"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Zombrex

dlofnep wrote: »

What limits the mutations?

God apparently. Thou shall not mutate any further!

kiffer

mickrock wrote: »

You tell me. You seem to believe they're unlimited, based on no evidence.

The only "evolution" that has ever been obseved are the likes of the sizes of finches beaks and similar adaptations. These sorts of adaptations are then used as evidence for large scale evolution.

Based on this I'd nearly go so far as to label Darwinism pseudoscience.

I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb here... I never said I believed there are no limits. You keep asserting that there are limits but seem to be unable or unwilling to quantify what these limits are.

Minor changes add up.
Like compound intrest.
You seem to think that changes to body shape, bill shape, metabolism, bone structure... and all other aspects of a group of animals cant add up to massive morphological changes.
That a dog sized species that lives in a coastal region can't become* whale sized and aquatic over the course of say 10 million years?
...and all because we can only breed dogs that range in size from a match box to a pony in a few hundred?


*Edit: I don't like the word 'become' here... instead let's say 'give rise to' and also keep in mind that there may be more than one descendent species.

robindch

dlofnep wrote: »

What limits the mutations?

The imagination of creationists.

Sycopat

mickrock wrote: »

I've already said that they're the adaptations that have actually been observed and what has actually been observed is limited.

And I (and others) challenged you to back up this assertion and you couldn't.

I'm glad you're back to dance with us again, but I do wish you'd learn some new steps.

mickrock

kiffer wrote: »

That a dog sized species that lives in a coastal region can't become* whale sized and aquatic over the course of say 10 million years?

It's possible this could happen but not by Darwinian mechanisms i.e. blind and undirected.

With the little that Darwinism has been know to do, why do you think it would be capable of producing such a massive engineering feat? Is it just faith?

kiffer

mickrock wrote: »

I've already said that they're the adaptations that have actually been observed and what has actually been observed is limited.

The emergence of anything novel has never actually been observed.

Novel like lizards developing placenta rather than egg laying?

Novel sort of implies a big change no?
Do you think we'd need some sort of crocoduck creature for it to be novel?
I mean you clearly think that bacteria that can digest nylon don't count as novel... or maybe it's that you think it doesn't count because they are not animals?
What sort of thing would you consider novel...
Wait, you're just going to say "Why don't you show me novel things if they exist?" aren't you?

How about you give us a base line as to what you would consider novel so that we can understand your position?

Seriously, imagine talking to someone about social welfare or tax without them telling you what they think is a living wage, a high wage, a low vs high rate of tax but instead they just keep saying "The tax rate is wrong"... a terrible analogue I admit but it's late and I'm kind of sick of this run around.

kiffer

mickrock wrote: »

It's possible this could happen but not by Darwinian mechanisms i.e. blind and undirected.

With the little that Darwinism has been know to do, why do you think it would be capable of producing such a massive engineering feat? Is it just faith?

Ok... right... so... what?
Right... let me get this straight you agree that sucha change with in the (as yet totally undefined) limits of evolution but that it can't be caused by mutations producing variety, and selection by pressure caused by the environment?

mickrock

kiffer wrote: »

Ok... right... so... what?
Right... let me get this straight you agree that sucha change with in the (as yet totally undefined) limits of evolution but that it can't be caused by mutations producing variety, and selection by pressure caused by the environment?

I don't see how Darwinian mechanisms can get the job done.

Apart from it being illogical there's no evidence to back it up.

BTW You said there are limits to what Darwinism can do. What do you consider them to be?

endacl

mickrock wrote: »

I don't see how Darwinian mechanisms can get the job done.

And that's OK. There's lots of things I don't get either.

When something has been explained to me as many times as those mechanisms have been explained to you though, and I still don't understand, I tend to accept them as 'thing's I don't understand. Not attack them as 'things that don't happen'.

Chemistry for example. Attempted it at LC level. Admitted defeat after two weeks. Still don't get it. I don't deny the reality of chemical processes though. I just can't explain, describe, or predict them. They do happen though. All the time. If I refused to accept that fact, well.... I'd come across as a bit of a plank, wouldn't I...?

dlofnep

mickrock wrote: »

I don't see how Darwinian mechanisms can get the job done.

That's understandable, since you don't know what the term species means. Everything about evolution depends on understanding what it is biologically that defines a species.

mickrock wrote: »

Apart from it being illogical there's no evidence to back it up.

Yes there is, mountains of it. Much of which has already been highlighted to you.

robindch

mickrock wrote: »

Apart from it being illogical there's no evidence to back it up.

Are you blind or stupid? You've been presented with plenty and at this point, you are soap-boxing which violates the forum charter.

