RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (28) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Reinventing Evolutionary Theory, A candid look at the current theory< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,17:48   

I'd like to pose some questions and encourage an honest discussion.

To state my position, ID is a waste of time and continued debate only wastes time and effort.

Efforts to debuke ID at all costs only make us look dogmatic and something akin to religious fanatics.

Any theory should encourage open and honest critiques and should treat those challenges with eagerness and not hostility.

We are losing the PR battle.

Given those assumptions (mine), here's my thoughts:

Current evolutionary theory is fatally flawed because we lack the ability to perform experiments, collect data, and make predictions.

Can we develop an experiment that can be tested and repeated to reveal the mechanism driving evolution?

Random mutation is inadequate as a sole mechanism for diversity.

Organisms are much too responsive to the environment for diversity to be driven by random interactions.

The environment is much to dynamic to support the slow development required by random mutation.

Proteins must be self-organizing, but is this process molecularly driven or at the sub-atomic level?

I have thoughts along these lines but I'd be interested in discussion about them and associated topics.

We can see where that leads.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,17:51   

1 Learn some evolutionary theory. We can recommend some intro textbooks if you need it. How about What Evolution Is, by Mayr.

2 Get back to us.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,17:52   

Interesting response, but hardly helpful.

Plus Mayr is much too much of an apologist for me.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,17:54   

Given the questions you asked, "Learn basic evolution" is good advice, whether you know it or not.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,17:56   

Maybe you didn't understand the questions.

For instance, is random mutation sufficient as the driving mechanism behind the development of diversity?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,18:03   

(sigh) okay, let me point out a few of your problems.

 
Quote
Current evolutionary theory is fatally flawed because we lack the ability to perform experiments, collect data, and make predictions.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 
Quote
Can we develop an experiment that can be tested and repeated to reveal the mechanism driving evolution?

Biologists do, all the time.
 
Quote

Random mutation is inadequate as a sole mechanism for diversity.
There's more to evolution than random mutation, such as genetic drift. this is basic stuff.
 
Quote

Organisms are much too responsive to the environment for diversity to be driven by random interactions.

Dumb thing to say.

 
Quote
The environment is much to dynamic to support the slow development required by random mutation.

Dumb thing to say.

Quote
Proteins must be self-organizing,


What does that even mean?

 
Quote
but is this process molecularly driven or at the sub-atomic level?

Sub-atomic? Dumb.

Learn some basics, get back to us.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,18:09   

Anyway, 'skeptic', you're not fooling anybody. you think you're the first creationist to come to PT/AtBC and pretend not to be a creationist, just a guy with some honest questions? It's practically a cliche. We've seen it a thousand times.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,18:11   

WOW.
I didn't expet to find that much ignorance in one post.

Lets deal with the first.

The scientific method requires us to make a hypothesis, make  observations, collect data, develop a theory and then use thia theory to make further predictions which when proven or disproved reinforce or alter the theory.

Basic stuff.

We cannot do that right now because, for one , the time scales required for random mutation are outside observable ranges.  Speciation can not be duplicated in the lab, models can not predict events that can not be observed.

This is all basic stuff.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,18:13   

Yeah, it's basically wrong.

You're not fooling anybody.

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,18:17   

Quote
Current evolutionary theory is fatally flawed because we lack the ability to perform experiments, collect data, and make predictions.


Conveniently overlooking the fact that scientists developing the ToE have been performing experiments, collecting data, and making correct predictions for the last 150 years.

 
Quote
Can we develop an experiment that can be tested and repeated to reveal the mechanism driving evolution?


There are too many to count.  The whole modern field of genetics is based on them.  Any decent college biology text will cover the basics.

 
Quote
Random mutation is inadequate as a sole mechanism for diversity.


Random mutation is not the sole mechanism for diversity.  There are other well know ones, such as horizontal gene transfer.

 
Quote
Organisms are much too responsive to the environment for diversity to be driven by random interactions.


Populations evolve, not individual organisms.  If you don’t understand that, there’s not much anyone can do for you.

 
Quote
The environment is much to dynamic to support the slow development required by random mutation.


Populations evolve, not individual organisms.  Populations that can’t evolve quickly enough to adapt to changing environmental conditions go extinct.  That is high school biology 101.

 
Quote
Proteins must be self-organizing, but is this process molecularly driven or at the sub-atomic level?


Proteins follow the basic laws of chemistry, as does all life.  What do you mean by ‘sub-atomic level’?

Take the friendly advice that’s been offered – learn some of the ToE basics so you won’t keep asking inane questions.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,18:19   

As to the creationist comment, I suppose you get that alot.  I actually stumbled onto the site looking for some current info on complexity theory and misread the site to be scientific discussion and not just ID defense.  My mistake, but I thought it would still be a good spot for scientific discourse, was I wrong?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,18:22   

For complexity theory, check out the Santa Fe Institute to begin with. For a good layman discussion, check out Complexity by M. Mitchell Waldrop to get your feet wet.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,18:26   

How about one at a time, most of what you guys are saying is completely wrong.  I'm not sure what your backgrounds are so I don't know where to start for the most effect...

Evolution does not occur at the population level, all diversity occurs at the individual level, actually the molecular level to be exact.

And whether you talk about genetic drift, transfer, SNPs or whatever this is still a random process and that raises real problems.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,18:27   

" I actually stumbled onto the site looking for some current info on complexity theory " my ass.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,18:29   

Actually the Santa Fe site must have had a link to antievolution 'cause thats how I got here.  Waldrop's started this whole thing.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,18:31   

Occam, is this guy fooling you?

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,18:33   

Waldrop's book was published in '92 and alot has changed since then.  I was curious as to the current state of complexity.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,18:34   

Quote
I didn't expet to find that much ignorance in one post.



*sigh* do we really need to do this every day?

this, class, is an example of projection.

and for our new student, here's a definition:

Projection:

"A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."

other examples:

Quote
Plus Mayr is much too much of an apologist for me.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,18:36   

Great. then go read their working papers from 2006, 2005, 2004, etc.

http://www.santafe.edu/research/publications/working-papers.php

Or will you stay here and argue with us because you're really a creationist?

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,18:37   

Or an insominiac.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,18:38   

I'm an insomniac. You're a creationist.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,18:41   

I'm a skeptic and an insomniac, but I can not prove a negative, can I?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,18:44   

You've proven yourself a creationist, and that's why I'm done here.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,18:46   

That is certainly the most irrational thing you've said tonight, but I'm surprised that I actually expected any more than this.  My mistake.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,18:47   

...the rest is just plain old misinformation and ignorance, which we CAN help with.

example:

 
Quote
Populations evolve, not individual organisms.  If you don’t understand that, there’s not much anyone can do for you.


is criticized by our new student thusly:

 
Quote
Evolution does not occur at the population level, all diversity occurs at the individual level, actually the molecular level to be exact.


which is close, but not quite right.

selection acts at the individual level, which results in observable changes eventually at the population level.

so it is just fine to say we see evolution at the population level, so long as we define how selection is acting on the individual first.

Now skeptic, if you actually want to be treated with respect, rather than coming here and assuming you  already know all the answers, and we are just morons YOU need to educate, you might want to re-think your approach.

for example, you could tell us things you learned from a specific source, and then ask if anybody knows if that is correct or not, and go from there.

example:

instead of saying:

 
Quote
Efforts to debuke >debunk< ID at all costs only make us look dogmatic and something akin to religious fanatics.


a better approach would have been:

I can't figure out the value of debunking ID.  To me it seems to make scientists look dogmatic.  Does anybody here have a clue as to the value of spending so much time trying to debunk ID?

to which most here would have gladly pointed out why it is that there is value in continually pointing out how scientifically vacuous the whole idea of ID is.

understand?

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,18:50   

Quote
Occam, is this guy fooling you?


As a rule I always give new posters the benefit of the doubt until they say stuff like

 
Quote
I actually stumbled onto the site looking for some current info on complexity theory


followed by starting a thread full of typical Creto ignorant nonsense called "Reinventing Evolutionary Theory" and goofy things like

 
Quote
Evolution does not occur at the population level,

and
 
Quote
Actually the Santa Fe site must have had a link to antievolution 'cause thats how I got here.
 

I just checked, there is no link to or mention of antievolution.org at the Santa Fe site.

No, our new friend is not fooling anyone.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,18:52   

Actually, I disagree.  I don't see any value in debunking ID.  Maybe you do, you have that right.  In my opinion, ID has no scientific merit, it is dressed up creationism.  When you engage in that discussion, you grant it merit that it does not deserve.  Maybe I'm wrong there, but I chose to ignore ID as science.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,18:58   

Quote


Actually, I disagree.  I don't see any value in debunking ID.



ok, one more time.

the fact that YOU don't see any value in debunking ID has NOTHING to do with whether it actually does have value or not.

If you wish to learn how it DOES have value, then ask.

or, don't, and go read the reasons why Pandas Thumb exists by glancing over the links on the front page of the 'Thumb.

otherwise, trust me when i say that it is readily obvious you have no information of interest to share with us.

so, if you actually DO have legitimate questions, i would suggest you scratch out your entire thread and start over by actually asking some.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,19:02   

Its obvious that this is a waste of time.  Its a shame but very revealing about the current state of evolutionary theory.  Right now it is much more important to defend at all costs then to actually engage in science.  Pity.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,19:04   

LOL.

ok, we gave you the benefit of the doubt, now we see you're just a complete idiot.

shame indeed.

If you actually DID want to discuss science, do try again by actually posing or asking some questions that would be of interest to a scientist.

trust me, I am, and you haven't.

feel free to play again tho.

until then...

you are the weakest link.

bye bye

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,19:07   

Quote
Its a shame but very revealing about the current state of evolutionary theory.  Right now it is much more important to defend at all costs then to actually engage in science.  


And what would you know about it, Mr. "I accidentally came here looking for info on complexity"?  :p

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,19:09   

Its amazing, the level of arrogance is monumental.  The defensiveness is extreme and none of you has spoken a bit about science.  In my estimation, you have no real understanding of this topic, you just like to play on message boards.  As to being a scientist, please!

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,19:14   

[And what would you know about it, Mr. "I accidentally came here looking for info on complexity"?]

I'm a biochemist and a computer programmer and I'm interested in multi-variant systems.  Genetics and genetic algorithms fall into that catagory and that leads to evolution.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,19:20   

Quote

We cannot do that right now because, for one , the time scales required for random mutation are outside observable ranges.


The Nobel Prize committee that awarded the 1969 prize in Medicine or Physiology to Delbruck, Luria, and Hershey could have used this insight, I'm sure.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,19:21   

Wes, when I saw your post, I was expecting you to reveal that 'skeptic' was AFDave, Larry F, Davetard, or some such. Dang.

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,19:23   

Quote
Its amazing, the level of arrogance is monumental.  


Given that you were the one who lied about how you got here, lied about your motives, and posted a thread full of antiscientific Creto crap, I'd say your level of arrogance is monumental!

 
Quote
The defensiveness is extreme and none of you has spoken a bit about science.


Except for the parts where we corrected your blatant ignorance.

 
Quote
In my estimation, you have no real understanding of this topic, you just like to play on message boards.


May I kindly have some projection with that projection? :)

 
Quote
As to being a scientist, please!


Don't worry skeptic, no one here will ever mistake you for a scientist.  ;)

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,19:24   

in case anybody is still watching and needs more examples of projection:

1.  
Quote
Its amazing, the level of arrogance is monumental.



2.  
Quote
The defensiveness is extreme and none of you has spoken a bit about science.


3.  
Quote
In my estimation, you have no real understanding of this topic, you just like to play on message boards


I'm not sure about the very last sentence, it's not projection so I won't include that one.

let's see, so if we remove all the projection, we are left with:

Quote
As to being a scientist, please!


which is a classic bit of denial.

well done.

not a bit of content in your post.

what were you saying about wasting time and whatnot?

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,19:28   

Quote
Wes, when I saw your post, I was expecting you to reveal that 'skeptic' was AFDave, Larry F, Davetard, or some such. Dang.


Quote
I'm a biochemist and a computer programmer and I'm interested in multi-variant systems.


well, from that I would guess it's Behe himself.

lol.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,19:31   

Behe is in Pennsylvania, on EST, so he probably cried himself to sleep hours ago.

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,19:33   

hey, the poster said he was suffering from insomnia...

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,19:34   

:-)

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,19:49   

..and on that note...

Aufwiedersehen to this thread.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,21:25   

Quote
For instance, is random mutation sufficient as the driving mechanism behind the development of diversity?
Most people who question evolution have a very narrow idea of what this means so perhaps you'd like to tell us and maybe we can help.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,21:35   

Skeptic,

You've just hit the nail on the head. Your statements are exactly in line. Here you are, an expert, and here these guys are, obviously NOT experts like you, and when you try to point out the obvious flaws in their holy evolution god, they snarl and hiss and show their claws and claim to be able to educate you, you the expert, if you'd just stop pointing out the darn flaws in their holy see of darwinian literature. Now, I'm not a scientist like you but I can see the level of merit in your argument. And like you, I'd just like to get them to open their minds and figure out a way to handle guys like you. If they had an effective way of communicating with guys like you then maybe something could happen.
???

