[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
To reject evolution one has to reject most of geology, too. I wonder how IDers explain rock strata containing different fossils. They do have an explanation, do they? [/quote]
WTF aren’t you getting here? God did it. Duh.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
To reject evolution one has to reject most of geology, too. I wonder how IDers explain rock strata containing different fossils. They do have an explanation, do they?
WTF aren’t you getting here? God did it. Duh.[/quote]
LOL
I have a new theory of evolution: There is no natural selection, only the species the Dalek Empire doesn’t exterminate.
EXTERMINATE!
o/ o/ o/ o/
[quote]ninearms wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
ninearms wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Question: Why can’t we apply big bang logic to the birth of species? If the universe could come out of nothing, why could a butterfly not?
– Honest question alert end–
Because the evidence suggests otherwise.
Why would a designer give a whale hip bones? In case they decided to add legs later?
ball and socket joint very uncommon.
What? It’s not uncommon at all.
[/quote]
I know it was sarcasm
[quote]RebornTN wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
The other problem with your baby steps to change is that the steps would have to get a statistically significant higher chance of survival, meaning not baby steps.
That is a really good line right there.
LOL, I liked everything in his post except for that particular line.
Care to elaborate? I thought it made sense. From my current knowledge of evolution, the traits that are passed on through natural selection need to give the organism a higher chance of survival then organisms without those traits.
If this was akin to the photosynthesis example, then an organism would need to be more efficient at such a thing. This would be a small step, but it wouldn’t necessarily increase the rate of survival to a point where that gene pool would become dominant.
Though- I do see how if a very insignificant change, such as perhaps having a slightly higher lung capacity, could have an affect of allowing a higher chance of survival in extreme circumstances. If this make’s sense, I suppose the term baby steps would be relative.[/quote]
Because it is a fact that species can change significantly, driven by natural selection.
There are many different examples of this that have been directly observed, eg finches developing longer beaks in response to drought. So this aspect of evolutionary theory is not even up for debate.
The aspect that is up for debate is whether we evolved from prokaryotes and share a common ancestor with apes.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
In the end, I still have a problem with species divergence in the evolutionary theory. I don’t see an offspring having a different number of chromosomes and still being able to reproduce.
I mean you are talking about small steps, but at one point there would have to, for example, be an organism with 23 chromosomes that the next generation had say 24 (a change that would make an offspring unable to breed with it’s population, these are the kind of leaps the fossil record shows)
If it was some haphazard one of a kind mutation, the one and only 24 chromosome organism wouldn’t be able to breed.
There would have to be a co-mutation of a large portion of a generation of a species for this to make any since to me in terms of breed-ability and sustainability.
Unless for every significant change like that there would have to be an Adam and Eve type pair, but even that requires “random” mutation of multiple animals at the same time and place with the same mutation.
This is one place where ID makes more sense to me. The belief that these kind of changes occur with some sort of guidance. I’m not saying that it’s fact, but there are some reasons behind it.
The other problem with your baby steps to change is that the steps would have to get a statistically significant higher chance of survival, meaning not baby steps.
Here is a good breakdown of how chromosome numbers change
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/basics_how_can_chromosome_numb.php
I am interested to hear your opinion on the fused chromosome that humans possess and it’s relationship to two ape chromosomes.
I can’t really imagine how a proponent of ID could address that particular issue in a manner that isn’t ridiculous.
That is an interesting point that things don’t have to be advantageous to propagate and can even be disadvantageous. But again that is not the evolution my biology teacher taught me.[/quote]
All sorts of negative traits can spread throughout natural populations.
I’m not really sure what you mean when you say “that is not the evolution my biology teacher taught me”. Could you please elaborate on that statement? I could be wrong here, but I think you may have slightly misunderstood the article.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
ninearms wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
ninearms wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Question: Why can’t we apply big bang logic to the birth of species? If the universe could come out of nothing, why could a butterfly not?
