[quote]ReignIB wrote:
irreducible complexity is not a theory per se.
it’s what Darwinists run into almost immediately when attempting to describe how the mighty-and-powerful principle of natural selection applies in practice.
[/quote]
No offense, but this terminology (“Darwinists”) makes me immediately suspicious of where you are getting your research from.
There is no such thing as a true Darwinist (Dawkins’ hyperbole aside). For one thing, much of what Darwin uncovered has been replaced since the modern synthesis.
SCIENTISTS, the vast majority of the, accept both common descent and natural selection. They do not ‘run to’ anything.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Well, how about you describe the origin of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Specifically I am interested in hearing which ape the said species evolved from, and in the step-by-step illustration of how their slowly-accumulating “evolutionary” traits gave them a competitive advantage over the “non-evolved” ape populace thus promoting the fixation of these traits.
[/quote]
This request makes no sense. Humans ARE apes: Ape - Wikipedia
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Stick around for a while… we could use a knowledgeable voice on this topic around here.
[/quote]
Mayhaps I will…
To be honest, I’m leary of these discussions. I used to engage in them all the time (even moderated a MB dedicated to it). I guess I’ve been discouraged though - people aren’t looking to discuss these things with an open mind. They are looking to prove someone wrong.
I used to argue with a geocentricist on the MB and nothing would ever get through. There was a physicist on the board who would painstakenly go through, in great detail, all the reasons why the earth was not the center of the universe. No dice. It’s not like the guy (the geocentrist) was an expert or anything remotely close to it.
It always struck me as odd, the same people have no problem going to a mechanic to get their car repaired. The mechanic is an expert and these people trust that expertise. Yet, an expert in a field of study which somehow violates a minority view of the bible is someone not to be trusted, just because the view is unpalatable.[/quote]
I share your sentiments.
There is a lot of garbage here, but also a surprising amount of intelligent, analytical posters. A few experts pop up every now and then, and some interesting conversations take place.
You do have to wade through a lot of shit, though… you get used to not even reading the posts of some people, unless you are really in a mood for a laugh or a fight:)
Further, you are presupposing that we have a fully intact replica of our genetic tree - as though fossilization was a perfect and predetermined process.
We are lucky to have any fossils. We also don’t need a complete record to rationally determine that we share a common ancestry with chimps. The nested hierarchy gives us compelling enough evidence of that.
Such demands are simply not rational, especially in light of forensics science. We don’t need to know everyone who associated with Abraham Lincoln, nor everything about him, in order to determine that he existed.
irreducible complexity is not a theory per se.
it’s what Darwinists run into almost immediately when attempting to describe how the mighty-and-powerful principle of natural selection applies in practice.
[/quote]
Where exactly does evolutionary biology run into this problem of irreducible complexity
[quote] Well, how about you describe the origin of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Specifically I am interested in hearing which ape the said species evolved from, and in the step-by-step illustration of how their slowly-accumulating “evolutionary” traits gave them a competitive advantage over the “non-evolved” ape populace thus promoting the fixation of these traits.
[/quote]
Are you asking here for a specific individual ape? If so, you are missing the point of Natural Selection.
And, I don’t know that I’m qualified to give you a step-by-step explanation. As always, Wikipedia is useful:
Honestly, our understanding of it deepens almost every day. Recently, there was an anthropological discovery of artifacts that gave us a better idea of the relationship between behavioral development, cerebral cortex size, and cognitive evolution. If I remember correctly, the gist of it was that as we began using certain early childhood teaching tools in relation to language, we began to experience the full effects of our huge brains. Interestingly enough, we are witnessing evolution in a similar direction right now… as we are finding chimpanzees in a specific region are developing a trait of endowing toys with chimp-like qualities… IE young female chimps are starting to play with dolls.
Or, I could recommend a few books if you would like.
This request makes no sense. Humans ARE apes: Ape - Wikipedia [/quote]
fair enough. replace “ape” with an “ancestor” then if it makes more sense to you that way.
note - I’m a computer geek so bare with me if the terms I’m using aren’t “up to par” with the current state of evolutionary science
[/quote]
I don’t think your initial request was in good faith - I don’t think it’s necessary to provide a step by step illustration to determine that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.
I think common ancestry is the simplest, most complete, explanation.
So, for instance, why do humans and chimps share the same genetic code which prevents our bodies from producing vitamin C? Some of our other primate relatives have the genetics to produce vitamin C (much like we produce vitamin D). In fact, we have those same genes. It’s just that we have additional genes which prevent those genes from working.
Chimps have the same genes.
Common descent explains this - a common ancestor of both modern humans and modern chimps had a genetic mutation which prevents the expression of the genes that produce vitamin C. This mutation was passed on through all our relatives.
If we didn’t share a common ancestor, why do we both have the exact same mutation? Further, if both Chimps and Humans were intelligently designed why do we have this mutation at all? Why not simply not have any of the genetics related to vitamin C?
I’ve always been curious and I’ve never received a satisfactory answer, but organisms were intelligently designed, why is the ‘design’ of some organisms…well…simply unintelligent?
Why are there cave fish with eyes that don’t work? Why is sexual reproduction so wasteful? Why do creatures like the Sacculina exist? Or other parasites?