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,22:33   

DAmmit, will you all stop jumping all over someone.  Even if they are a troll, you just need to pile on the links to talk origins etc, then sit back and watch their response.  If they go "wow, theres so much here, but [insert honset confusion here]" you can be nice to them.  If they come back saying "wow theres so much here, but [insert typical creationist boilerplate here]", then you know what you are dealing with.

REmember, there is always the chance that someone like sceptic could be a misinformed person who jusst hasnt been able to do some proper research on the topic.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2006,23:03   

guthrie, the eternal optimist :-p Ok, let's bite... (I know I am going to regret this)

Sceptic. You don't like Evolution, ID or Creationism. What do you propose then, and why?

Instead of having a problem in general with evolution, could you please be more spesific? It's no use coming in here and just voicing normal creationism objections. If these objections are your own, as you seem to claim, then by the Gods man, out with it and let's all discuss it. Give us some examples!

And we all agree on one thing. ID and Creationism is dishonest stinking BS.

If you really are an undercover IDiot/Creotin, then bugger off, because you just ruined your reputation with dishonesty, by pretending to be something you are not.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,02:27   

Quote (BWE @ May 24 2006,02:35)
Skeptic,

You've just hit the nail on the head. Your statements are exactly in line. Here you are, an expert, and here these guys are, obviously NOT experts like you, and when you try to point out the obvious flaws in their holy evolution god, they snarl and hiss and show their claws and claim to be able to educate you, you the expert, if you'd just stop pointing out the darn flaws in their holy see of darwinian literature. Now, I'm not a scientist like you but I can see the level of merit in your argument. And like you, I'd just like to get them to open their minds and figure out a way to handle guys like you. If they had an effective way of communicating with guys like you then maybe something could happen.
???

Don't bother, BWE. He's already gone.

Don't worry though, I know we owe you for not letting you work at Dave. If he comes back, he's all yours.  :)

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,03:34   

Maybe I started too broadly.

This is what I think, ID and creationism are not science.  If you make the statement God did it, that just begs the question, How? Then we're right back where we began.

Evolution must be occurring.  Thats as near to a fact as possible.  I just don't accept the current theory.  I believe it must be reactive and mechanism based.  Thats what I'd like to discuss, but I was amazed at how quickly the attack dogs were loosed.

Thats where I stand.

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,03:49   

Quote (skeptic @ May 24 2006,08:34)
Maybe I started too broadly.

This is what I think, ID and creationism are not science.  If you make the statement God did it, that just begs the question, How? Then we're right back where we began.

Evolution must be occurring.  Thats as near to a fact as possible.  I just don't accept the current theory.  I believe it must be reactive and mechanism based.  Thats what I'd like to discuss, but I was amazed at how quickly the attack dogs were loosed.

Thats where I stand.

The current theory is reactive and mechanism based.  What precisely are your concerns?

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,03:49   

Sceptic, consider how these people spend time and effort trying to talk sense into dishonest creationists, then try and understand that they might react in a bit of a mocking way when you barge in here and tell them you have issues with evolution. Sounds like a creationist, you have to admit, no? Also, after their scrap with Afdave, you can hardly blame them for being sceptical that you are here in an honest way.

Quote
I just don't accept the current theory.


You are still being to broad to discuss anything. WHAT is your exact objections and give us some examples with that.

Quote
I believe it must be reactive and mechanism based.


Okay, but what the he11 do you mean by it? Samples please.

  
Ladlergo



Posts: 32
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,03:50   

Quote (skeptic @ May 24 2006,09:34)
Evolution must be occurring.  Thats as near to a fact as possible.  I just don't accept the current theory.

It would help if you demonstrated understanding of current evolutionary theory.  This is a good place to start.  You also might want to look here.
 
Quote
I believe it must be reactive and mechanism based.

Can you explain what you mean by "reactive" and "mechanism based"?

   
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,04:05   

Skeptic, one of the reasons you were savaged by the 'attack dogs' was that your OP contains a large proportion of factually incorrect statement.  F'r example:

Quote
Current evolutionary theory is fatally flawed because we lack the ability to perform experiments, collect data, and make predictions.
Current theory is not fatally flawed for this reaon - we perform experiments, collect data and make predictions (for example, the existence of a species similar to Tiktaalik was predicted.

As for a list of recent evolutionary research, see this.

Quote
Can we develop an experiment that can be tested and repeated to reveal the mechanism driving evolution?
We already have.  Look at the Avida experiments, for example.

Quote
Random mutation is inadequate as a sole mechanism for diversity.
Another factually incorrect (because completely misstated comment).  Random mutation is NOT the sole mechanism for diversity.  Genetic and developmental variation plus selection is more than adequate as a mechanism for diversity.

Quote
Organisms are much too responsive to the environment for diversity to be driven by random interactions.
This is simply meaningless.  Responsive in what way?

Quote
The environment is much to dynamic to support the slow development required by random mutation.
Again, observationally not true.  The consistency of the deep sea environment in which Coleolanth persisted, for example, is quite striking.  And random mutation isn't particularly slow.  Speciation may be, but we have seen that rapid speciation in those very dynamic environments is quite probable.

Quote
Proteins must be self-organizing, but is this process molecularly driven or at the sub-atomic level?
The activity occuring at the molecular level is a macro-consequence of the activity occuring at the 'sub-atomic' level.

When you being your OP with such inaccurate, misleading, or confusing statements, it is natural to question the depth of your knowledge of the topic.

Questioning your sincerity, on the other hand, is unacceptable until you demonstrate (like 2nd Lt. Dave) that you are simply a creationist.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,04:09   

Skeptic says
   
Quote
Evolution must be occurring.  Thats as near to a fact as possible.  I just don't accept the current theory.


So far you haven't shown that you know or understand the actual theory even the slightest bit.  Why should anyone care that you reject a cartoon version of ToE based on your own ignorance?

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,07:29   

Skeptic,

If you aren't a troll, then ignore the attack dogs.  They are battle weary from the real trolls and are quick to assume the worst.  Kind of like how cops start treating everyone like criminals soon enough.

Here's a great information source for the evidence for evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/  Read the whole thing, it's chock full of experiments and explanations.  You'll see that your claims about evolution are unfounded.  The education of evolution is flawed, but the theory is not.

-Dan

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,07:52   

So far, Skeptic has said nothing sufficiently specific to even attack, so  consider this dog not only not loosed, but unable to detect a scent.

One thing s/he said, though, that I find kind of intriguing is that s/he dismisses ID out of hand, but says evolutionary theory cannot explain biological diversity.

WTF? If you read the Lords of ID over at the Disco Inst - as close as a definition of ID as you're likely to get - there's really not much more to it than that evolutionary theory cannot explain biological diversity.

Perhaps Skeptic belongs to the same category of anti-evolutionists as Berlinski, who also has never written anything substantial enough to engage my interest, but likes to pose as The Cool Guy; too Cool to see the merit in all that pedestrian work-a-day research that supports evolution, too Cool to dirty his hands with "pathetic details" (Dembski's phrase, but applies just as well to Berlinski), too Cool even to officially endorse ID. (But not too Cool to take their money and let them advertise his disdain for "Darwinists")

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
dhogaza



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,09:22   

Quote
Its obvious that this is a waste of time.  Its a shame but very revealing about the current state of evolutionary theory.


Posts made by random people on an internet forum are "very revealing about the current state of evolutionary theory"?

What a hoot!

Creationist - go home, and read the Bible until you go blind.  Please.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,09:27   

Quote (skeptic @ May 23 2006,23:11)
WOW.
I didn't expet to find that much ignorance in one post.

Lets deal with the first.

The scientific method requires us to make a hypothesis, make  observations, collect data, develop a theory and then use thia theory to make further predictions which when proven or disproved reinforce or alter the theory.

Basic stuff.

We cannot do that right now because, for one , the time scales required for random mutation are outside observable ranges.  Speciation can not be duplicated in the lab, models can not predict events that can not be observed.

This is all basic stuff.

Do you think 'Skeptic' is probably the copycat PZ is describing HERE?:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/05/dont_worry_skeptico.php

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,10:43   

Quote

Do you think 'Skeptic' is probably the copycat PZ is describing HERE?:


no.  totally different writing styles, and the writer PZ exposes firmly believes Behe is on firm foundation.

bottom line though, who cares?

If our own "skeptic" can't even figure out how to detail his own argument, let alone how to actually ASK a question, what does it matter how we categorize them except as an utter waste of time?

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,12:07   

oh and even though he has already concluded it to be a waste of time, I steal a post that says why we do this about as concisely as I could imagine:

Quote
Posted by Mike Rogers on May 24, 2006 05:01 PM (e)

Bazell’s article was largely supportive of evolution, but his description of scientists as “whining” about intelligent design just shows that he doesn’t understand what’s happening.

Working scientists are busy people and we would much rather not have to spend any time on this kind of bullshit. We are only starting to respond after having been specifically targeted by the religious right and put at the front lines of a culture war in which they are unquestionably the aggressors. Make no mistake: They want to change the role of science and the way science is done in order to render it more amenable to their world view, or at least something they perceive to be more amenable.

What Bazell describes as “whining” is actually the scientific community waking up to the fact that their community is being targeted, attacked and demonized in an attempt to gain political control of science education and probably, ultimately, the institutions and processes of science itself. And now the fundies have the political winds at their back. If fighting against this is “whining” I’d say we need to do a lot more of it.


I would also suggest he read the thread on PT titled, appropriately enough, "Why We Do This".

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,16:44   

Lets try an exercise.

Imagine that this guy named Darwin proposes a theory that species derive existing species through random mutation and natural selection.  We know about genes, DNA, etc and as ambitious young grad students we want to make a name for ourselves and prove this theory.

How do we do it?  Where do we investigate and what experiment do we run?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,16:52   

[cue montage sequence of 20th century biology]

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,16:55   

Thats not quite original thinking.  If Darwin releases his theory today, we don't know whether its true or not, it must be investigated and we want to make a name for ourselves, be bigger than Darwin.

  
Caledonian



Posts: 48
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,17:06   

Before one can be properly skeptical of a claim, one must first understand what it is.

skeptic, you have demonstrated that you don't understand the most elementary principles of evolutionary theory in history, biology, or mathematics.

You may or may not be a Creationist, but you *are* an ignorant fool, so it's easy to see how people could make the leap.  Those are the two primary qualifications for being a Creationist, after all.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,17:08   

again not very useful to this discussion

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,17:15   

Skeptic says
   
Quote
Thats not quite original thinking.  If Darwin releases his theory today, we don't know whether its true or not, it must be investigated and we want to make a name for ourselves, be bigger than Darwin.


This is why your ignorance flashes at us like a big red beacon Skeptic.  The ToE is not based on the result of a single experiment, or even a few dozen, but on the collective results of over 150 years of discovery in literally hundreds of different scientific fields - biology, chemistry, paleontology, genetics, geology, etc.  ALL of the evidence taken COLLECTIVELY is what supports the ToE.  It is a grand tapestry woven by millions of dedicated researchers of all races, ages, religions, nationalities, gender.  It is millions of pieces of independent, cross-corroborating evidence that makes ToE the bedrock of science that it rightfully is today.

A favorite tactic of the Creato/IDiots is to demand a single piece of evidence that conclusively 'proves' evolution.  You are making the same asinine request.

If you are so ignorant of the topic as to ask such a butt-stupid question, why should we give you the time of day?

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,17:21   

Ok, here's the problem with that statement, minus the purposeless attacks,  the 150 years of evidence is all interpretation within the belief that the theory is true.  I make an observation and then decide how that fits within the theory with never a thought as to whether or not it actually does.

What I'm wondering is if we erase the assumption that the current theory is true and we start over do we eventually come to the same conclusions.

I'm trying to get you guys to think objectively because 200 years from now we won't be working with this theory but its descendant and how will that theory differ?

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,17:46   

skeptic...your missing the boat...

Lets take a look at a "theory" that has changed.
Gravity.

Newtonian physics was the working model...and for a long time most people assumed that it was correct.  All research was manipulated to fit within the Newtonian model.
The data didnt fit the theory though...and a great deal of effort was focused on solving this problem.  It was eventually solved with the help of Einstein.  
Currently we have new data that refutes both models...and a great deal of research is being dumped into explaining it.

If we start from scratch with our ToE...what do we have?
A long list of varying organisms, an obvious transition from one organism to another, and an obvious mechanism of adaptation.
Do we end up at the same conclusion?  Probably not at first.
If we really started from scratch...you would probably still get Lamarkian evolution and other avenues...such as prescribed evolution(a NEW creationist favorite)...
All of the conjectures would then be tested....and since no evidence could be found that would support any of the alternatives we would eventually wind up "Darwinism" again...even though a more accurate term exists.

If someone develops a more complete theory that has better explanatory power...we will go with that...just like when we changed from Newtonian physics to Einsteinian physics.

Otherwise...we will need to propose a problem with ToE(which has happened...such as the time scale) or find a better explanation.  To date, almost every serious problem with the ToE has been explained or demonstrated to satisfaction of most.

You always interpret the data to the best of your understanding.  Radiological dating is meaningless if you dont have half-life....
If the "theory" was wrong...the data wouldnt refute the Theory...
it wouldnt be possible to scientifically rectify the data with the theory...