If your next post doesn't engage in honest debate, you will be carded. A subsequent failure will see you banned from A+A.

mickrock

dlofnep wrote: »

Yes there is, mountains of it. Much of which has already been highlighted to you.

Ok, list a few examples of evolution that has been demonstrated to have been brought about by Darwinian mechanisms.

kiffer

mickrock wrote: »

It's possible this could happen but not by Darwinian mechanisms i.e. blind and undirected.

With the little that Darwinism has been know to do, why do you think it would be capable of producing such a massive engineering feat? Is it just faith?

To answer your second half.
OK, in living species we have seen a broad spectrum of lets call them minor changes add up to larger morphological, behavioural and metabolic changes in animals, plants and bacteria... you agree with this?
We see the environment appling selective pressures on species currently extant. You agree with this?
We know from a variety of clocks that the Earth is 4.5 Ga old, rougly... you agree with this.
We can date layers of rock with fairly reliable accuracy, and we see fossils going back through time.
We can compare fossils in areas and track minor morphology changes through time. Tiny changes adding up... over time.
Now this is tricky in some areas... big flashy animals like dinosaurs have a more sporadic fossil record then boring things like gastropods and bivalves living on the sea floor... and few people have the patience to compare thousands upon thousands of remains pulled out of rocks comparing them to older rocks... but the world takes all sorts and people do enjoy different things.
So there are nice people who have sat and gone down through millions of years of worth of and traced tiny changes, changes that you would not consider novel, matching them to where (and as such "when") they are are found in the rock.
Changes that add up to massive differences.
This has happened.
We agree about this.
Show you this evidence you say?
Would you like to take a while going through 10,000 fossils, each one almost identical to the last, each pulled from a rock layer dated older than the last by a number of means showing that what starts off as one creaure can end up as a very different sort of animal?

Where we diverge is that you think that these changes can't come about by undirected means... that only minor changes come about by undirected means... but you agree that minor changes add up to major changes?
And that is why your position makes so little sense.

I'm working off the assumption that the past works like the present and vice versa.

The direction is provided by the pressures the environment creates.

mickrock

endacl wrote: »

When something has been explained to me as many times as those mechanisms have been explained to you though, and I still don't understand, I tend to accept them as 'thing's I don't understand. Not attack them as 'things that don't happen'.

I understand it perfectly well.

I just don't swallow it hook, line and sinker like you lot.

dlofnep

mickrock wrote: »

Ok, list a few examples of evolution that has been demonstrated to have been brought about by Darwinian mechanisms.

Humans from earlier primates.

Humans from apes.

mickrock

dlofnep wrote: »

Humans from earlier primates.

Humans from apes.

In these examples what's the evidence that the evolution happened by Darwinian mechanisms?

nagirrac

dlofnep wrote: »

Humans from earlier primates.

Humans from apes.

Humans did not evolve from apes.
Humans and apes (chimps and gorillas ) are believed to have a common ancestor which dates to at least 5 million years ago. There were many species of hominids before Homo sapiens came along.

dlofnep

mickrock wrote: »

In these examples what's the evidence that the evolution happened by Darwinian mechanisms?

Humans and all members of the Haplorhini primate family share the exact same pseudogene (GLO). It is biologically impossible for a variety of different species to contain the exact same genetic code in the form of a psuedogene. It could only occur by shared descent.

Humans and Chimps both have almost exactly the same DNA sequence with respect to human chromosome 2. This is also reflected in gorillas and orangutans. It would be impossible for such a DNA sequence to be replicated across multiple species, without shared descent.

The fossil record of the Homo genus very clearly demonstrates a gradual change from earlier members of homo right up to homo sapiens-sapiens. Changes physically in facial features and body composition, increases in brain size in contrast to body size, and increased intelligence / social group complexity.

We know that physical similarities can be superficial, as evident in the sugar-glider / flying squirrel. (Who are completely genetically different)



But having physical similarities and shared DNA is absolutely proof of shared common descent.

dlofnep

nagirrac wrote: »

Humans did not evolve from apes.
Humans and apes (chimps and gorillas ) are believed to have a common ancestor which dates to at least 5 million years ago. There were many species of hominids before Homo sapiens came along.

Humans evolved from apes, and humans are apes.

Every single member of the homo genus was an ape. Every single member of Australopithecus was an ape. The common ancestor between humans and chimps was an ape. The common ancestor between all great apes, was an ape.

I believe what you are trying to say is that humans did not evolve from modern apes. That is correct, but it is incorrect to state that humans did not evolve from apes.

Moreover - The common ancestor between humans and chimps only is estimated to be between 5-7 million years ago. The common ancestor between humans, chimps and gorillas goes back much further.

