Evolution is Wrong?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

Wow, that was such a great contribution to this topic.[/quote]

It’s hard to top your idiocy, but I tried.

[quote]Please tell us where you studied, the degrees you have, and what protocols you have been involved in?

Oh, that’s right, you’re just a high school kid who denigrates concepts and ideas he doesn’t understand. Come back later when you are older and understand statistics.[/quote]

You’re the one equating evolution to grains of sand turning into trees and I’m the one who has to prove credentials? You mangle evolution and statistics to fit your “style”, and then ask me (over the internet no less) for empirical proof? That’s laughable. Seriously, you questioning my credentials only further establishes your stupidity (either voluntary or involuntary) on the subject. As if my being uneducated or young would validate your “evolution says sand should turn into trees” argument.

Let me ask this, though, if I said posting my age and education is “not my style” would that be a legitimate argument against your assertion that I’m a teenager?

82

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
However, the idea that these genetic changes can exceed the current genetic framework into an entirely different species is not currently measurable and is only theory. [/quote]

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

Pretend point #5 is not there.

83

[quote]DemiAjax wrote:

From what I can tell, your main objection to the theory of evolution is based around the premise that “speciation” cannot occur. This is a confusing objection to me; what is your definition of a species? From where do you believe new species arise?[/quote]

You misunderstand, Lorisco isn’t on the verge of believing waiting for that last shred of evidence to convince him. That’s my issue with his “evolution says sand should turn into trees” argument. If he had stuck to the “we haven’t observed eukaryotic or mammalian speciation.” argument he might have half a leg to stand on. But clear as day, in his first post, he says he doesn’t believe in evolution because that’s not his style and he proceed to distort evolution (and statistics, physics, and chemistry) to fit his style.

84

[quote]pookie wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
However, the idea that these genetic changes can exceed the current genetic framework into an entirely different species is not currently measurable and is only theory.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

Pretend point #5 is not there.
[/quote]

Brilliant!

85

Ok, I see that we are going to go about beating this dead horse again. So, lets get some basic definitions into the discussion at any rate.

What is “evolution”? There are different ways of defining it but here are a few to keep in mind: 1) ANY process of change over time 2)a change in the distribution of relative genes(which code for heritable traits) within a population across generations (from:
http://www.csubak.edu/~emiranda3/lect15%20&%2016%20evol%20%20AVSci316%20Spr%2005%20abr%20std.pdf
which seems to have some good basic info for those who are interested)

Basically a condensed version is this: variation exists, it is heritable, more organisms are born than can be supported by a finite environment, those who are born with genetic variation that promote survival in a particular environment survive to reproduce at a greater rate than those who do not. That’s it.

In my experience the problem that people have with evolution is that they start with a preexisting belief and jump to a conclusion rather than looking each building block of understanding that science has supplied for us. By looking at each irrefutable fact and understanding it before moving on, one comes to an entirely different conclusion.

86

[quote]Grimnuruk wrote:
Ok, I see that we are going to go about beating this dead horse again. So, lets get some basic definitions into the discussion at any rate.

What is “evolution”? There are different ways of defining it but here are a few to keep in mind: 1) ANY process of change over time 2)a change in the distribution of relative genes(which code for heritable traits) within a population across generations (from:
http://www.csubak.edu/~emiranda3/lect15%20&%2016%20evol%20%20AVSci316%20Spr%2005%20abr%20std.pdf
which seems to have some good basic info for those who are interested)

Basically a condensed version is this: variation exists, it is heritable, more organisms are born than can be supported by a finite environment, those who are born with genetic variation that promote survival in a particular environment survive to reproduce at a greater rate than those who do not. That’s it.

In my experience the problem that people have with evolution is that they start with a preexisting belief and jump to a conclusion rather than looking at each building block of understanding that science has supplied for us. By looking at each irrefutable fact and understanding it before moving on, one comes to an entirely different conclusion.[/quote]

87

[quote]DemiAjax wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
lucasa wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

If you go to the beach or the desert with exponentially increased about of sand, are the odds of a gain of sand turning into a piece wood greater? Using the evolutionary model we would say yes, but using what science has been able to verify in a controlled setting, we would say no.

“What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

Seriously, holy shit. I’m all for an open mind and alternate theories but your argument against evolution is that you’re able to create a whole army of straw men out of nothing but a paragraph? Hell, why don’t you just say evolution can’t be right because pixie dust doesn’t really make people fly.

Wow, that was such a great contribution to this topic. Please tell us where you studied, the degrees you have, and what protocols you have been involved in?