Just look at classical physics, ether, or early concepts of heat for examples of the data refuting the theory.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,17:49   

Skeptic says
       
Quote
Ok, here's the problem with that statement, minus the purposeless attacks,  the 150 years of evidence is all interpretation within the belief that the theory is true.  I make an observation and then decide how that fits within the theory with never a thought as to whether or not it actually does.


That's pure unadulterated bullsh*t Skeptic.  The evidence was collected and assessed independently as to whether or not it supported the theory.  When the evidence did NOT support the theory (as was often the case), the theory was MODIFIED and REFINED to accommodate ALL the evidence, both the old and the new.   That is the way ALL scientific theories are developed and corrected over time WITHOUT EXCEPTION.  

Do you have the slightest clue as to how the scientific method actually works?  If you have any examples of your allegations that the scientific community did a 'forced fit' on evidence that would totally overturn the ToE, either present them or STFU.

The ToE has been modified and refined countless times since its inception.  Many details have been added, and many remain to still be added.  However, in all those years and all those millions of pieces of evidence it has NEVER proven necessary to overturn the central idea of ToE - common descent with modification over time.

I’ll ask again: If you are so ignorant of the topic as to ask such a butt-stupid question, why should we give you the time of day?

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,17:57   

Just a few small disagrements.

Newtonian physics was law and no one really was looking for an altrenative and if they were they certainly weren't talking about it, people would have thought they were crazy.

Then along come this patent clerk and drops a bomb-shell, of course it was initially refuted but later accepted and thats kinda where we are today.

As to the progression in evolutionary theory, I'm not so sure that we'd end up in the same place.  One thing I find very interesting is that Mendel sent Darwin a copy of his research, but Darwin never remarked on it.  Did he read it, was he too busy.  If he knew what we know now where does his inspiration lead him.  Genetics has killed random mutation for me, especially given the propensity for lethal mutation.

Certainly we acknowledge the current theory because there is no viable alternative but whos working on the alternative, where's Einstein now?

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,18:03   

Occam

the central tenet of common descent with modification over time it very vague, and I know you're summarizing for my lowly intellect, but think about how many different direction you can go with that, all you've eliminated is parallel speciation.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,18:04   

Septic - with the highly original I'm jealous of Darwin theme...which by his own judgment is again not very useful to this discussion.

And Septic what is that ....ahem discussion?

Since the kind folks here suggested you  go here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ and actually find an original objection on which you could focus since you claim to be a scientist and all.

A philosophical objection identical to the Deceiving Idolaters perhaps ?

Fine ....so drop the evidence/facts/honest science and concentrate on the relativist ethics of the Idolaters.

I'd like to do the same .....since contra-Theory of Evolution education activists actually encourage a serious hard look at those ethics.

For instance.
Why do claim that your objection to the ToE does not need positive confirmable evidence?
Why is your claim not merely a semantic juxtaposition of words with emphasis on an emotional appeal to ego?
Why do your ethical standards not include arguing from ignorance as an unethical presupposition?
Why do religious ID supporters behave unethically and how are they any different to your behavior here?

Yes Septic lets not update our knowledge on a subject where you blatantly disregard the parts you don't like and just attack it on feeble grounds without any properly considered honest evidence. Why would that be? Everyone who has tried has failed? Doesn't leave much *except* an attack from ignorance does it Septic?

I agree with you 100%

Septic unconsciously projects that he is again not very useful to this discussion.

0+0=0

Oh...and by the way Septic thank you for reading the above with a righteous up curled lip I'm sure it hasn't had the slightest effect on your dishonesty, I seriously doubt that you have any idea what that is. One thing I DO KNOW is that to call oneself a scientist requires more honesty than you have shown so far.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,18:08   

k.e.
I'm not ashamed to say that I don't think I understood three words of what you just posted other the fact that I can assure you I've entirely honest in every respect.  As to whatever else you said...well I'm not sure.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,18:10   

k.e.'s posts are not very comprehensible, I have to say.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,18:12   

glad to hear that I'm not entirely dense

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,18:13   

hahahhahahahahaha
Well that explains to me WHY the DI still exists.
Rock solid stupidity

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,18:22   

Skeptic says
     
Quote
the central tenet of common descent with modification over time it very vague, and I know you're summarizing for my lowly intellect, but think about how many different direction you can go with that, all you've eliminated is parallel speciation.


I'll think about it when you provide examples for this assertion by you that the scientific community did a 'forced fit' on evidence that would totally overturn the ToE.

   
Quote
Skeptic...the 150 years of evidence is all interpretation within the belief that the theory is true.  I make an observation and then decide how that fits within the theory with never a thought as to whether or not it actually does.


Present the evidence for your assertion, retract, or continue to be thought of as an ignorant preachy boob.

ETA:  BTW Skeptic, I understood k.e. perfectly.  He politely told you you're full of shit, which is what all of us have been noting.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,18:31   

I don't know that there has been a 'forced fit', something of that magnitude would be difficult to maintain for 150 years.  One good example is the fossil record, attitudes have gone back and forth concerning what we should see, what Darwin predicted and what this says about evolution at a slow pace.

It seemed for awhile that punctuated equilibrium would gain some traction, but not so much.  Thats not a case of 'forced fit' exactly, but it did deviate from the accepted theory and faded.  This could be a case in which we know what we're looking for, this isn't it, so it can not be true.  

Ultimately, someone is going to have to break from the pack and look in a different direction and to a certain extent that should be encouraged.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,18:32   

Quote
Newtonian physics was law and no one really was looking for an altrenative and if they were they certainly weren't talking about it, people would have thought they were crazy.


Read before you speak...
Newtonian physics was disputed....it was not law.....
Newton had 3 laws of motion...which generally hold true for all of classical physics....but Newtonian physics was far from law...
Do some research on it...
Newtonian physics was having a difficult time explaining planetary motion...but Einstein's Theory of Relativity provided a solution.

Einstein didnt drop a bombshell....Einstein solved a problem...and refined classical mechanics...

Just like the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium further refined the ToE.

Do you honestly believe that everyone was just sitting around twiddling their thumbs...content with Newtonian physics when this genius came around and proved them all wrong?
No....
They knew a problem existed...and Einstein explained how to refine their current theory....


The problem...that is generally ignored...is that normally when a scientific theory has weathered the test of time it will always retain some accuracy.  The theory may need to be refined or adjusted...but the basis of the theory must be accurate for it to have been able to explain so much data until the current problem was presented.

Newtonian physics is accurate...as a simplification.  Einstein didnt destroy Newtonian physics...
He simply elaborated on the previous theory

I can say with a great degree of certainty that evolution occurs.  I can say with a great degree of certainty that evolution is adaptive.  I can say with slightly less certainty that some form of "random mutation" is necessary.
Nothing currently resists the concept of random mutation...

Another important point that you need to acknowledge skeptic is that modern evolutionary theory is hardly Darwinism....

Darwin may be the father of modern evolutionary theory...but the modern theory is Darwin's only in the vaguest sense....

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,18:38   

Quote
Skeptic:  I don't know that there has been a 'forced fit', something of that magnitude would be difficult to maintain for 150 years.  One good example is the fossil record, attitudes have gone back and forth concerning what we should see, what Darwin predicted and what this says about evolution at a slow pace.

It seemed for awhile that punctuated equilibrium would gain some traction, but not so much.  Thats not a case of 'forced fit' exactly, but it did deviate from the accepted theory and faded.  This could be a case in which we know what we're looking for, this isn't it, so it can not be true.  

Ultimately, someone is going to have to break from the pack and look in a different direction and to a certain extent that should be encouraged.


Are you then retracting this assertion you made

 
Quote
Skeptic...the 150 years of evidence is all interpretation within the belief that the theory is true.  I make an observation and then decide how that fits within the theory with never a thought as to whether or not it actually does.


...or not?

It's a simple question.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,18:41   

Thank you Steve S
I'll go slower.

Mr I'm a biochemist brings up the hoary old creationist line that because Darwin did not include enough god talk in his Theory and lost his theistic beliefs as though the world has not moved on.
Hello it's 2006.

Then a couple of professed believers long dead are referenced His Holinesses Einstein and Mendel are mentioned ....although they wouldn't have been if they had said they were agnostics or heaven forbid atheists.

Now come on Mr “I'm not buying the ToE” mention something relevant to this century. Darwin didn't read Mendel who the F### cares?

Then ALL other intervening evolutionary scientists are dismissed because they can't say god and not RM+NS EXPLAINS why we got here.

Which leaves Mr I'm a scientist with nothing more than meaningless creationist philosophical talking points.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,18:43   

point taken, its just second nature at this point to refer to it as Darwinism for common understanding.

I do think there are two points of resistance to random mutation

1) Timescale, and to a certain extent, this can never be resolved but it should be acknowledged

2)but more difficult is the actual mechanics of random mutation, it taken at its smallest component, the substitution of a single AA, it mosts cases that it actually has an effect upon the structure of the protein you have a non-functioning, or reduced-functioning protein.  In the case of an entire gene mutation, now we're talking long odds, you still only have a single protein that may or may not have an effect and when it does it is almost assuredly detremental to the organism.  What we really need is for the random emergence of traits and this may require mutiple proteins, very very long odds.

I think this is a source of concern.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,18:47   

Skeptic,

You are absolutely on track. These guys are all working off the "law" of Evolution much the same way physicists worked off the "Law" of gravity. If only they would just wake up and realize that there is a frameshift in understanding just over the event horizon they would be searching in 5 or more dimentians to find the causes of genetic degenetic-generation and malthusian saltation occurences instead of claiming that random mutation and selective pressure exerted by changing ecosystems, competition for resources and isolated niches with available food and places to raise young in relative safety are mechanisms that can generate upward genetic mobility and  a stratified genetically and specieally grouped biosphere that owes nothing to interactions with non-euclidean and euclidian universes that might intersect in non-dimentional singularities with the specific genomic anomalies exhibited by the various kingdoms and phylums and even down to the species level and below that only lose functionality rather than incorporate new variations and increased genetic information that is implied and implicated by neo-darwinian mysticism and neo-darwinists refusal to think outside of that particular box.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,18:49   

Occam

I don't believe it a concious decision.  I think biologists have just operated under the assumption that evolution is true and they're results reflect that.

A good example of this is the measurement of the charge of the electron, I'm sure those weren't concious errors, in fact I think that we know they weren't, but nobody wants to be the one to stand up and tell a Nobel Laurete he's wrong.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,18:53   

BWE

I bet you and k.e. can have a lively discussion.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,18:58   

Quote
point taken, its just second nature at this point to refer to it as Darwinism for common understanding.


also incorrect.

as much as you would like to think of me as "not a scientist" I actually HAVE done work in this field, spent many years working with evolutionary biologists, and not a one of them, or myself, would ever use the term "darwinism" to label evolutionary theory, nor would any of us ever call each other "darwinists".

why?  for a very simple reason several others here have already touched on.  It simply isn't the same set of hypotheses that Darwin developed, regardless of Darwin setting the framework to start.

I doubt Einstein himself would recognize what's become of quantum theory since his day.

that's why we call it quantum theory instead of "Einsteinism".

It's simple errors like this that make us think you don't have enough background to explore the kinds of questions you apparently want to ask.

I'd recommend Futuyma's "Evolutionary Biology" for a great text you could self-study over a couple of months and get a much better grounding to be able to ask better questions.

oh, and also work on your grammar and spelling if you want to be more convincing.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,19:03   

nice try BWE.

;)

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,19:04   

Skeptic says:
   
Quote
In the case of an entire gene mutation, now we're talking long odds


Please define “long odds”.  Please show us the detailed calculations of how you computed the ‘long odds”.  Be sure to provide scientific evidence for all assumptions you make including sample size, number of all possible outcomes, number of possible successful outcomes, and length of time the event has to run.

Or is this just personal incredulity based on ignorance?

 
Quote
you still only have a single protein that may or may not have an effect and when it does it is almost assuredly detrimental to the organism.


Every study I’ve seen says that most mutations are neutral with respect to fitness.  Please provide evidence that most mutations are almost assuredly detrimental.

 
Quote
What we really need is for the random emergence of traits and this may require mutiple proteins, very very long odds.


Please define “very very long odds”.  Please show us the detailed calculations of how you computed the ‘very very long odds”.  Be sure to provide scientific evidence for all assumptions you make including sample size, number of all possible outcomes, number of possible successful outcomes, and length of time the event has to run.

Or is this just more personal incredulity based on ignorance?

Clue no. 1:  Personal incredulity based on ignorance is not viewed as a problem by the scientific community.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,19:07   

typing is not one of my better skills, certainly not for speed.  and I certainly wouldn't refer to anyone as a Darwinist, except maybe Huxley. its just a term that we all recognize in the forum and it easier to type than evolutionary theory.

and, if I may, Einstein never really embraced quantum theory, remember the famous 'God does not play dice' quote

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,19:07   

well, I can clearly see now how a "biochemist" could become an ID supporter, thanks to skeptic.

Other than assuming some sort of mental disorder, I couldn't figure out how Behe ever became an ID advocate, or forced his mind to generate the IC argument to begin with.

now i see.

arrogance + ignorance = claptrap.

alles klar.

 
Quote
and, if I may, Einstein never really embraced quantum theory, remember the famous 'God does not play dice' quote


would it matter if he had?

