes ended up making antibiotics.

Phylogenetics is a whole field of science that allows you to trace the origin of genes, or even parts of genes. The genetic lineages turn out to look awfully similar to the observations of the fossil record and Darwin's own observations. That's pretty impressive, if evolution is "wishful thinking".

dlofnep

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

What limits? Where do they come from?

He doesn't know. He's parroting off whatever he reads on Creationist websites.

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

My masters thesis was based on studying genes just like that; genes that code for enzymes called Polyketide synthases for example arose from fatty acid biosynthesis genes, a modular set of genes that can vary quite a bit. Any bacterial cell has several FAB genes, so redundancies can be common. Once a gene is redundant (or mutation causes it to stop functioning), it is far more susceptible to change than essential genes. Eventually, given enough time, mutation and environment, such redundant FAB genes ended up making antibiotics.

For a guy Sarky is kinda sexy.


:cool:

sephir0th

Sarky wrote: »

Once a gene is redundant (or mutation causes it to stop functioning), it is far more susceptible to change than essential genes.

Why is this? Due to it's position on the chromosome?

Ziphius

sephir0th wrote: »

Why is this? Due to it's position on the chromosome?

Non-essential genes (or chunks of genes) evolve faster as a negative mutation will not have such deleterious effect on the organism.

So, a gene that codes for a very important protein will likely undergo very little change as any mutations that do occur will probably do more harm to the organism than good.

In a non-coding section mutations don't matter so much.

Sarky

Exactly. If an essential gene mutates in a way that stops it functioning, the cell dies and the mutation dies with it. Happens all the time. We don't notice because, well, there are billions of the little bastards living on the skin of even a clean person, when one malfunctions it gets drowned out by the ones that don't. Only the essential genes that stay functioning get the chance to live long enough to get copied into a new cell. That's natural selection right there.

Non-essential genes are where all the interesting stuff happens. You could remove them all and the cell would still function and still be the species it was before. These bonus genes pretty much just faff about, undergoing mutation, chopping and changing with other non-essential genes, and eventually something useful pops up. They usually offer some competitive advantage, like compounds that kill rival species to make space for growth (which we use all the time for treating infections), or proteins that bind really, REALLY well to rare metals that are essential for growth (denying food to rivals is just as good as killing them off), or the ability to metabolise whole new substances and grow into a niche no other species has exploited (there are, for example, bacteria that can now break down and consume nylon. It wasn't created in a lab, it was found growing in water polluted by waste from nylon factories).

To be fair, the position in a chromosome can help too. If a redundant gene is very close to a highly conserved gene, it's less likely to undergo mutation, as there'll often be neighboring genes which are responsible for repairing damaged DNA. Some of those will end up fixing the neighborhood just because they're there and damaged. In Streptomyces species, the chromosome is linear rather than a circular loop. The genes that make it Streptomyces are highly conserved and are found in the central region of the chromosome, while the non-essential genes are found out towards either arm.

But I digress. Evolution happens. That's how life works. Not a single biological scientist with a shred of integrity, dignity or credibility disagrees. The only people who think otherwise are lying or lacking understanding of the process. You'll notice an awful lot of "creation scientists" who try to rubbish evolution tend to have degrees with nothing to do in biological science. That's assuming they have any degrees at all that weren't bought in a shed in the arse end of nowhere. I really wish mickrock would pick up a book and see for himself. I mean, J C is clearly a lost cause...

Sarky

Bannasidhe wrote: »

For a guy Sarky is kinda sexy.

I'm also fond of lesbians too.

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

I'm also fond of lesbians too.

Me also Too!

We have an amazeballs amount in common.

Sarky

We should totes do lunch sometime. We can talk about girls and sh*t.

mickrock

Sarky wrote: »

Evolution happens. That's how life works. Not a single biological scientist with a shred of integrity, dignity or credibility disagrees. The only people who think otherwise are lying or lacking understanding of the process.