Oh, that’s right, you’re just a high school kid who denigrates concepts and ideas he doesn’t understand.

Come back later when you are older and understand statistics.

Lorisco,
From what I can tell, your main objection to the theory of evolution is based around the premise that “speciation” cannot occur. This is a confusing objection to me; what is your definition of a species? From where do you believe new species arise?[/quote]

I guess it is in the definition of species. I agree with adaptation causing genetic changes, but aside from the obvious land to aquatic or the other way round, I can’t see an environment changing to the extent that requires such drastic genetic changes that would cause a species to develop into another totally different species.

And the occurrence of these environmental changes would not only need to be drastic but often. Remember there are thousands of intermediary species between apes and man. So that would require a thousand different drastic reasons to force genetic adaptation.

Some feel these changes were not adaptation, but were random genetic variations. So going with that premise it is even less probable. That would mean that a thousand different genetic variations, that just happened to work best in the current environment, would need to occur for no particular reason at all.

I don’t know why it is so difficult for people to see how the mathematical odds of this even occurring once are enormous. But the odds of this occurring over and over again, in thousands of species, thousands of times, with the environment that would support these changes, is astronomical. It is possible, but highly improbable.

88

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
I don’t know why it is so difficult for people to see how the mathematical odds of this even occurring once are enormous.[/quote]

You’re calculating the odds incorrectly. You’re taking the finished product (a specie, in this case) and calculating the odds of getting exactly that specie over time.

Each little change that occurs is one out of thousands or millions that could’ve have occurred. In fact, many of those probably occurred too, but weren’t “naturally selected” for propagation.

As an example, if you take a deck of cards, there are about 1x10^68 ways of ordering the cards in it.

If you take a deck, shuffle it thoroughly, and then place the cards on a table one after the other, you’ll end up with one of those combinations.

Would you then exclaim “The chance of getting that particular arrangement is 1 : 1x10^68!!! It’s impossible that it’s occurred entirely by chance?” Of course not. The a priori odds of getting that particular sequence is astronomical, and trying to predict it an exercise in futility. But whenever you shuffle a deck and lay out the cards, you end up with a 1 out of 1x10^68 result.

In the same way, taking a specie and calculating the a priori odds of getting all those particular mutations at the right time and in the right order yields unimaginably remote odds. But that’s not how the process works.

Evolution is not directed process, it does not “seek a goal.” It simply takes the various changes (that are constantly occurring - mutations are not a rare event) and selects (keeps) the ones that are most advantageous to the specie in their environment at that particular time. Over billions of years and untold trillions of selected mutations, you end up with the wide variety of life observed on Earth.

89

[quote]rsg wrote:
One thing I know for sure is ghosts exist - I have experienced them first hand - and that leads me to believe there is something beyond life on earth.[/quote]

Not meant to be disparaging, just an observation.

What you have observed as a “ghost” may have been some unexplained natural phenomenon.

Let’s not forget that every act of nature fulfilled this criteria until science determined a sustainable explanation for it.

It would be very naive (yet typical) to assume that there is “nothing left to discover” in such areas as “ghosts” and the paranormal.

90

[quote]pookie wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
I don’t know why it is so difficult for people to see how the mathematical odds of this even occurring once are enormous.

You’re calculating the odds incorrectly. You’re taking the finished product (a specie, in this case) and calculating the odds of getting exactly that specie over time.

Each little change that occurs is one out of thousands or millions that could’ve have occurred. In fact, many of those probably occurred too, but weren’t “naturally selected” for propagation.

As an example, if you take a deck of cards, there are about 1x10^68 ways of ordering the cards in it.

If you take a deck, shuffle it thoroughly, and then place the cards on a table one after the other, you’ll end up with one of those combinations.

Would you then exclaim “The chance of getting that particular arrangement is 1 : 1x10^68!!! It’s impossible that it’s occurred entirely by chance?” Of course not. The a priori odds of getting that particular sequence is astronomical, and trying to predict it an exercise in futility. But whenever you shuffle a deck and lay out the cards, you end up with a 1 out of 1x10^68 result.

[/quote]

That’s a good example. So let me ask you a question, how did the cards get set up so that only those combinations could occur? You are calculating what the chances are for all the cards to come up in all the available sequences. These sequences were setup by whoever created the card deck. So there are not limitless possibilities because the system (card deck) is not set up that way.

Now, think about human evolution. The system that allows a process to produce genetic variations is the “deck of cards”. So when you first look at evolution you have to first calculate the odds of the deck of cards coming into existence from nothing. Then, you can calculate the chances of each small functional variation and the chances of a concurrent environment suited to that variation. That is the actual odds.