– Honest question alert end–
Because the evidence suggests otherwise.
Why would a designer give a whale hip bones? In case they decided to add legs later?
ball and socket joint very uncommon.
What? It’s not uncommon at all.
I know it was sarcasm
[/quote]
Then I don’t get your point.
[quote]ninearms wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
ninearms wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
ninearms wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Question: Why can’t we apply big bang logic to the birth of species? If the universe could come out of nothing, why could a butterfly not?
– Honest question alert end–
Because the evidence suggests otherwise.
Why would a designer give a whale hip bones? In case they decided to add legs later?
ball and socket joint very uncommon.
What? It’s not uncommon at all.
I know it was sarcasm
Then I don’t get your point.
[/quote]
Well if you’re looking at it from a single designer stand point, then things that could be similar would be. And you would use the most efficient model available.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Well if you’re looking at it from a single designer stand point, then things that could be similar would be. And you would use the most efficient model available.
[/quote]
And that would include giving whales useless appendages? Including giving the Right Whale actual legs? What’s efficient about including superfluities?
Would a designer also:
- Put the delicate testicles on the outside, inside a soft fleshy sack? And then make it painful when they get whacked?
- Attach the optic nerve to the wrong side of the eye, creating a blind spot?
- Give snakes pelvises?
- Give manatees fingernails on their fins?
- Give the same useless hip bones that were given to whales to all the Sirenians?
That’s some pretty crappy design work.
[quote]valiance. wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
valiance. wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
valiance. wrote:
I don’t see why bacteria and plants don’t count. You’re artificially limiting the scope of the evidence. Lucky for you there are flies: http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/all-hail-the-apple-maggot/ (sure this one isnt fully done speciating but we’re watching it happen as we speak)
as for finished speciation events: Some More Observed Speciation Events
what is your definition of evolution? How can you believe in natural selection (which is a mechanism of evolution) and not believe in evolution?
Honestly looks to me like you’re burying your head in the sand. “No that evidence doesn’t count its from plants…” while at the same time promulgating misconceptions about evolutionary science.
Plasticity of the genome being one of the inherent characteristics of the species.
If you read the part of species being defined by ability to reporduce, explains the elimination of plants. anything that produce offspring is techincally the same species.
Flies, how you define a new species in flies,
what makes different different, what is your defining argument.
mine still holds true if you look at how I define species. can we produce offspring with apes. can cats breed with dogs, . but you are saying subspecies of flies can reproduce making more subspecies of flies.
plants the same.
the flies are BECOMING new species. they aren’t yet. But they’re getting there and we’re watching it happen. The breeding populations are separating and there will be a point where they cannot interbreed anymore. At that point they will be separate species.
Though the biological species concept is problematic for some plants it is by no means problematic for all of them. For example:
5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
Unable to breed i.e. new species, even by the BSC (which is not the only species concept).
See here for more: Observed Instances of Speciation
It’s easiest to demonstrate macroevolution on flies and bacteria and some plants because of the ease of controlling their breeding and their short generation times. If you want to see speciation in elephants you’d better plan to live a looong time.
In other words if you reject the evidence simply because it’s not from humans or whatever you favorite species is, you’re ignoring the evidence. (and we’ve even seen speciation in mice)
Also consider how recently we’ve come to accept the theory of evolution. We haven’t been looking for evidence all that long. Hell, we just got the first grips on how DNA worked a mere 50 years ago with Watson and Crick. The longer we look the more evidence for evolution we’ll find.
Now I’m just wondering how you’re going to explain away the speciation we’ve seen in mice…
[/quote]
I think part of the problem is I don’t completely disagree with evolution. My problem is with the origin of life an the earth.
I would say my view is more of a natural selction view. That small changes can lead to different versions yes. and it is easier in organsims with a more plastic genomic makeup.
but with actually performing genetic manipulations I think it takes a little of the mystique out of it for me. To me it would be like saying there is no God who gives and takes life because I am a doctor and I can save lives.