Quote
its just a term that we all recognize in the forum and it easier to type than evolutionary theory.


the only people who use it in the forum are creobots.

it's a poor term, and you should know this.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,19:15   

BWE u devil
That would be the unified pseudo theory of ID, no?
Man that almost out does Demski's effort except its clearer, not enough obscurantism tho, so no future book sales, pity.

You could pitch yourself as the 'Real Newton of Information Science' vs his 'Kevin Federline of Information Science'

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,19:16   

I said the protein may or may not have an effect, so we're stating the same thing, but in the case when it does it is most always bad.  That is not the same thing as saying all mutations are bad.

as to the detailed calculations, well you got me there, but I think we can infer by calculated mutation rates and the relative stabilty of the genome that mutations aren't common place.

As far as Einstein, it makes no difference, it just sounded as if you were saying that Einstein developed quantum theory

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,19:18   

Sir T,
It is precicely because you have studied that you are unable to see the obvious facts that Skeptic has laid at your feet raising the anadorned observations that can stand when all has fallen into molecules, quarks and jesons. You were channelled into a nomenclature that accepted no alternative explanations than ones with paltry experimental substantiation and confirmation that only offer corroboration and validation of the initial questions that were isolated in a laboratory excluding the most obvious affirmative evidence for the deceptively simple alternatives and fractal evidence for the weaknesses with modern evolutionary theory and neo-darwinian whitewashing.

What do you say to that?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,19:18   

Skeptic says:
 
Quote
I don't believe it a concious decision.  I think biologists have just operated under the assumption that evolution is true and they're results reflect that.


I didn't ask you if you thought it was a concious decision.  I asked you to provide concrete example of evidence that should have overturned (not just modified or refined) the ToE but didn't because of the scientific community's assumptions, or retract.

By the amount of wriggling you're doing it looks like this assertion you made

   
Quote
Skeptic...the 150 years of evidence is all interpretation within the belief that the theory is true.  I make an observation and then decide how that fits within the theory with never a thought as to whether or not it actually does.


was nothing but more of your personal incredulity based on ignorance. Why should anyone think differently?

Clue no. 2:  Personal incredulity based on ignorance will never count as evidence

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,19:19   

BWE

WOW, I had to read that three times

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,19:23   

Quote
What do you say to that?


umm, i say:

"Very very witty... very very witty, Wilde."

and

"I wish I had said that"

;)

skeptic:

here's your argument at this point:


  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,19:25   

The easiet example is, again, the fossil record.

We are told to expect to see transitional forms, and they should exist my the multitude

The fact that they don't exist is not really a glowing endorsement an yet now the fossil record is used as evidence to some degree and the lack of transitional forms has been addressed, but how adequately?

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,19:26   

Quote
The fact that they don't exist...


OUCH!

you're done here.

games up.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,19:28   

please tell me you don't look at the fossil record and see transition

you were doing so good!!

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,19:30   

c'mon now, admit it!  You're just pulling our chains.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,19:33   

lets take that up tomorrow, gotta work in the AM.

but I have to say, I'm pleseantly surprised, after last night I expected this to be a limited engagement, but this looks more promising.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,19:34   

If there were holes in the fossil record, wouldn't evolution predict that they would be filled?
Jeeze. It's pretty basic.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,19:38   

***BREEP!   BREEP!  BREEP!***

IGNORANT CREATIONIST ALERT!  IGNORANT CREATIONIST ALERT!  


 
Quote
The easiet example is, again, the fossil record.

We are told to expect to see transitional forms, and they should exist my the multitude

The fact that they don't exist is not really a glowing endorsement an yet now the fossil record is used as evidence to some degree and the lack of transitional forms has been addressed, but how adequately?


Well, it was fun while it lasted.  Skeptic lasted almost 24 hours before he couldn't contain his Creto ignorance any longer.

Just for fun Skeptic - Define what you think a transitional fossil would look like, and why.  Then go Google Tiktaalik, read up on it, and tell us why it's not a transitional fossil.  Do that and we’ll treat you kindly, like Fuji on McHale’s Navy.  ;)

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,19:39   

Quote
but I have to say, I'm pleseantly surprised, after last night I expected this to be a limited engagement, but this looks more promising.


LOL

actually i was just thinking the exact reverse after your last idiotic comment.

you're a complete bore.

good luck with that.

You really should consider arguing BWE's points.  he makes a lot of sense.

here's where your argument stands now:


  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,19:43   

Huxley??? Oh brother. Another dead white atheist.
Why not just mention the names of all the other evil conspiritors while you are at it.
Go on I know you're dying to.

And very long odds?
A sort of reverse Gamblers Fallacy ...look it up.
Mr. not skeptical but credulous you're on the wrong blog

Absolute prof of Creation/intelegent design

Did god create time? If so.... why didn't he make it last longer....

And somewhere on this page is Joseph Campbell's explanation why early writers didn't credit God with creating water

Interview with author of -Historical Atlas Of World Mythology

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,19:52   

Quote (skeptic @ May 25 2006,00:25)
The easiet example is, again, the fossil record.

We are told to expect to see transitional forms, and they should exist my the multitude

The fact that they don't exist is not really a glowing endorsement an yet now the fossil record is used as evidence to some degree and the lack of transitional forms has been addressed, but how adequately?


Let's be perfectly clear here. Are you claiming that no transitional fossil sequences exist?

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 25 2006,10:05

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,19:53   

BWE
A definite improvement. 8/10 go to the top of the class.
Now all you need is chutzpah, and an interview with the DI ..... I can just smell that book deal.
Oh...you'll need a disguise....I suggest a chick Groucho nose,mustache,glasses outfit and a sleazy grin.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,19:54   

LOL, yeah i thought that might get your attention, Wes.

do yourself a favor.

don't bother.

It's pretty obvious this guy's just here to pull some chains.

BTW, your PM box is full.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,20:25   

Stj, "alles klar". Dutch?

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,20:58   

Sceptic. Okay, we have a topic, the Fossil Record. Let's stick with it a while.

What are your "issues" with the fossil record?

You do understand that for something to fossilise conditions must be right. This does not happen very often. We therefore have no problem with the fact that every single predicted transitional form is not available as fossils. You do understand that, right.

However, where we do find fossils, we find exactly what we would expect (what evolution would predict). We find the "simpler" organisms in the older rock, and the more "complex" or newer organisms in younger rock.

I think the fossils are GREAT evidence for evolution. In fact, we even found some predicted transitional fossils. Lucky eh? We are even so lucky as to have fossils (they are very rare) of soft bodied ancient worm type organisms. We found them in early rock, once again, as predicted by Evolution. We can even trace our own ancestry back to such ancient worm type critters. Sure, we don't have all the transitional fossils, but then, we cannot be reasonable and expect that we should have them all.

You claim to know a lot about genetics. When we look at comparitive dna between organisms, we find exactly what we would expect, as predicted by evolution. Darwin never even had Genetics to look at, yet in later years Genetics added even more meat and proof to the theory of evolution.
Just think of the GULO gene in primates. It is a stunning piece of evidence. It is not the only one (you know there are many), but for me, it is a classic piece.

Just think of Mitochondria! What they are, what they do, where they came from. That an ancient bacteria lives in our own cells and are our little power generators. Evolution can be strange sometimes.

Evolution, when looked at as a whole, say from Bacteria to Human seems too incredible to be true. But taken in little baby steps, with the supporting evidence, it makes so much sense. And there is soo very very much evidence.

The theory of evolution is not 100% perfect, no. Why? Becuase we simply don't have all the data of 4 billion years. Suprise! We don't have data on every single mutation that has ever happened. However, the data that we do have all comes together in support of the Theory. Until data comes along and falsifies it, the Theory of Evolution is still the best we have, and the best by far.

If you have a problem with ToE, then fine. However, don't just attack gaps (or even false gaps and strawmen). Come up with a better theory, and we can all examine it in the light of data that we do have. If it is better than ToE, then I assure you, the scientific world will take notice and start testing it. Until then, don't just moan and whine that ToE is not 110% perfect. GR is not 110% perfect. QT is not 110% perfect. String Theory still has a long way to go, but it seems like there is much promise in it, even just for a more powerful maths model.

Back to the fossils. If you are going to point out that there are gaps, then save yourself the effort. We KNOW there are gaps. In fact, gaps are to be expected. But know that at many places there are not gaps, and this data that we have all just once again tells us the ToE is on the right track.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,20:59   

naw, bastardized german

think back to the 80's....

"Alles klar, Herr Kommisar?"

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,23:00   

Quote (skeptic @ May 24 2006,21:44)
Lets try an exercise.

Imagine that this guy named Darwin proposes a theory that species derive existing species through random mutation and natural selection.  We know about genes, DNA, etc and as ambitious young grad students we want to make a name for ourselves and prove this theory.

How do we do it?  Where do we investigate and what experiment do we run?

I'm not a biologist, but I think we would proceed in several ways, such as:

1) We look at various species around the world, collecting DNA samples at various times, so as to see how much they change.

2) We try to breed a species, such as flies, to see what changes we can produce in their genome and how they are inherited and under what conditions they provide advantages.

3) We observe some species in minute detail in their natural habitat, watching how they interact with it, and how their genes and physical forms etc change over time.  

4) We breed peas and suchlike and observe the changes in their size and form.

5) We run genetic analyses on animals and plants, teasing out the differences and similarities, and how changes to genes affects the creature with the changes.

And so on.  All the above have been done at some point in the past 200 years.  

For example, the Galapagos Finches have been almsot exhaustively studied for I think nearly 40 years- every year some biologists go to the islands and tag, measure, and observe the birds in their natural habitat.  

So far, all the above have shown that the modern synthesis is a pretty close description of "reality".

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,23:08   

Quote
random mutation, it taken at its smallest component, the substitution of a single AA
If you think that all random mutation means is amino acid substitutions then you've been talking to too many creationists. And if you think that creative evolution consists of entirely changes in protein structure and allele frequencies then I'm afraid you're a bit behind. The modern synthesis happened a long time ago, get over it. :D

Quote
I think biologists have just operated under the assumption that evolution is true and they're results reflect that.
No biologists say, 'what would we expect to see if evolution were true'. Granted many biologists these days who are not working with evolution might take the theory of evolution as a given but it would be pretty hard to do science if you couldn't use any previous knowledge. If something was found that contradicted the theory it would stick out like a sore thumb.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,23:14   

BWE,
keep your creationist paws off sceptic.
The man is NOT a creo: He clearly stated that in the beginning. He's not of your ignorant kind (with its tell-tale incomprehensible writing): He has studied Biochemistry. He's a scientist, for crying out loud, just a deluded one.
The reason he uses creationist terms like "Darwinism" and creo arguments like the fossil record does not show he's on your side: It just shows how your indoctrination has reached far into the scientific community. And that's why we get more and more respectable scientists in relevant fields submit to the ID propaganda every day.
Sceptic still has a chance to escape their faith. He just has to learn a few truths. After all, that is what is here for; and he's come to the rite place.
Leave him alone, and take your deluded teachings elsewhere. People more educated in these issues -like Thordaddy- would be more willing to discuss with you; but leave the cubs alone.
:angry:

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2006,23:52   

Quote (skeptic @ May 25 2006,00:25)
The easiet example is, again, the fossil record.

We are told to expect to see transitional forms, and they should exist my the multitude

The fact that they don't exist is not really a glowing endorsement an yet now the fossil record is used as evidence to some degree and the lack of transitional forms has been addressed, but how adequately?

You said
Quote
Evolution must be occurring.  Thats as near to a fact as possible.

Then
Quote
... transitional forms [...] don't exist...

Interesting, how will you reconcile both statements?  :)

Oh, and if genealogy was true, we would have identified every single ancestor, back to thousands of years ago (Adam and Eve ?  ;) ), I mean... there's a problem with the current theory of conception.  :p

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,00:24   

....correction jeannot

....there's a problem with the current theory of IMMACULATE conception  :p

and for that matter rising from the dead, walking on water, water into wine perhaps that is what skeptic is skeptical about.....nah.... couldn't possibly ...could he?

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,02:52   

Skeptic ... there is a solution to your dilemma.  

(1) Accept the fact that the current definition of science is not broad enough to explain Origins.  The definition needs to be expanded to something like the Henry Morris definition, which can include what used to be called "The Queen of Sciences: Theology"
(2) Start reading Henry Morris ... you know ... founder of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR)? ... the father of the modern creationist movement that recently died ... BTW, NCSE (which Wesley is a part of) had a nice writeup on him when he died in February HERE.  Read his "The Genesis Flood" then his "Scientific Creationism".  If you want calm, scholarly stuff, Morris is the guy.  I will warn you that Morris believes in Biblical inerrancy, but this is a separate topic.  You do not have to subscribe to Biblical inerrancy to benefit from Morris.  For your purposes, just realize that the Book of Genesis is a source of possible hypotheses.  You can always investigate the Biblical inerrancy question later if you like.
(3) Subscribe to the free "Acts and Facts" from ICR and the Creation Research Quarterly from the Creation Research Society at http://www.creationresearch.org/.  The CRS is a large international creationist organization of scientists doing various research projects on creationist topics.  You could also subscribe to Answers in Genesis' Technical Journal (AIG-TJ).  The other materials from AIG are more geared for the non-scientific public.  