I know evolutionist don’t like to be bothered with the actual details of how a system that allows evolution could “evolve” itself, but that is the foundation of it all.

So here is what you really have to calculate to determine the odds:

  1. The odds of a organic system that allows/supports adaptation and genetic variance evolving from inorganic material (I won’t even include the odds of inorganic material evolving from nothing).

  2. The odds of a consistent and orderly environment to support organic life evolving

  3. The odds of organic life in this system evolving while these other two factors remain constant.

This is not calculating the end product, but it is still mathematically improbable.

91

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

This is not calculating the end product, but it is still mathematically improbable.[/quote]

And? We are still here.

I would love to here your hypothesis about how we were intelligently designed by a being infinitely greater and more powerful than us (or not) without increasing complexity and decreasing the probability even further.

Oh, and if you could provide even one iota of proof, that’d be nice too. Unless, you know, it’s not “your style” or whatever.

92

You sons of monkeys. I am a child of God.

93

I’ve been called a Son of a Bitch numerous times.

That’s proof enough for me that one species can evolve into another,completely different species,spectacularly quickly.

Chalk one up for Evolution…

94

“Everyone has heard of Ritalin that is given to ADHD teens to reduce their hyperactivity. But not everyone knows that Ritalin is actually a stimulant.”

Lorisco wrote this… and statements like this underlie fundamental misunderstandings about physiology. Ritalin and Adderall (every ADD med) act as stimulants in EVERYONE. They increase HR, BP, etc in EVERYONE. That is one of their effects.

Hyperactivity, on the other hand, is a result of a short attention span. This is likely due to (from what I’ve read) a reduced number of dopaminergic neurons/receptors in certain brain regions (nucleus accumbens I believe but not 100% sure). These drugs are also weak MAO inhibitors and, as such, incease dopamine concentrations. This results in a longer attention span and reduced hyperactivity.

95

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
I know evolutionist don’t like to be bothered with the actual details of how a system that allows evolution could “evolve” itself, but that is the foundation of it all.[/quote]

Scientists don’t like “to be bothered” with the rest of it when discussing evolution, simply because evolution theory doesn’t address those points. It describes how life changes and adapts once life is there.

[quote]So here is what you really have to calculate to determine the odds:

  1. The odds of a organic system that allows/supports adaptation and genetic variance evolving from inorganic material (I won’t even include the odds of inorganic material evolving from nothing). [/quote]

I’d like to know how you calculate those odds, since it seems to me that there is a lot of things we don’t know yet about abiogenesis. For all we know, life might be common in the universe. It might also be exceedingly rare, but there’s little way to tell which.

Isn’t “organic life” an oxymoron? As for the odds for the environment, again, it’s hard to come up with a number that can be justified scientifically. How do you figure the number of potentially life-supporting environments in existence in the universe?

What? Not much remains constant on Earth, not over millions or billions of years. The changing environments are what drives evolution to a large degree. This point is even more irrelevant than the 2 others.

That’s your belief, but there’s no actual way to really calculate those odds because there is simply too many unknowns.

For each unknown, you assume it’s “unlikely”, “improbably” or “near impossible” but in reality, no one really knows whether it’s likely or not simply because we’ve got a sample of one to work with.

What would you think if we sent a probe and found life on one of Jupiter’s or Saturn’s moons?

96

[quote]FunkMaster wrote:
“Everyone has heard of Ritalin that is given to ADHD teens to reduce their hyperactivity. But not everyone knows that Ritalin is actually a stimulant.”

Lorisco wrote this… and statements like this underlie fundamental misunderstandings about physiology. Ritalin and Adderall (every ADD med) act as stimulants in EVERYONE. They increase HR, BP, etc in EVERYONE. That is one of their effects.
[/quote]

Not that it is relevant to this topic, which would bring your motivations for bringing this up in question, but Ritalin (actually Methylphendate Hydrochloride) is a stimulant, as I stated. The issue is that even though it is a CNS stimulant similar to amphetamines it doesn’t typically cause anxiety and agitation in children like it does in adults. If it did it would be contraindicated for ADHD. That was my point, not that it wasn’t a stimulant.

Look it up in the PDR (Physician’s Desk reference) and then STHU!

You are a great example about someone knowing just enough to be dangerous. Attention Deficient Disorder (ADD) is not the same as Attention Deficient Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), they are two different diagnosis. Look it up in the DSM IV.

And that is all the time I’m going to spend educating you.