I worked in helping map the genomes of both anthrax and brucella, then running a protein secretolouge library and cross mapping the proteome to specify the protein pathways encoded in each region.
We then did tests in conjuction with MiZZ U to test manipulations of the pathway in living models. Using plasmid insertions from strain to strain of brucella changing species infecteousness.
And also using plasmid insertions of protein pathways from anthrax to brucella and brucella to anthrax for sporation and virulance factor respectively.
In the above research we were able to change the specie in which brucella infected changin it from one strain to another. We were able to generate brucella with the spore formation capabilities of anthrax and anthrax with virulence factor of brucella.
As you may know it takes approximately 1000 cells of anthrax to infect someone but it is usually lethal, it takes 1 cell of brucella to cause an infection but is usually not lethal.
That is why those were chosen the two extremes and most likely to be manipulated for germ warfare at the time.
And I am not a bible beater, I grew up in a religious family but it had the oppposite affect on me for a long time. I was opposed to anything God or religionup until my masters work in college. But the more I learned that there is no chaos behind what is here, it is not some random act. There is definitely some intellegent design behind it.
But that is my opinion and my belief.
My problem comes when certain parts of the theory that have absolutely no substantiation are taught in school as dogmatically as any religious principle.
[quote]ninearms wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Well if you’re looking at it from a single designer stand point, then things that could be similar would be. And you would use the most efficient model available.
And that would include giving whales useless appendages? Including giving the Right Whale actual legs? What’s efficient about including superfluities?
Would a designer also:
- Put the delicate testicles on the outside, inside a soft fleshy sack? And then make it painful when they get whacked?
- Attach the optic nerve to the wrong side of the eye, creating a blind spot?
- Give snakes pelvises?
- Give manatees fingernails on their fins?
- Give the same useless hip bones that were given to whales to all the Sirenians?
That’s some pretty crappy design work.[/quote]
No one said it was perfect, if you would the bible God was trying to make a suitable friend that is where the animals came from. None of them being a sutiable companion.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
ninearms wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Well if you’re looking at it from a single designer stand point, then things that could be similar would be. And you would use the most efficient model available.
And that would include giving whales useless appendages? Including giving the Right Whale actual legs? What’s efficient about including superfluities?
Would a designer also:
- Put the delicate testicles on the outside, inside a soft fleshy sack? And then make it painful when they get whacked?
- Attach the optic nerve to the wrong side of the eye, creating a blind spot?
- Give snakes pelvises?
- Give manatees fingernails on their fins?
- Give the same useless hip bones that were given to whales to all the Sirenians?
That’s some pretty crappy design work.
No one said it was perfect, if you would the bible God was trying to make a suitable friend that is where the animals came from. None of them being a sutiable companion.
[/quote]
Are you saying that a being powerful enough and smart enough to design the universe would still make those sort of basic errors? That’s not very intelligent design. It’s pretty damn stupid design.
[quote]ninearms wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
ninearms wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Well if you’re looking at it from a single designer stand point, then things that could be similar would be. And you would use the most efficient model available.
And that would include giving whales useless appendages? Including giving the Right Whale actual legs? What’s efficient about including superfluities?
Would a designer also:
- Put the delicate testicles on the outside, inside a soft fleshy sack? And then make it painful when they get whacked?
- Attach the optic nerve to the wrong side of the eye, creating a blind spot?
- Give snakes pelvises?
- Give manatees fingernails on their fins?
- Give the same useless hip bones that were given to whales to all the Sirenians?
That’s some pretty crappy design work.
No one said it was perfect, if you would the bible God was trying to make a suitable friend that is where the animals came from. None of them being a sutiable companion.
Are you saying that a being powerful enough and smart enough to design the universe would still make those sort of basic errors? That’s not very intelligent design. It’s pretty damn stupid design.[/quote]
And who are you to judge that those designs are not good. For the most part everything mimics physiological design.
must be pretty damn good then.