Of course, the guys here at PT will tell you that these organizations are a bunch of loonies, but you don't have to listen and agree.  These guys also like to say that there are no creationists doing any field work or "real research."  This just shows their ignorance because there is a mountain of good creationist research happening, including things like Mt. Saint Helens research to the RATE project to the upcoming GENE project.

ID is not the solution although they may provide a valuable piece of the answer.

There is really nothing that makes any kind of comprehensive sense of all available data except for Biblical Creationism.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,02:59   

Afdave, Sceptic already said he thinks creationism is crap. We all agree with him on that one. It is the biggest load of BS.

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,03:01   

Oh, skeptic ... one more good resource for you ...

www.trueorigin.org

Lot's of good scholarly articles by real scientists who are dissenters from Darwinism.

There's a lot more dissenters than the folks here would have you believe.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Caledonian



Posts: 48
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,03:08   

Biblical Creationism is compatible with current evidence (and its absence) because "...and then a miracle happened..." is compatible with anything and everything.

There's no conceivable evidence which rules out miracles if part of the miracle is covering up the evidence of itself.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,03:09   

Dave, if you could spare a minute away from evangelism and talk about science, I'm very interested in hearing your response to the homework I did on your behalf in your Creator God thread before you go.  Thanks.

(You know, where you were shocked that chimps are more similar to humans than they are to gorillas, and seemed doubtful that there were genetic data to back this up.)

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,03:24   

Oh yes, and PLEASE have a look at the RATE project. It is a really good example on how not to do science. Well, at least they tried....
RATE debunked

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,03:36   

Incorygible ... you'll have your response later this morning.  

I've never ignored you now, have I?

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,03:42   

Quote
Oh yes, and PLEASE have a look at the RATE project. It is a really good example on how not to do science. Well, at least they tried....
RATE debunked


Is this a convincing 'debunking' for a change?  The ones you have given me before from Talk Origins were not convincing at all ...

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,03:43   

Quote
The ones you have given me before from Talk Origins were not convincing at all ...


Why does that not surprise me?

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,03:56   

Well, I still see nothing substantial enough to sink my teeth into. But Skeptic made one remark in passing that I have to check up on.

Skeptic says    
Quote
It seemed for awhile that punctuated equilibrium would gain some traction, but not so much.  Thats not a case of 'forced fit' exactly, but it did deviate from the accepted theory and faded.
I may be behind the times, I freely admit, but could someone point me to a reference that documents the demise of "punctuated equilibrium"?

I never thought the idea was all that revolutionary, but that it made a lot of sense, and fit both the fossil evidence and the modern understanding of genetics better than Charles Darwin could have been expected to, given what was known prior to 1859.

So what's wrong with it?

As an aside, I think Skeptic asks several very good questions - for an individual trying to understand evolution, as an individual. What rubs people the wrong way is the assumption that, because Skeptic hasn't thought these things all the way through, that no one else has either. The fact that Skeptic has attracted the sympathetic attention of a blatantly anti-intellectual young-earther should give him/her pause, and to say to him/herself "there, but for a modicum of humility and a decent respect for smart people who have spent lifetimes working on this stuff, go I".  But we'll see. If there really is reason to completely abandon the punctuated equilibrium idea, perhaps it is I, not Skeptic, who has paid insufficient attention to smart people working on these questions.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,03:59   

[quote=skeptic,May 24 2006,22:21][/quote]
Quote
Ok, here's the problem with that statement, minus the purposeless attacks,  the 150 years of evidence is all interpretation within the belief that the theory is true.


Are you aware that there was a period in this 150 years when natural selection was out of favor, and why, and why it came back into favor?  How would that be consistent with a record of interpreting everything as if the theory was true?

Quote
What I'm wondering is if we erase the assumption that the current theory is true and we start over do we eventually come to the same conclusions.


That is exactly what happened in the time period I am talking about.

Quote
I'm trying to get you guys to think objectively because 200 years from now we won't be working with this theory but its descendant and how will that theory differ?


Perhaps it is you who needs to learn a bit more, before suggesting that biologists are close-minded.  For one thing, neutral theory is as important as natural selection.  There may also be: horizontal gene transfer, species selection, and perhaps other mechanisms I can't recall.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,04:00   

Quote
I may be behind the times, I freely admit, but could someone point me to a reference that documents the demise of "punctuated equilibrium"?


IIRC, this is another area Wes is an expert in.  Check the section on Gould in the Talk Origins archive for a nice rundown.

EDIT:

ahh, yes, here ya go:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html


 
Quote
species selection


I seem to recall the species selection argument having been rejected decades ago.

I have seen occassional attempts to revive it wrt some specific circumstances, but never saw any real-world support from any experiments.

Have you run across some new arguments?  I have big holes in my net these days.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,04:24   

Quote
IIRC, this is another area Wes is an expert in.  Check the section on Gould in the Talk Origins archive for a nice rundown.
Thanks! That is a great resource.

I'm still waiting for Skeptic, or someone, to point me to a reference documenting the demise of PE. Perhaps what Skeptic is referring to is a lot of the misconceptions and hype surrounding PE, including the exaggerated distinction between PE and what Darwin laid out in "Origin of Species".

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,04:28   

By the way - with respect to species selection: how else would you characterize the Homo neanderthalensis vs. Homo sapiens encounter?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,04:41   

hmm, i think you are unintentionally grouping where you shouldn't.

perhaps another question would make it clearer:

How would you characterize the lion vs. hyena encounter?

occassionally, a large group of hyenas can wipe out a small pride of lions from an area as they compete for food and living space.  sometimes vice versa.

monkeys fight other monkey species that overlap in home range and/or resources.

maybe you prefer more human examples like tribal warfare?

simple competition bewteen individuals, who may or may not travel in groups.  

two similar species like the two hominids you mention would likely overlap in resource utilization at some point; especially if large scale climate changes caused one group to migrate into the other's normal area.

It's still considered selection at an individual by individual level.

If this isn't clear, we could go into more of what was meant by the old concept of species selection, before the more modern interpretation of individual selection was adopted if you like.

I believe that this also is covered somewhere in the TO archives.

do a search on "species selection" and see what pops up.

bottom line:

the reason individual selection is favored over species selection is both theoretical (check out the history of game theory), and observational (we've never observed any instance of selection acting at the species level).

moreover, the species selection idea can get confusing, as the idea of species and/or population level selection existed long before Gould, was rejected and then resurrected by Gould in a slightly different incarnation.

So far as I know, that too has been rejected.  I have yet to see any evidence presented since Gould to support it.

(hence my surprise at seeing it mentioned, and me wondering if I missed something)

as to this:

Quote
I'm still waiting for Skeptic, or someone, to point me to a reference documenting the demise of PE


IIRC, it was more a consesus after much debate that PE didn't actually fit either the theoretical models, northe current observational data, and ever more recent transitional discoveries in the fossil record were also not terribly supportive.

Wes would know better than I if there was a seminal reference during this time period that signified this.

bottom line though, it was simply a matter of parsimony; PE while a well thought out hypothesis, when rigorously examined against current and more recent evidence, simply wasn't needed.  I don't think it ever was "disproven" per sae, just kinda shoved to the back burner.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,05:04   

Quote (Faid @ May 25 2006,04:14)
BWE,
keep your creationist paws off sceptic.
The man is NOT a creo: He clearly stated that in the beginning. He's not of your ignorant kind (with its tell-tale incomprehensible writing): He has studied Biochemistry. He's a scientist, for crying out loud, just a deluded one.
The reason he uses creationist terms like "Darwinism" and creo arguments like the fossil record does not show he's on your side: It just shows how your indoctrination has reached far into the scientific community. And that's why we get more and more respectable scientists in relevant fields submit to the ID propaganda every day.
Sceptic still has a chance to escape their faith. He just has to learn a few truths. After all, that is what is here for; and he's come to the rite place.
Leave him alone, and take your deluded teachings elsewhere. People more educated in these issues -like Thordaddy- would be more willing to discuss with you; but leave the cubs alone.
:angry:

Faid,

It is not me nor is it skeptic who is delusionally propogating the myths of wholesale chaotic structure a la James Gleick and attributing them to the nonlinear aspects of the origins of species in the context of assuming change took infathomable amounts of time to achieve a non-static state that neo-darinians assign to current living structures, all the while ignoring the overwhelming evidence available to those who simply look elsewhere for the causes and consequences of the structures which we witness when we merely remove the evolutionary blinders so disiningenuously applied by institutions of higher learning in America and elsewhere in the world in the transparent hope that Darwinian dogma could become the prevailing worldview and that intelligent debate becomes stifled under the oppressive weight of fancy facts and figures invoked under the moniker of science and validated through palty "experimental" data and "verified" predictions.

So don't tell me. Try looking in the mirror.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,05:10   

Faid,

Look up "Loki points" on talkorigins.org. You owe BWE some.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,05:22   

"Is this a convincing 'debunking' for a change?  The ones you have given me before from Talk Origins were not convincing at all ... "


Too sciencey?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,05:32   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 25 2006,10:10)
Faid,

Look up "Loki points" on talkorigins.org. You owe BWE some.

(Hey, I know I owe him, that's what I'm trying to make up for!;))

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,05:32   

naw, too "truthy".

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,05:34   

Sir TJ - I don't take issue with anything you said. All I'm saying is that the definition of "species selection" as laid out in Wesley's piece:
Quote
PE asserts "species selection" as the way in which major adaptive trends proceed. Closely related species are often likely to overlap in niche space (5 above). Ecological processes may cause the displacement and possible extinction of certain species due to competition with other species. If adaptive change in large populations is largely inhibited (6 above), then each species represents a "hypothesis" that is "tested" in competition. This is one of the more controversial points in PE.
doesn't seem incompatible with the H. neanderthalensis - H. sapiens story. I.e. are we talking about something deeper than semantics here?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,05:42   

Faid is most certainly helping to prove my point by spouting off dogmatic plattitudes for darwinian appologists the world around who insist on covering the issue of science with a blanket of obfuscatory experiments, hypotheses, predictions and scientific journal entries in an attempt to bury dissenting opinion beneath a deluge of facts and figures that the darwinian appologist will advise those who have not eaten the pomegranate seeds of evolutionary dogma as the darwinian persephones did to peruse and thoroughly understand before they bring evidence to bear against the opressive regime of darwinian neo-culture.

* last sentence edited- Darn cut and past from word

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,05:43   

short answer:

yes.

the long answer will have to wait (I'm heading out the door), and likely would be the topic of a rather long post, actually.

Please forgive me if I don't get around to it today, but do remind me if I forget as it's probably worth a post on its own, as the issue seems to get confused (even by myself on occasion :) ).

In the meantime, I would also recommend seeing if the Berkeley evolution site has some history of the species vs. individual selection arguments to check out, and grab a copy of Futuyma if you can.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,06:20   

Quote (Russell @ May 25 2006,10:34)
Sir TJ - I don't take issue with anything you said. All I'm saying is that the definition of "species selection" as laid out in Wesley's piece:  
Quote
PE asserts "species selection" as the way in which major adaptive trends proceed. Closely related species are often likely to overlap in niche space (5 above). Ecological processes may cause the displacement and possible extinction of certain species due to competition with other species. If adaptive change in large populations is largely inhibited (6 above), then each species represents a "hypothesis" that is "tested" in competition. This is one of the more controversial points in PE.
doesn't seem incompatible with the H. neanderthalensis - H. sapiens story. I.e. are we talking about something deeper than semantics here?

I think we could consider species selection only if species fitness (which remains to be clearly defined) can produce better predictions than those based on inclusive fitness (allelic fitness). I don't think that is the case.
For instance, when the reproduction rate of a gene and the fitness of its bearer conflict, models and observations indicate that the former always outweigh the latter.
It's certainly the same regarding inclusive or individual fitness vs. species fitness. For instance, I study aphids, and lineages often become completely asexual. When there is no forst during winter, asexual forms are selected for their higher reproductive rate (they don't overwinter in eggs for three months, as sexually reproducing lineages do). So, you can very well imagine that, with global warming, these clonal lineages will outcompete the sexual ones. This would lead to the end of the initial species, since species can only be defined for interbreeding individuals. And of course, all these clonal lineages would be killed by the first winter frost.

Am I clear?

  
Ladlergo



Posts: 32
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,06:21   

Quote (skeptic @ May 25 2006,00:31)
It seemed for awhile that punctuated equilibrium would gain some traction, but not so much.  Thats not a case of 'forced fit' exactly, but it did deviate from the accepted theory and faded.

Oh snap!  My biology professors and textbooks were lying to me! They said it can be a way of describing many evolutionary changes!

You show your ignorance when you say that PE is opposed to and was trying to replace current ToE.

(Talking of PE, couldn't endosymbiotic theory and horizontal gene transfer be considered forms of PE?  Massive jumps in the quantity genetic material rather than the slower process of mutation can bring about amazingly rapid change.)

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,06:39   

Quote
I think we could consider species selection only if species fitness (which remains to be clearly defined) can produce better predictions than those based on inclusive fitness (allelic fitness). I don't think that is the case.
For instance, when the reproduction rate of a gene and the fitness of its bearer conflict, models and observations indicate that the former always outweigh the latter.
This way of looking at it seems to make a clearer distinction between "species selection" and "individual selection", and you can sensibly distinguish between them. In the definition I quoted, I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.