Doctor Strange

This post bugs me

mickrock wrote: »

Can anyone explain how Darwinism even qualifies as a proper theory? I regard it as no more than a hunch.

You do know you're calling EVERY scientist in the last 150+ years that has tested, and subsequently agreed with the Darwinian model wrong? Just clarifying that point. Cause it's all of their work versus your ignorance of the subject.

So tell me, on the balance of probability, who is more likely to be wrong? You or the countless biologists who've spent decades studying evolution?

kiffer

kiffer wrote: »

Novel like lizards developing placenta rather than egg laying?

Novel sort of implies a big change no?
Do you think we'd need some sort of crocoduck creature for it to be novel?
I mean you clearly think that bacteria that can digest nylon don't count as novel... or maybe it's that you think it doesn't count because they are not animals?
What sort of thing would you consider novel...
Wait, you're just going to say "Why don't you show me novel things if they exist?" aren't you?

How about you give us a base line as to what you would consider novel so that we can understand your position?

Seriously, imagine talking to someone about social welfare or tax without them telling you what they think is a living wage, a high wage, a low vs high rate of tax but instead they just keep saying "The tax rate is wrong"... a terrible analogue I admit but it's late and I'm kind of sick of this run around.

Respond to the above post or not at all.
Seriously, you seem to go out of your way to ignore the most interesting parts of the discussion.

mickrock wrote: »

I don't see how Darwinian mechanisms can get the job done.

Apart from it being illogical there's no evidence to back it up.

BTW You said there are limits to what Darwinism can do. What do you consider them to be?

:-)
Ok.
I'm thinking of limits in terms of rates of change.
You don't see massive changes in one generation, limit observed. In ID and Directed Evolution you could see massive changes in one generation if the Director(s) decided to make such a change, never observed.

Evolution is limited by its need for a continuous pressure over many generations.

Evolution builds on what the animal has, expacting organs for new novel uses in gradual maner, using organs for more than one use. Functions for which it is not used in other species are steps towards developing a new specialised organ.
For example in ID/GE if the director(s) wanted to allow a speices to live longer in an aquatic environment then they could just arbitrarily add gills in a single generation. We never see that limit crossed. Evolution has to do it in a more limited step wise manor, for example sea snakes that can spend more time underwater by absorbing oxygen through their anus... unexpected and novel, allowing the snake to spend more time submerged.



There are lots of limits.
You can't even provide one.

mickrock

dlofnep wrote: »

But having physical similarities and shared DNA is absolutely proof of shared common descent.

It might be proof of common descent but it's not proof that it happened by Darwiniam mechanisms.

endacl

mickrock wrote: »

I understand it perfectly well.

I just don't swallow it hook, line and sinker like you lot.

Oh, I'll question it all right. And I'll accept reasonable answers. In the spirit of being open to new thinking. If you were to offer new thinking as opposed to regurgitated, reactionary taurus cacas, I'd pay attention and consider it. Hasn't happened yet in this thread though, and time is running out.

If its all the same, I'll read 'you lot' to mean 'people who don't agree with mickrock', and 'swallow hook, line and sinker' to mean 'consider rational and pertinent responses'. That corner you're backed into is looking pretty tight at this point. I do admire your 'lone voice in the wilderness' though. As well as find you funny. Don't go changin'.

'You lot'. Is there a uniform, or a secret handshake? Something?

Doctor Strange

mickrock wrote: »

It might be proof of common descent but it's not proof that it happened by Darwiniam mechanisms.

In that case, please present an alternative hypothesis, or if you have evidence, theory.

endacl

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

In that case, please present an alternative hypothesis, or if you have evidence, theory.

Hey! Welcome to Boards! And frustration...

dlofnep

mickrock wrote: »

It might be proof of common descent but it's not proof that it happened by Darwiniam mechanisms.

Please elaborate on how common descent might occur, without evolution by natural selection to cement a split in any given population.

I am happy to hear your opposing theory. Somehow, I doubt you'll actually present it.

mickrock

kiffer wrote: »

How about you give us a base line as to what you would consider novel so that we can understand your position?

Novel would be brand new or innovative functions, organs and systems.

You believe these can emerge via undirected mechanisms that can have vast creative powers. I don't.

mickrock

dlofnep wrote: »

Please elaborate on how common descent might occur, without evolution by natural selection to cement a split in any given population.

I am happy to hear your opposing theory. Somehow, I doubt you'll actually present it.

Like I thought. You can't show that Darwinism was the cause.

dlofnep

mickrock wrote: »

Like I thought. You can't show that Darwinism was the cause.

I have already demonstrated it.

Now please enlighten us with your alternative theory.

Sarky

Perhaps if you picked up a book and actually learned about the mechanics of it instead of faffing about here with your baseless assertions..?