People sayt he things you have all the time and then come to find the the anotomical or physiological characteristic they were criticizing turns out to be necessary for the proper functioning of the organism in it’s envirnment even if it isn’t overtly transparent.
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
In the end, I still have a problem with species divergence in the evolutionary theory. I don’t see an offspring having a different number of chromosomes and still being able to reproduce.
I mean you are talking about small steps, but at one point there would have to, for example, be an organism with 23 chromosomes that the next generation had say 24 (a change that would make an offspring unable to breed with it’s population, these are the kind of leaps the fossil record shows)
If it was some haphazard one of a kind mutation, the one and only 24 chromosome organism wouldn’t be able to breed.
There would have to be a co-mutation of a large portion of a generation of a species for this to make any since to me in terms of breed-ability and sustainability.
Unless for every significant change like that there would have to be an Adam and Eve type pair, but even that requires “random” mutation of multiple animals at the same time and place with the same mutation.
This is one place where ID makes more sense to me. The belief that these kind of changes occur with some sort of guidance. I’m not saying that it’s fact, but there are some reasons behind it.
The other problem with your baby steps to change is that the steps would have to get a statistically significant higher chance of survival, meaning not baby steps.
Here is a good breakdown of how chromosome numbers change
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/basics_how_can_chromosome_numb.php
I am interested to hear your opinion on the fused chromosome that humans possess and it’s relationship to two ape chromosomes.
I can’t really imagine how a proponent of ID could address that particular issue in a manner that isn’t ridiculous.
That is an interesting point that things don’t have to be advantageous to propagate and can even be disadvantageous. But again that is not the evolution my biology teacher taught me.
All sorts of negative traits can spread throughout natural populations.
I’m not really sure what you mean when you say “that is not the evolution my biology teacher taught me”. Could you please elaborate on that statement? I could be wrong here, but I think you may have slightly misunderstood the article.
[/quote]
What I was saying is that isn’t the version of evolution I’ve read in middle and high school text books. Mutation happens, if its good, they survive better and pass on their traits.
With the passage of negative traits, do you think creatures often de-evolve? Are humans de-evolving because we medically save inferior genes?
I think several of you are confusing creationist with IDers too. To my understanding you can be an IDer and still believe in evolution. You just don’t believe it all occurs by random chance.
The other part is that even if you are arguing against a person who believes in literal word for word creation, your arguments make no sense. If you say “explain this fossil record”, why could God have not created the fossils there when he created the earth? You say carbon dating proves the earth is x number of years. Oh really? What effect exactly would God poofing the world into existence have on the carbon record? Not to mention you are trying to attack, question and explain the motivations and intentions of a god. How do you know he didn’t set things up this way so you have to rely on faith, for example? I mean, if you believe he was all knowing and all powerful, why not?
I personally am not a creationist, but I don’t inherently make fun of them or consider them stupid. If you go back far enough, everyone gets to a point of unexplainable phenomenon. Whether that be the initial existence of the gases that created the big bang or the formation of the Earth and life. Everyone has to at some point believe something came out of nothing. If you can believe the big bang gases came from nothing, why not the earth and life itself?
The absolute fundamental laws of science had to of been violated at some point, no matter what you believe. What the hell is the difference if you believe they were violated trillions of years ago, or thousands of years ago?
I also do not completely buy into evolution at least as I understand it (could be lack of education on my part). But, regardless of how sure and proven scientific “facts” are, They many times need revising and rewriting.
For example something as fundamentally sound as saying the earth is round (as stated by one poster). Guess what, it’s not. You are depending on perspective based spacial relationships to quantify that. In other words, the earth isn’t round from every perspective. It isn’t an undeniable fact and is false in certain cases. It’s called length contraction.