I have seen this discussion framed as "what is the unit of selection: species or individual? And I think the answer to that is individual. But if the issue boils down to "what is a better predictor: the reproduction rate of a gene or the fitness of its bearer?" I would have thought that it would be the latter (which I would visualize as the reproduction rate of a combination of genes). But that's what actual data is for.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,06:58   

That talkorigins article on the RAates stuff is the scientific equivalent of nuking someone.

If Skeptic is still reading this thread, heres a paper on Galapagos Finches:
Galapagos finches

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,07:15   

Quote (Russell @ May 25 2006,11:39)
This way of looking at it seems to make a clearer distinction between "species selection" and "individual selection", and you can sensibly distinguish between them. In the definition I quoted, I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.

I have seen this discussion framed as "what is the unit of selection: species or individual? And I think the answer to that is individual. But if the issue boils down to "what is a better predictor: the reproduction rate of a gene or the fitness of its bearer?" I would have thought that it would be the latter (which I would visualize as the reproduction rate of a combination of genes). But that's what actual data is for.

Well, the concept of species selection might work as well as indivual or gene selection most of the time. But what's important is to define a concept that always works
That's why this discussion arround the units of selection is completely on topic. If the real units of selection are closer to genes or individual, then there is no need of a 'species selection' concept. Lower level units are more suitable, because we can apply models based on 'harder sciences' (like biochemistry) to their evolution.
In fact, the concept of gene fitness would also be useless if we had the knowledge and computing power to apply equations from quantum mechanics to biology (I think that was Shrodinger's or Eisenberg's dream).

Inclusive fitness is a better predictor than individual fitness. Gene combinations are broken by sexual reproduction. And between two sexual generations, the fitness of any gene and the fitness of its bearer are indistinguishable (a perfect example is parthenogenesis in aphids during summer).
The reproductive rate of individuals can't account for observations like segregation distortion on chromosmes, male sterility and cytoplasmic incompatibilities caused by organelles, sterile castes in social insects (Darwin's big concern), etc.

  
Ladlergo



Posts: 32
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,10:01   

Quote (jeannot @ May 25 2006,13:15)
Gene combinations are borken by sexual

Sorry, I couldn't help but laugh at that part.  It's a bit of humor after smashing my head against a brick wall.

   
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,10:07   

jeannot says:
Quote
Inclusive fitness is a better predictor than individual fitness. Gene combinations are borken by sexual reproduction. And between two sexual generations, the fitness of any gene and the fitness of its bearer are indistinguishable (a perfect example is parthenogenesis in aphids during summer).
The reproductive rate of individuals can't account for observations like segregation distortion on chromosmes, male sterility and cytoplasmic incompatibilities caused by organelles, sterile castes in social insects (Darwin's big concern), etc.

Borken?

Saying that gene combinations are broken by sexual reproduction is typical darwinist eriudition and utterly glosses over the critical fact that gene combinations are recombined through fertilization and the new combined genes have the potential to be any number of homologous amalgamations of either deliterious or benificial or even neutral and non-functioning progeny capable of expressing themselves in a variety of ways.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,10:25   

Quote (Ladlergo @ May 25 2006,15:01)
Quote (jeannot @ May 25 2006,13:15)
Gene combinations are borken by sexual

Sorry, I couldn't help but laugh at that part.  It's a bit of humor after smashing my head against a brick wall.

LOL, sorry for the typo. But my English dictionary says nothing about 'borken', (apparently, it's a german word)

  
Ladlergo



Posts: 32
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,10:34   

Quote (jeannot @ May 25 2006,16:25)
 
Quote (Ladlergo @ May 25 2006,15:01)
 
Quote (jeannot @ May 25 2006,13:15)
Gene combinations are borken by sexual

Sorry, I couldn't help but laugh at that part.  It's a bit of humor after smashing my head against a brick wall.

LOL, sorry for the typo. But my English dictionary says nothing about 'borken', (apparently, it's a german word)


   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,10:44   

Edit - Ladlergo beat me to it.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,11:44   



Hi Dere, Boys and Girls! I, too, am a graduate of de Hollywood Upstairs School of Biochemistry!!!  Punctuashuns are BUNKtuashuns! De Fossil records have lots of skips but no LINKS!

Seriously, I'm almost sure I saw DaveScot use the same "parallel evolution" line that "skeptic" did. Not that I want to wade through DS' drivel

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,17:15   

Well you guys have had a big day, it took me quite a while just to catch up on the posts.

unfortunately, its impossible to address them all, but one in particular I did want to address.

AFDave

I appreciate the civil tone, but I don't want there to be any misunderstandings, I doubt that I could support any of your points, although to be honest I haven't read them all, but based upon your general premise I see no chance of that happening.

Science is man's attempt to understand and explain the world around him through observation and experiment.  That is dependant upon our senses and quantifiable measures.  Mixing the tangible with the intangible is apples and oranges; neither is relavant to the other.  Any attempt to invoke creationism or ID answers none of the measurable questions and adds a needless step.  As I've stated before, if I say God created all life forms what does that get me...nothing, I still want to how and that's the only thing I can attempt to study.  Thats why I think ID is a waste of time.

On a lighter note, I noticed a couple references to neutral theory.  This is something new, anyone out there have a quick summary or a useful link?

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,23:40   

Good old Wikipedia to the rescue!

Although I am not an expert on neutral theory, my concern when reading the article is that a synonymous mutation in a coding sequence ie one that does not change the amino acid, can have an effect on fitness. I'm not sure how this affects the theory though.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,23:48   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 25 2006,23:40)
Good old Wikipedia to the rescue!

Although I am not an expert on neutral theory, my concern when reading the article is that a synonymous mutation in a coding sequence ie one that does not change the amino acid, can have an effect on fitness. I'm not sure how this affects the theory though.

 
Quote
...a synonymous mutation in a coding sequence ie one that does not change the amino acid, can have an effect on fitness.


Using the argument from personal incredulity, I fail to see how this could be possible.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2006,23:57   

Because organisms tend to have a particular codon bias, this results in concentrations of tRNAs that reflect this. If certain proteins contain mutations from frequent codons to infrequent codons, then this effects the rate at which this protein can be translated. I don't know how widespread this is, but it seems to be something that's only recently been apprecited. I spoke to a guy a couple of weeks ago at a conference who had lots of data on it, basically showing genes that coded for long proteins with high expression levels had a much higher level of the more frequent codons, and that mutations to less frequent codons could affect their expression.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,00:10   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 25 2006,23:57)
Because organisms tend to have a particular codon bias, this results in concentrations of tRNAs that reflect this. If certain proteins contain mutations from frequent codons to infrequent codons, then this effects the rate at which this protein can be translated. I don't know how widespread this is, but it seems to be something that's only recently been apprecited. I spoke to a guy a couple of weeks ago at a conference who had lots of data on it, basically showing genes that coded for long proteins with high expression levels had a much higher level of the more frequent codons, and that mutations to less frequent codons could affect their expression.

So tRNA concentration low for the synonymous codon (because said organism genome has low content in that codon?) means lower output of the same protein, lack of which may result in lower fitness?

(Fog of incredulity begins to disperse)

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,01:45   

I read the Wiki article on Neutral Theory and cannot see anything wrong with it.

1) I don't see any reasoning that natural selection on a mutation does not happen. It might even strengthen the position of natural selection on mutation, since many times when selective preasures on a population arise there is already a "neutral" alelle present, and is now being selected for because of the advantage that it gives.

2) Sexual selection appears to be selecting on the more neutral allelles, until it has propagated through a population.

3) It is my understanding that a lot of mutations are neutral and not selected for.

What is the issue with this, and why do some people claim it is an alternative to Darwin's theory? As pointed out, the molecular clock technique is possible because of neutral mutations.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,02:22   

Quote
So tRNA concentration low for the synonymous codon (because said organism genome has low content in that codon?) means lower output of the same protein, lack of which may result in lower fitness?
Yes but it only applies to some proteins.

Quote
What is the issue with this, and why do some people claim it is an alternative to Darwin's theory? As pointed out, the molecular clock technique is possible because of neutral mutations.
I don't know, it seems to me sometimes that anything that doesn't fit under the banner of 'mutations in proteins create different alleles which will spread through the population if they are beneficial' is ussually called an alternative to Darwin's theory.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,02:57   

After doing some research last night, I really don't see anything substantially novel here.  Neutral theory isn't exclusive of natural selection, at least not the way I read it.  The question that still haunts me is this apparent confusion between traits and genes.  Traits must almost assuredly be made up of many genes and the expression of each may or may not be dependant upon the other.  I'll look into this more today but I've an idea that I will expand on later.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,03:06   

Sceptic wrote :
Quote
Neutral theory isn't exclusive of natural selection, at least not the way I read it.


I think that is one thing we all agree on.

Although Afdave would like to add "Goddiddit" to the theory.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,03:25   

Quote (skeptic @ May 26 2006,07:57)
After doing some research last night, I really don't see anything substantially novel here.  Neutral theory isn't exclusive of natural selection, at least not the way I read it.  The question that still haunts me is this apparent confusion between traits and genes.  Traits must almost assuredly be made up of many genes and the expression of each may or may not be dependant upon the other.  I'll look into this more today but I've an idea that I will expand on later.

Do you want to expand upon what you mean by "traits"?  You mean the physical differences that result from different genes being expressed, or what?  

And again, things are probably more and less complex than you make out.  I understand that a variety of research has been done about knocking out individual genes in, for example, mice, and that has had quite an effect upon the mouse in some way, whether body size, colour, etc.  So, for some genes it is as simple as one gene almost directly controlling things.  

Yet if you look up methylation (I think that is the word) where some parts of the genome are inactivated due to cellular changes brought on by environmentalchanges, eg as a response to a starvation diet.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,03:57   

Aside from codon bias, another way synonymous point mutations might affect fitness of a given gene is by influencing the secondary structure of the mRNA in question.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,05:08   

Seriouly septic u have a probem.
By all means look at the evidence(giggle)
but when u come out with "The question that still haunts me " when ALL the evidence is in allows me to invoke the "so u had creationist parents, how does that make u feel?" question.

Well let me tell u ALL parents LIE about something---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--GET OVER IT&&&&&&.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,06:11   

Quote (Renier @ May 26 2006,08:06)
Sceptic wrote :
Quote
Neutral theory isn't exclusive of natural selection, at least not the way I read it.


I think that is one thing we all agree on.

As far as I understand, drift (neutrality) and selection are mutually exclusive, by definition.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,06:49   

Quote
As far as I understand, drift (neutrality) and selection are mutually exclusive, by definition.
This looks like another job for ... Obvious Man:
Probably what they meant was that both can happen; it doesn't have to always be selection, it doesn't have to always be neutral drift. (obviously)

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,09:32   

Thanks for the clarification, I thought they were referring to a single trait or allele.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,10:38   

Quote
Neutral theory isn't exclusive of natural selection, at least not the way I read it.  The question that still haunts me is this apparent confusion between traits and genes.  Traits must almost assuredly be made up of many genes and the expression of each may or may not be dependant upon the other.


Skeptic,
You are coherently and patiently describing logic to a group of people whose ability to use deductive reasoning is hobbled by a belief system that is as incapable of expressing platonic ideals as a simian is of expressing aristotelian empiricism (which the scientists love to do) while they retort with situational anlalyses to explain various phenomena without using any reflective techniques or open ended lines of questioning like you might if you began with no assumed prerequisites for the development of various manefestations of life as they actually occur and your approach is falling on ears that have been numbed with the constant mantra of test and verify to the point where creative thought that could challenge collective assumptions gets subsumed in a whirl of publications, grant proposals, experimental data, and other forms of evidence that do not in any way allow for information that falls outside this system to enter into the system that creates neww scientists, perpetuating the culture of evidenciary assumptions and inability to use pure logic to arrive at even the most obvious truth in respect to scientific pursuits.

Hmpf. :angry:

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,10:47   

Agreed, BWE. I'm glad skeptic came by. For a minute there, I almost believed a few thousand experts.

That was a close one.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,11:24   

Actually, BWE, you're on to something there.  About three years ago in an issue of The Scientist, I came across a letter to the editor discussing evolution and a Berkley biology professor stated that he would never write a letter of recommendation for graduate school for an undergrad who did not fully accept the modern synthesis.  His reasoning, I'm paraphrasing, was that it indicated that the student was irrational.  This set off a mini-firestorn that lasted a number of issues but it certainly was upsetting and close-minded.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,11:26   

Quote
I doubt that I could support any of your points,...


uhh, perhaps you didn't notice, but you already had supported several of AFDave's arguments.  That's why he was being so civil.

as to neutral mutation's role in NS, I do believe Wes has been doing a bit of work looking at this in the literature recently; he posted a bit on his thinking a few months back if you care to scroll back a few pages or so in the forum.

otherwise, you could send a PM to him here, or an email to his PT box.

BTW, THAT would be a productive area to begin your researches into alternative mechanisms for evolution aside from standard RM+NS.

Don't expect to grasp the arguments or be able to peruse the literature on this subject in an afternoon, though.

However, if you actually spend some time to learn at least the general details of how the neutral mutation hypothesis developed, what the supporting arguments and evidence is, it would be quite worthwhile to come back and start a new thread to discuss it.  