97

[quote]pookie wrote:
Scientists don’t like “to be bothered” with the rest of it when discussing evolution, simply because evolution theory doesn’t address those points. It describes how life changes and adapts once life is there.
[/quote]

I know that, but it seems shortsighted to not take into account the system that allows for their theory to be feasible.

I agree there are many unknowns. But then how can you believe it is probable, when it could go either way?

How do you explain it? How do you explain all these similar life-supporting environments that just randomly occurred?

What? If the environment has been so unstable, why hasn’t it become incompatible with life even once? For billions or years that is quite a feat in probability.

Right, and you assume likely, probable and very possible with the same lack of information. So why does that make you correct and my position incorrect?

I would think that it shows more order and “design” to the universe then people want to believe.

98

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
I know that, but it seems shortsighted to not take into account the system that allows for their theory to be feasible.[/quote]

Why? I don’t understand the constant need creationists have of discussing the entirety of Creation when it comes to evolution.

When you cook, do you look for a cookbook that goes on about how you should husband the animals, then slaughter and butcher them; how you should plow the field, seed it and harvest the plants? Or is a recipe that tells you to take some beef and corn and then to cook them acceptable to you?

Evolution is a theory that addresses how life changes over time. It does not answer where life came from or where the universe came from. Other branches of science cover those.

Following that logic, every branch of science would have to englobe cosmology, because nothing happens without a universe.

Can you imagine if every weather report started with “13.8 billions years ago, the Big Bang banged. Then…” before they got to the part where they tell you it’s going to snow tomorrow?

Lastly, if it’s the Big Bang you want to contest as a theory, or abiogenesis in general, do so in a thread about those. If you want to criticize evolution, don’t do so by pointing out that it doesn’t address the entirety of reality as we know it. It never claimed to. ET simply explains the mechanisms by which life changes over time. That’s it.

I don’t claim it’s probable or improbable.

Like I said, we don’t know. It’s at least possible, since we’re here.

I think that the question of whether life is common or rare in the universe is an interesting one. I wish we’d spend more energy trying to answer that one, rather than trying to “disprove” evolution.

What’s to explain? If life is possible when conditions X, Y and Z are present, and that conditions X, Y and Z occur in our universe, then life has a chance of appearing.

The real questions are: What are the minimal conditions for life? And are those conditions common in the universe?

The Earth is not one big single environment. While many places on it are inhospitable to life, many other are. Some forms of life are also incredibly resilient and can more easily survive extreme conditions than others. And, as evolution shows, life is quite adaptable. Most geological changes, at least the planet-wide ones, occur over long periods of time, giving life (some forms of it) more than enough time to adapt.

As for becoming incompatible with life, even once, I bet most dinosaurs would disagree with you that it’s never happened before.

In fact, short of the sun transitioning to it’s “red giant” state, it’s hard to imagine a single event that would render the entire Earth inhabitable to all forms of life simultaneously.

I don’t assume probable. I claim “we don’t know yet.” As for possible, well, we’re here, so it is at least possible. The odds might be good, or remote, but one thing they aren’t is impossible.

Now you’re arguing that the universe “shows order” when for the last 2 pages of this thread you’ve been going on about how low the odds are that we’re actually here. Which is it? Does the universe show order or chaos and randomness?

99

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
I would think that it shows more order and “design” to the universe then people want to believe. [/quote]

http://scienceblogs.com/omnibrain/2007/01/unintelligent_design.php

100

[quote]pookie wrote:

Lastly, if it’s the Big Bang you want to contest as a theory, or abiogenesis in general, do so in a thread about those. If you want to criticize evolution, don’t do so by pointing out that it doesn’t address the entirety of reality as we know it. It never claimed to. ET simply explains the mechanisms by which life changes over time. That’s it.[/quote]

This is what I’ve said since the beginning of the most recent uprising of ID vs. ET debates. Evolution has been adopted and used over the past 100 yrs. Theories about the creation of the Universe change about every decade or two and usually involve theoretical or made up entities anyway (e.g. Fred Hoyle’s “C-Fields”). And I have no problem with Theistic Studies being taught right next door to Theoretical Cosmology on university campuses.

And Pookie, I believe Lorisco to be a lost cause. He has made up “calculations” and “probabilities” in his head that justify his preconceived notions, and he’s really uncomfortable with those ideas being wrong. Considering two (quite possibly even three) planets in this solar system alone could quite easily have supported varying levels of life analogous to us, the “potential probability” actually seems quite high.

Moreover, given the innumerable iterations of essentially redundant outcomes wrt to life (10^68 ways to shuffle a deck of cards only if you happen to care about the actual color your cards are or what specific suit they are), the probability rapidly approaches unity. But you probably already know this.