Something in science is only undeniable fact until the next generation of thinking comes around. In a couple hundred years, how many “facts” you hold near and dear would be laughed at in a science classroom? What about until the end of time? Do you 100% believe evolutionary theory as it now stands will last that long? I’d go with the chance someone will have an ah-ha moment about the formation of life that will change scientific understanding in that time.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
ninearms wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
ninearms wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Well if you’re looking at it from a single designer stand point, then things that could be similar would be. And you would use the most efficient model available.
And that would include giving whales useless appendages? Including giving the Right Whale actual legs? What’s efficient about including superfluities?
Would a designer also:
- Put the delicate testicles on the outside, inside a soft fleshy sack? And then make it painful when they get whacked?
- Attach the optic nerve to the wrong side of the eye, creating a blind spot?
- Give snakes pelvises?
- Give manatees fingernails on their fins?
- Give the same useless hip bones that were given to whales to all the Sirenians?
That’s some pretty crappy design work.
No one said it was perfect, if you would the bible God was trying to make a suitable friend that is where the animals came from. None of them being a sutiable companion.
Are you saying that a being powerful enough and smart enough to design the universe would still make those sort of basic errors? That’s not very intelligent design. It’s pretty damn stupid design.
And who are you to judge that those designs are not good. For the most part everything mimics physiological design.
must be pretty damn good then.
People sayt he things you have all the time and then come to find the the anotomical or physiological characteristic they were criticizing turns out to be necessary for the proper functioning of the organism in it’s envirnment even if it isn’t overtly transparent.[/quote]
Or at some point environments change and the creature suddenly finds a useless appendage useful. Hrmmm, what could I use my appendix for…?
I wonder if the old only use 10% of your brain people would be willing to remove the other 90%.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Hrmmm, what could I use my appendix for…?
[/quote]
I use mine to store excruciating pain and potential death.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
And who are you to judge that those designs are not good. For the most part everything mimics physiological design.
[/quote]
That doesn’t even make sense. What on earth is physiological design? And mimicry is the complete opposite of design. Everything?
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
People sayt he things you have all the time and then come to find the the anotomical or physiological characteristic they were criticizing turns out to be necessary for the proper functioning of the organism in it’s envirnment even if it isn’t overtly transparent.[/quote]
Did you not read what I wrote before? Right Whales have legs!!! Actual legs - actual femurs and actual tibias!!! Except they’re under the skin and thus totally useless…What kind of a moron would do that? Even James Bond’s car has less stupid features.
[quote]ninearms wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Hrmmm, what could I use my appendix for…?
I use mine to store excruciating pain and potential death.
[/quote]
Maybe God uses it to punish people he doesn’t like. j/k.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
ninearms wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
ninearms wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
ninearms wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Question: Why can’t we apply big bang logic to the birth of species? If the universe could come out of nothing, why could a butterfly not?
– Honest question alert end–
Because the evidence suggests otherwise.
Why would a designer give a whale hip bones? In case they decided to add legs later?
ball and socket joint very uncommon.
What? It’s not uncommon at all.
I know it was sarcasm
Then I don’t get your point.
Well if you’re looking at it from a single designer stand point, then things that could be similar would be. And you would use the most efficient model available.
[/quote]
Why don´t we have eyes like an octopus then? A blind spot seems to be a major design flaw.
[quote]orion wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
ninearms wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
ninearms wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
ninearms wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Question: Why can’t we apply big bang logic to the birth of species? If the universe could come out of nothing, why could a butterfly not?
– Honest question alert end–
Because the evidence suggests otherwise.
Why would a designer give a whale hip bones? In case they decided to add legs later?
ball and socket joint very uncommon.
What? It’s not uncommon at all.
I know it was sarcasm
Then I don’t get your point.
Well if you’re looking at it from a single designer stand point, then things that could be similar would be. And you would use the most efficient model available.
Why don´t we have eyes like an octopus then? A blind spot seems to be a major design flaw.
[/quote]
Because then you wouldn’t be able to wear cool sunglasses…