I expect it will take you about 2 months of devoted literature research to get to where you could argue intelligently about it, based on your current level of knowledge, and assuming you want to actually ask questions of someone who knows what they're talking about along the way.

However, it's more probable based on your current behavior that you will be unable to ask the questions you need to, and so will never get to the point of being able to grasp it.

If I were you, I'd stick to chemistry.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,11:31   

Russel:

I think Jean did a pretty good job of addressing the species/individual selection issue.

Did you want to discuss it further?

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,11:49   

I think somebody posted the link to the Wes summary you are referring to.  Thats what I looked at yesterday and a few of the differing opinions on both sides but I really don't think it matters too much in each because it seems that the primary objection remains the same and this goes to guthrie's question.  I think the term trait and gene are used alittle too synonymously.  Certainly in simpler organisms single gene traits appear to have more magnitude as too fitness, and while there are single-gene traits in higher organisms those aren't typically the ones that are most noticeable and which differentiate species.

Looking at traits that could have profound effects and offer organisms advantages for survival, we're looking at physical changes, more efficient metabolisms, certainly increased neurological capacity.  These aren't single gene mutations and thats difficult to develop a scenario in which this occurs randomly.

Also, the knockout mice are typically single gene knockout that affect viability, reproduction, etc in a detremental in order to study impact or treatment options.  In my experience, I've participated in studies in which the knockouts were cancer-prone and the efficacy of anti-cancer agents were studied, but these mice didn't look or behave any different than ordinary mice, except for the fact that they're nude.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,11:53   

Oh yeah, and about the two of study needed, I just get the sense that you're trying to get rid of me.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,11:58   

I'm sure they weren't trying to get rid of you. You're so insightful. Your arguments are all new and profound.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,12:01   

actually after reading some of the other threads, they seem so...sane.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,12:04   

Quote
I just get the sense that you're trying to get rid of me.


you should put a link to the source where you get your irony meters from.

However, I did mean that based on your current exhibition, you really do need to go back and look at the basics again; peruse the primary literature, ask frequent questions, etc.  It does seem you have some rather large gaps in your knowledge you need to address before your arguments can get past the "crashed and burned" stage.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,12:14   

I appreciate the sincerity, but it might just be an arguement in semantics.  Its not that I'm unaware of what you call the basics, I'm just unconvinced and based upon those foundations everything beyond that appears shaky.  For instance, why have we not moved beyond the current system of classification to a genetically based system?

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,12:17   

Quote (skeptic @ May 26 2006,16:24)
Actually, BWE, you're on to something there.  About three years ago in an issue of The Scientist, I came across a letter to the editor discussing evolution and a Berkley biology professor stated that he would never write a letter of recommendation for graduate school for an undergrad who did not fully accept the modern synthesis.  His reasoning, I'm paraphrasing, was that it indicated that the student was irrational.  This set off a mini-firestorn that lasted a number of issues but it certainly was upsetting and close-minded.

Of course I'm on to something. It couldn't be more plain. Am I not clear enough?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,12:19   

Quote (skeptic @ May 26 2006,16:49)

Quote
Looking at traits that could have profound effects and offer organisms advantages for survival, we're looking at physical changes, more efficient metabolisms, certainly increased neurological capacity.  These aren't single gene mutations and thats difficult to develop a scenario in which this occurs randomly.

But why arent they single gene mutations?  Have you checked them all?  Also, mutations arent quite as random as people naievely think.  Some parts of the genome are conserved better than others, therefore some parts mutate much more than others.  Plus, looking for profound effects is not necessary.  All you need is a few percent improvement in something, and you can have noticeably incrased survival rates over several generations.  Then, go look up the mutation/s that mean that a large part of the worlds population can drink milk in adulthood.  Did that arise from one single change or several, and how well has it since spread through the population?  

Quote
Also, the knockout mice are typically single gene knockout that affect viability, reproduction, etc in a detremental in order to study impact or treatment options.  In my experience, I've participated in studies in which the knockouts were cancer-prone and the efficacy of anti-cancer agents were studied, but these mice didn't look or behave any different than ordinary mice, except for the fact that they're nude.

But then thats still single gene's having an effect.  Now, unless you have total knowledge of the rest of the genome and what all the genes do, you cannot say that such things do not happen elsewhere with different traits.  

Now, I only have a chemistry degree, so I dont have all the knowledge and links and stuff off the top of my head, but talkorigins archive is a good place to start.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,12:33   

Quote
Its not that I'm unaware of what you call the basics,...


well, you're either oblivious or lying through your teeth then.

When you said there are no transitional fossils, you essentially clearly stated you haven't examined the basics in enough detail to warrant further discussion.

clear?

crashed and burned.

go back to drawing board.

get a clue.

better?

..and I am through.

*snap*

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,12:36   

I think it is safe to say since we have sequenced the genome but not fully mapped it it would be impossible at this point to speculate accurately upon the relative rates of single gene impacts vs multiple gene impacts.

Also its hard to generalize what makes an organism more fit because these have to be measured at the individual level and at a specific moment in time to describe the environmental pressures.  Very complex indeed.

I just have to look at some known processes and try to find a common link to simpler driving forces.  Take the Krebs Cycle, there are about 10 different enzymes involved in this reaction, thats 10 different genes that need to be expressed via feedback mechanisms and that implicates further supportive enzymes.  I'd be interested to hear a step-wise evolutionary description of the development of something this complex.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,13:02   

Quote
Take the Krebs Cycle, there are about 10 different enzymes involved in this reaction, thats 10 different genes that need to be expressed via feedback mechanisms and that implicates further supportive enzymes.  I'd be interested to hear a step-wise evolutionary description of the development of something this complex.
Wouldn't we all.

It's conceivable that at some point in the future there will be enough background information to put together such a history. It's not going to happen in your lifetime, though. That doesn't necessarily mean it didn't evolve, or that there's something fundamentally inadequate about current evolutionary theory.

Are you just repeating the Behe theory: "I can't imagine how it evolved, therefore it didn't". Or are you proposing something more profound? It's not very clear.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,13:10   

No not at all, its not that I can't imagine it.  I can't measure it, duplicate it or predict it and that bothers me, but I believe it evolved in the truest sense of the word.  I want to know how and while I'm certainly not taking any trip to Stockholm in the near future somebody will be and I hope you're wrong. I hope it is in my lifetime.  I'd just hope that we didn't stifle progress for decades because of political, social and cultural pressures.

It should be ok for someone to stand up and say "I don't believe the current theory is right and I want to look at some other opotions", without being attacked ruthlessly.  Its reminiscent of Galileo.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,13:15   

Quote
About three years ago in an issue of The Scientist, I came across a letter to the editor discussing evolution and a Berkley biology professor stated that he would never write a letter of recommendation for graduate school for an undergrad who did not fully accept the modern synthesis.  His reasoning, I'm paraphrasing, was that it indicated that the student was irrational.  This set off a mini-firestorn that lasted a number of issues but it certainly was upsetting and close-minded.
This is one of those cases where "paraphrasing" really doesn't cut it. It makes a big difference whether the professor's criterion was - as you state and as I doubt - "fully accept[ing] the modern synthesis", or just the basics of evolution. If a student wanted my recommendation for anything that involved biology, being a creationist is definitely points off. Now, I could go ahead and give my honest opinion, I could dissemble and give a dishonest opinion in order to avoid offending the postmodernist premoderns, or I could tell the student my opinion first. Which is most closed-minded and upsetting?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,13:16   

Let's see if this is more helpful:

 
Quote (skeptic @ May 23 2006,22:48)
I'd like to pose some questions and encourage an honest discussion.

As if.
 
Quote
We are losing the PR battle.

Who cares? Science isn't a popularity contest.

 
Quote
Current evolutionary theory is fatally flawed because we lack the ability to perform experiments, collect data, and make predictions.

As if.
 
Quote
Can we develop an experiment that can be tested and repeated to reveal the mechanism driving evolution?

Been there, done that. Consult the literature and get back to us.
 
Quote
Random mutation is inadequate as a sole mechanism for diversity.

Random mutation is hardly the only mechanism for evolution. Consult the literature and get back to us.
Quote
Organisms are much too responsive to the environment for diversity to be driven by random interactions.

Diversity is not driven by random interactions. Consult the literature and get back to us.
 
Quote
The environment is much to dynamic to support the slow development required by random mutation.

Not all development is slow, and evolution is not driven by random mutation. Consult the literature and get back to us.
 
Quote
Proteins must be self-organizing, but is this process molecularly driven or at the sub-atomic level?

Is chemistry a result of electron orbitals, or color charge? Consult the literature, and get back to us.

 
Quote
We can see where that leads.

It won't lead anywhere, until you consult the literature. One AF Dave here is enough.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,13:30   

Oh man.

First lack of transitional fossils, now the Krebs cycle?

Sceptic, I'll be frank with you: You're not convincing.

For a person who supposedly has a backround in science and biochemistry, you sound suspiciously like some plain creationist who just read Darwin's Black Box and thinks he's well-equipped to deal with all evilutionists.

Anyway... Here's something about the supposed "irreducible complexity" of the Krebs cycle:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez....itation
And an analysis from TO:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/dec99.html

Now, as for the "lack" of a fossil record... sceptic, come on. It's impossible for us to take you seriously and accept your credentials when you say stuff like that. I mean, Please.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,13:31   

Quote (skeptic @ May 26 2006,18:10)
It should be ok for someone to stand up and say "I don't believe the current theory is right and I want to look at some other opotions", without being attacked ruthlessly.

That's OK.  However, what just about all antievolutionists are saying is "I don't believe the current theory is right and I don't want to ecplore any options ... I just want muy religion taught in public school science classes".

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,13:48   

Here's the problem, Skeptic. You come in here saying you're a biochemist, and then you say something like this:

Quote (skeptic @ May 23 2006,22:48)
Proteins must be self-organizing, but is this process molecularly driven or at the sub-atomic level?


Are we really supposed to believe a biochemist would ask a question like this? What possible influence could the strong or weak force have on protein assembly?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,14:17   

Quote (Alan Fox @ May 26 2006,05:10)
Quote (Chris Hyland @ May 25 2006,23:57)
Because organisms tend to have a particular codon bias, this results in concentrations of tRNAs that reflect this. If certain proteins contain mutations from frequent codons to infrequent codons, then this effects the rate at which this protein can be translated. I don't know how widespread this is, but it seems to be something that's only recently been apprecited. I spoke to a guy a couple of weeks ago at a conference who had lots of data on it, basically showing genes that coded for long proteins with high expression levels had a much higher level of the more frequent codons, and that mutations to less frequent codons could affect their expression.

So tRNA concentration low for the synonymous codon (because said organism genome has low content in that codon?) means lower output of the same protein, lack of which may result in lower fitness?

(Fog of incredulity begins to disperse)

... and THAT little exchange illustrates the difference between scientists and creationists beautifully. Rationality is a wonderful thing.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,14:32   

Exactly, now you're talking!

Look at protein assembly.  Currently, protein folding is completely unpredictable.  We have to syntheize the protein and then look back to see how it folded.  Either the interactions are too numerous to model accurately or we're missing something.  When you look at the chemistry behind this it can be overwhelming.  Biologists are typically big-picture people observing at the organism and population level.  I really wish that this had started with chemists and physists but that was impossible.  

In response to Russell, I'm only paraphrasing because I don't have the issue handy, although I will try to find it again because its amazing.  I don't know if you've ever read The Scientist, but there is no dissent in that publication and he was explicitly saying that if you did not accept the theory in total you were crazy and he wouldn't write the letter.  He was blunt and thats why it cause a problem.  No responses to him disputed evolution, they were just reacting to the hardline stance.  This was three years ago but I think the ID movement was in full swing, I could be wrong about that.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,14:41   

If you have a supercomputer and a year you can do it. The
Quote
1 Currently, protein folding is completely unpredictable.  2 We have to syntheize the protein and then look back to see how it folded.  3 Either the interactions are too numerous to model accurately or we're missing something.


I'm going to break my normal rule and try to explain something to a creationist.

1 No, it's predictible
2 No, this is just usually way easier
3 No, the interactions are just extremely numerous. You can do it with a supercomputer and about a year. Think of it as kind of like an n-body problem, where n is in the thousands.

   
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,14:43   

Quote (skeptic @ May 26 2006,19:32)
Look at protein assembly.  Currently, protein folding is completely unpredictable.

Though ROSETTA is doing rather well. And zipping & assembly looks promising. And secondary-structure-from-sequence prediction is up to ~80% accuracy...

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,15:25   

Steve the n-body problem can not progress beyond n=2 without major approximations and there are people working with supercomputers and multi-parellel processors and they can't do it.  With proteins function is pretty much all about form and we really don't know much about the form.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,15:38   

What is a troll?  I keep seeing this on various posts and I fear I'm witnessing a genrational gap at work.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,15:38   

Actually there exist closed-form solutions for certain arrangements of 3 bodies, but that's not the point. It's done numerically, and much work is done on these protein simulations. There is no 'subatomic' nonsense needed. The sun, moon, and earth comprise a 3-body system. You telling me they can't predict eclipses?

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,15:42   

We're talking about two different theories, quantum and relativity/gravity, and I think we're all aware of attempts to reconcile those two.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,15:51   

What does that have to do with anything?