I accept that evolution happens but not by Darwinian means.

People tend to accept Darwinian evolution as a self-evident truth despite how illogical it is and the lack of evidence for it. Darwinism can explain limited adaptations but as an explanation for the diversity and complexity of life it falls flat on its arse.

Its attraction, and why the theory still persists, seems to be that it operates in a blind, undirected manner. No intelligence required.

Delirium

mickrock wrote: »

I accept that evolution happens but not by Darwinian means.

People tend to accept Darwinian evolution as a self-evident truth despite how illogical it is and the lack of evidence for it. Darwinism can explain limited adaptations but as an explanation for the diversity and complexity of life it falls flat on its arse.

Its attraction, and why the theory still persists, seems to be that it operates in a blind, undirected manner. No intelligence required.

Explain how your brand of evolution works then. Feel free to include your scientific data to back up your claims.

mickrock

koth wrote: »

Explain how your brand of evolution works then. Feel free to include your scientific data to back up your claims.

I'm pointing out how your brand of evolution doesn't and can't work. Let's stick to that.

BizzyC

mickrock wrote: »

I'm pointing out how your brand of evolution doesn't and can't work. Let's stick to that.

You didn't point out anything actually, you made a claim.

Pointing out something usually involves having evidence of some form.

Ziphius

mickrock wrote: »

I'm pointing out how your brand of evolution doesn't and can't work. Let's stick to that.

Much like your brand of argument.

mickrock

BizzyC wrote: »

You didn't point out anything actually, you made a claim.

Pointing out something usually involves having evidence of some form.

Darwinists are the ones making grand claims with the flimsiest of evidence.

BizzyC

mickrock wrote: »

Darwinists are the ones making grand claims with the flimsiest of evidence.

They've provided some source to their claims that is based in scientific method and observation.

Can you provide any source to your claims that is a result of anything more than personal opinion?

mickrock

BizzyC wrote: »

They've provided some source to their claims that is based in scientific method and observation.

Such as?

Delirium

mickrock wrote: »

I'm pointing out how your brand of evolution doesn't and can't work. Let's stick to that.

so you claim you know your brand of evolution works yet avoid discussing it. Looks like spoofery to me.

BizzyC

mickrock wrote: »

Such as?

Looking back a couple of pages I can see links to multiple articles providing scientific observation to back up evolution.

You obviously have chosen to ignore everything.

I'm still waiting for you to show me anything to indicate that what your saying isn't more than just opinion.

mickrock

koth wrote: »

so you claim you know your brand of evolution works yet avoid discussing it. Looks like spoofery to me.

Wouldn't you rather discuss Darwinism and show me where I'm going wrong?

robindch

mickrock wrote: »

I accept that evolution happens but not by Darwinian means.

mickrock wrote: »

I'm pointing out how your brand of evolution doesn't and can't work. Let's stick to that.

You've made a claim and you've been asked to justify it.

Your choices are either to justify it, or withdraw it and, as mod, I'll be making sure you do make a choice.

Delirium

mickrock wrote: »

Wouldn't you rather discuss Darwinism and show me where I'm going wrong?

No, as I asked you about your understanding of how evolution works, i.e. your claim that a non-Darwinian version is how it works.

Why so coy about it? Surely you have evidence that lead you to your position?

doctoremma

mickrock wrote: »

Yes but only within certain limits. The changes will be a variation on what's already there, so nothing new can be produced.

You say this as if "variation" is some kind of limited process, as if the word represents piffling changes to phenotypes.

"Variation" doesn't only describe small changes in beak shape, it encompasses the process of fins to arms, of simple osmotic membranes to complex kidneys.

"Variation" is evolution.

mickrock wrote: »

It doesn't make sense that novelty and innovation can arise by gradual, incremental steps using a blind, undirected mechanism.

Well then, you don't understand what evolution is. Most obvious by use of the phrase "blind, undirected".

Have you forgotten about natural selection?