   
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,16:40   

#### it Stevestory, haven't you been paying attention?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,17:03   

For the amusement of the board, may I draw your attention to the fact that Skeptic refuses to deal with any post which points out that he doesn't actually know what he's talking about?  The fact that he refuses to acknowledge that his claim about no transitional fossils is factually incorrect and impossible given his claim that he accepts evolution?

Skeptic, I'm sorry to say that you're not very convincing as an 'evolutionist'. Do try harder, thanks.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,17:12   

It was obvious from the get-go, the guy's a creationist.

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,17:13   

Quote
Do try harder, thanks.


there is only 'do' or 'do not'; there is no try...

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,17:16   

Quote (skeptic @ May 26 2006,20:25)
Steve the n-body problem can not progress beyond n=2 without major approximations and there are people working with supercomputers and multi-parellel processors and they can't do it.  

There's no exact solution to the n-body problem with n>2. That doesn't mean there aren't extremely accurate approximations.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,17:19   

Quote (sir_toejam @ May 26 2006,22:13)
Quote
Do try harder, thanks.


there is only 'do' or 'do not'; there is no try...

Like Dave?  That's about as complete a 'non-try' as I've seen in ages.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,17:23   

well, technically i was making a joke (pretend I'm small and green with large ears and gravely voice),

but yes, you are correct.  Dave tried less than skeptic.  definetly a 'do not' scenario.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,17:25   

There are exact solutions to certain specific cases with n=3.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,17:29   

Steve, you're kidding right.

To compare calculation of planatery orbits to molecular interactions is apples to oranges, but if YOU have figured it out then you need to call Stephan Hawking and tell he can die now because you've solved THE problem.

And as far as not addressing the transitional forms issue, its just been a matter of volume and time, I respond to what I can in the time available.

The whole point of the transitional form example was to point out the changing interpretation as to whether or not the fossil record was evidence for or against Darwin's theory.  He predicted it would ultimately support him but it isn't accepted in the way he predicted.  The gaps were a problem that is now explained away because some transitional forms have been found and their existence have closed the case as far as biologists are concerned.  This is not the same abundance of forms that was predicted and even given the difficulties in fossilization, etc I find it somewhat disappointing and thats where PE came in to try to address that issue and propose big jumps and long periods of stability which is more what we see.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,17:36   

apples can be compared to oranges. They are both sweet, both fruits, similar size, have seeds,....

So what are you saying here? Are you now saying that n-body problems are irrelevant for proteins? If so, Carnegie Mellon disagrees with you.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,17:40   

[chuckle]

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,18:03   

^[chucklehead]^

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,18:10   

Quote (skeptic @ May 26 2006,22:29)
Steve, you're kidding right.

To compare calculation of planatery orbits to molecular interactions is apples to oranges, but if YOU have figured it out then you need to call Stephan Hawking and tell he can die now because you've solved THE problem.

And as far as not addressing the transitional forms issue, its just been a matter of volume and time, I respond to what I can in the time available.

The whole point of the transitional form example was to point out the changing interpretation as to whether or not the fossil record was evidence for or against Darwin's theory.  He predicted it would ultimately support him but it isn't accepted in the way he predicted.  The gaps were a problem that is now explained away because some transitional forms have been found and their existence have closed the case as far as biologists are concerned.  This is not the same abundance of forms that was predicted and even given the difficulties in fossilization, etc I find it somewhat disappointing and thats where PE came in to try to address that issue and propose big jumps and long periods of stability which is more what we see.

No, the point of the comment regarding transitional forms is that you were either completely mistaken (in which case your knowledge of evolution may be considered 'zero';) or you were lying.

Which?

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,18:11   

StephanWells

Thanks for the Rosetta post, I wasn't aware of that and that is the best by far that I've seen yet.

Steve
I think you're stuck in a rut, comparing solutions to planetary orbits, you're not even working with the same theory much less the same equations, you might want to go back and look at what you said (I haven't quite figured out this QUOTE thing yet) and I think you'll see the distinction.

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,18:14   

Indeed, Skeptic, it has been pointed out that that most everything in your OP is incorrect.  You have failed to respond to this.  You continue to make statements which indicate one of two things:

Your understanding of the Modern Synthesis is almost nonexistent,

Or

You are a creationist in disguise (and not a terribly good disguise, since most of your material appears to be canned creationist twaddle).

Which?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,18:18   

You misunderstand the point. Planetary movements, which you so brilliantly understand to be different than protein folding, are n-body problems calculated numerically, with extremely precise answers. This refutes your statement that:
Quote
Steve the n-body problem can not progress beyond n=2 without major approximations and there are people working with supercomputers and multi-parellel processors and they can't do it.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,18:24   

Rilke

I went back and looked at what I said to make sure I remembered it clearly

I did say "they don't exist" but that was in reference to the previous statement alluding to the expectation of finding them in multitude.  There are specific examples, in fact I was reading about a potential whale precurser that lived in fresh water and had nostrils half-way between current land mammels and whales. I don't deny that.  The whole conversation at that time was talking about the changing expectations over time of the implications of the fossil record.  Sorry I was not clear, I'm trying to keep up and avoid writing a dissertation but I just don't type that fast.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,18:33   

^[CHUCKLEHEAD]^

and a liar:

Quote
please tell me you don't look at the fossil record and see transition

you were doing so good!!


remember now?

so, is it pure psychological denial in your mind, or is it just plain old lying?

which is it, chucklehead?

go back to school, doofus.  come back when you know something interesting.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,18:36   

Ok Steve I'll try this one more time, but we're getting way off target with this one.

An n-body problem is not a generic one with a common solution.  In the case of molecules we use the Schrodinger equation various approximations depending on the molecule or the type of interaction or just how much computer power you have because some approximations are very rigorous.  You do not use the Schrodinger equation to solve planetary orbits, and as you know you do not even use quantum theory to define the relationships.  So the fact that we have very precise solutions for planetary orbits means absolutely nothing in a conversation about molecular biology.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,18:40   

you remind of john lovitz:

"Yeah, that's the ticket!"

amazing that anybody here even bothers to give you the time of day at this point.

oh, wait.  there's a frickin' 40+ page thread of folks saying:

gays suck.

no they don't.

yes they do.

...



nevermind.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,18:42   

that's totally irrelevant. How does the fact that the Hamiltonians are not the same (duh) support your point? How does that have anything to do with saying 'we're missing something' or that subatomic nonsense you mentioned?

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,18:53   

Quote (stevestory @ May 26 2006,19:41)

Quote
Currently, protein folding is completely unpredictable.  2 We have to syntheize the protein and then look back to see how it folded.  3 Either the interactions are too numerous to model accurately or we're missing something.

I'm going to break my normal rule and try to explain something to a creationist.

1 No, it's predictible
2 No, this is just usually way easier
3 No, the interactions are just extremely numerous. You can do it with a supercomputer and about a year. Think of it as kind of like an n-body problem, where n is in the thousands.


I think this is where we started and I reiterate, folding is not predictable, a supercomputer and a year can not solve the problem and yes it is way easier to synthesize the protein and watch how it folds.

So we're still in a position where protein form and thus function are largely a mystery, but I will amend that after reading the provided Rosetta link that it seems that we might actually be making some progress, or at least David Baker's group is.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,18:58   

Quote
So we're still in a position where protein form and thus function are largely a mystery,
No, we're not. Several proteins have been completely solved by computer. It's not a mystery, it's just extremely hard to calculate. But I've wasted enough time on you. In your 56 posts I have not seen a single one with any value.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,19:03   

Really, so enlighten us, why do proteins fold into specific forms that are directly related to their function and how does that fit into evolutionary theory were mutation is occuring at the gene level?  I think in this area you just don't know what you're talking about and now you're frustrated.

Steve I can garantee you right now that if you sequence a protein and correctly predict its folding, not only are you going to Stockholm, but if you're smart you're going to make about a billion dollars.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,19:09   

Quote
 
Really, so enlighten us, why do proteins fold into specific forms that are directly related to their function and how does that fit into evolutionary theory were mutation is occuring at the gene level?

What in the world are you talking about? Never mind. I don't care. I'm done with your creationist nonsense.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,19:11   

At this point I think I'd be impressed if you could tell me anything about the relationship between proteins and evolution.  Thats not asking alot.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,19:13   

He's a creationist thinking he's very clever by going 'undercover'.

Aside from the 'no transitional fossils' nonsense, I'm surprised no one called him on this:

Quote
Current evolutionary theory is fatally flawed because we lack the ability to perform experiments, collect data, and make predictions.


...which smells an awful lot like standard AIG boilerplate.

Can 'how come we still have apes?' be far off?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,19:16   

I think I'm starting to see a defense mechanism at work.  Maybe its what you guys are used to but when all else fails to throw out some creationist insult is really not relevant.  Its so offbase and just a waste of time, you should try something else.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,19:18   

Quote (skeptic @ May 27 2006,00:16)
I think I'm starting to see a defense mechanism at work.  Maybe its what you guys are used to but when all else fails to throw out some creationist insult is really not relevant.  Its so offbase and just a waste of time, you should try something else.

No, you're throwing out a lot of ignorant creationist gibberish that we've all heard a million times before. You're not being clever.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,19:20   

creationist meaning I'm not convinced that evolutionary theory is correct?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,19:20   

Arden, if you go through his original post, that's the instant you see that he's a creationist.


Quote
I'd like to pose some questions and encourage an honest discussion.

suspicious, but maybe he's naive...
Quote

To state my position, ID is a waste of time and continued debate only wastes time and effort.

nothing yet...
Quote

Efforts to debuke ID at all costs only make us look dogmatic and something akin to religious fanatics.

Hmmm.....also suspicious....debuke isn't a word...that's looks a little creationisty....
Quote

Any theory should encourage open and honest critiques and should treat those challenges with eagerness and not hostility.
Hmmm....preliminary warning buzzers starting to fire, might just be a false alarm....
Quote

We are losing the PR battle.

Wait for it...wait for it....
Quote

Given those assumptions (mine), here's my thoughts:

Current evolutionary theory is fatally flawed because we lack the ability to perform experiments, collect data, and make predictions.
BEEP! BEEP! BEEP! INTRUDER ALERT...A CREATIONIST HAS BEEN CONFIRMED...I REPEAT....

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,19:22   

Quote (skeptic @ May 27 2006,00:20)
creationist meaning I'm not convinced that evolutionary theory is correct?

No, creationist meaning that you believe idiocy like this:

Quote
Current evolutionary theory is fatally flawed because we lack the ability to perform experiments, collect data, and make predictions.


--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,19:24   

wow I never noticed that I misspelled debunk...or maybe its debunck.  I must have surely blown my cover :D

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,19:25   

the man(?) who claims to be a biochemist can't answer this:

 
Quote
why do proteins fold into specific forms


nuff said.

Quote
creationisty


i like it! sounds like the opposite to "truthy"

but...

who cares if it's a creationist or not?  It's obviously a complete chucklehead, no matter how you slice it.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,19:28   

No, don't help him, thats a question for steve.

Arden, I just happen to be concrete, I want to study it, measure it, duplicate it and then predict it...its called the scientific method...sounds familiar right?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,19:29   

Quote (skeptic @ May 27 2006,00:24)
wow I never noticed that I misspelled debunk...or maybe its debunck.  I must have surely blown my cover :D

No, just revealed a low level of literacy.I assume you were confusing 'debunk', 'refute' and 'rebuke'.

Reviewing this thread, I see that Skeptic's dumb statements were all addressed in the first 1 or 2 pages, and he's just repeating the same stuff now. Guess he didn't prepare himself all that extensively for his 'undercover' work here.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,19:31   

Quote
and he's just repeating the same stuff now


yeah, but the real question is, will we manage to push it to 40 pages?

*sigh*

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,19:33   

I think he was misspelling rebuke. But it's not the best mishmash creationist word I've heard. One guy talked about how something was "frutile". A mishmash of futile and fruitless. (BTW, emphasis on the first syllable, and long 'i' sound.)

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2006,19:36   

Quote (stevestory @ May 27 2006,00:20)
Arden, if you go through his original post, that's the instant you see that he's a creationist.


 
Quote
I'd like to pose some questions and encourage an honest discussion.

suspicious, but maybe he's naive...
 
Quote

To state my position, ID is a waste of time and continued debate only wastes time and effort.

nothing yet...
 
Quote

Efforts to debuke ID at all costs only make us look dogmatic and something akin to religious fanatics.

Hmmm.....also suspicious....debuke isn't a word...that's looks a little creationisty....
 
Quote

Any theory should encourage open and honest critiques and should treat those challenges with eagerness and not hostility.
Hmmm....preliminary warning buzzers starting to fire, might just be a false alarm....
 
Quote

We are losing the PR battle.

Wait for it...wait for it....
Quote

Given those assumptions (mine), here's my thoughts:

Current evolutionary theory is fatally flawed because we lack the ability to perform experiments, collect data, and make predictions.
BEEP! BEEP! BEEP! INTRUDER ALERT...A CREATIONIST HAS BEEN CONFIRMED...I REPEAT....

This one also set off some big ole alarm bells for me:

Quote

Plus Mayr is much too much of an apologist for me.


Ohhhhhhkaaaaaayyyyyyyy.......

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005