"Recently, the L-gulano-γ-lactone oxidase gene, the gene required for Vitamin C synthesis, was found in humans and guinea pigs (Nishikimi et al. 1992; Nishikimi et al. 1994). It exists as a pseudogene, present but incapable of functioning (see prediction 4.4 for more about pseudogenes). In fact, since this was originally written the vitamin C pseudogene has been found in other primates, exactly as predicted by evolutionary theory. We now have the DNA sequences for this broken gene in chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques (Ohta and Nishikimi 1999). And, as predicted, the malfunctioning human and chimpanzee pseudogenes are the most similar, followed by the human and orangutan genes, followed by the human and macaque genes, precisely as predicted by evolutionary theory. Furthermore, all of these genes have accumulated mutations at the exact rate predicted (the background rate of mutation for neutral DNA regions like pseudogenes) (Ohta and Nishikimi 1999). "
So, if common descent and evolutionary theory are not, in fact, true, then why is the intelligent designer trying to make it seem as though they are true (by fulfilling predictions of the theory and the like)?
This request makes no sense. Humans ARE apes: Ape - Wikipedia [/quote]
fair enough. replace “ape” with an “ancestor” then if it makes more sense to you that way.
note - I’m a computer geek so bare with me if the terms I’m using aren’t “up to par” with the current state of evolutionary science
[/quote]
I don’t think your initial request was in good faith - I don’t think it’s necessary to provide a step by step illustration to determine that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.
I think common ancestry is the simplest, most complete, explanation.
So, for instance, why do humans and chimps share the same genetic code which prevents our bodies from producing vitamin C? Some of our other primate relatives have the genetics to produce vitamin C (much like we produce vitamin D). In fact, we have those same genes. It’s just that we have additional genes which prevent those genes from working.
Chimps have the same genes.
Common descent explains this - a common ancestor of both modern humans and modern chimps had a genetic mutation which prevents the expression of the genes that produce vitamin C. This mutation was passed on through all our relatives.
If we didn’t share a common ancestor, why do we both have the exact same mutation? Further, if both Chimps and Humans were intelligently designed why do we have this mutation at all? Why not simply not have any of the genetics related to vitamin C?[/quote]
I’m not questioning the common ancestry part right now.
I’m questioning the ability of the proponents of the principle of Natural Selection to describe exactly how the said principle applies in practice using the explanation (or, rather lack of it) for the origin of Homo Sapiens as an example of such inability.
I’m not questioning the common ancestry part right now.
I’m questioning the ability of the proponents of the principle of Natural Selection to describe exactly how the said principle applies in practice using the explanation (or, rather lack of it) for the origin of Homo Sapiens as an example of such inability.
[/quote]
So… what you’re saying is that you won’t be happy until I write a book for you?
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
I’m not questioning the common ancestry part right now.
I’m questioning the ability of the proponents of the principle of Natural Selection to describe exactly how the said principle applies in practice using the explanation (or, rather lack of it) for the origin of Homo Sapiens as an example of such inability. [/quote]
I’m not sure that natural selection was entirely responsible as the selection method. There are various means in which mutations can be passed along. Genetic drift would probably be the most substantial, since at any given time, any given human being has something like 60-80 genetic mutations in their code.
You are asking for a complete detailing of our history, which I don’t see why it is necessarily. Science doesn’t work off of certainty - it works off of induction, abduction, and falsification.
Let me ask you this, since you are pushing the IC angle, how exactly is intelligent design an explanation? In short, where’s the theory?
If you are simply saying that there are some things that, on the surface, appear to have difficult explanations (ie, we don’t know), then sure, I’ll agree with you. That’s rather trivial though.
If on the other hand, you are trying to say that evolutionary theory cannot explain common descent or that common descent was intelligently designed, then I’m afraid you are going to have to argue a positive position - not simply a position about what we don’t know.
That’s the primary problem with IC claims, they aren’t positive claims - yet the proponents treat them like they are. The bacterium flagellum could not have evolved, for instance. Why not? Well, because scientists cannot explain it. That’s fairly weak (and actually disprovable, which forced Behe to take the position that parts of the bacterium flagellum were IC).
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
I’m not questioning the common ancestry part right now.
I’m questioning the ability of the proponents of the principle of Natural Selection to describe exactly how the said principle applies in practice using the explanation (or, rather lack of it) for the origin of Homo Sapiens as an example of such inability. [/quote]
I’m not sure that natural selection was entirely responsible as the selection method. There are various means in which mutations can be passed along. Genetic drift would probably be the most substantial, since at any given time, any given human being has something like 60-80 genetic mutations in their code.
You are asking for a complete detailing of our history, which I don’t see why it is necessarily. Science doesn’t work off of certainty - it works off of induction, abduction, and falsification.[/quote]
I tend to be of the mindset that genetic drift is less of a factor in our evolution before our epoch of meta-cognition, and more of a factor after that shift. It seems that genetic drift becomes more of a player when other epigenetic regulators such as memeology and modern medicine expand the playing field.
i don’t have anything other than impressions of what I have read to back it up.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
I’m not questioning the common ancestry part right now.
I’m questioning the ability of the proponents of the principle of Natural Selection to describe exactly how the said principle applies in practice using the explanation (or, rather lack of it) for the origin of Homo Sapiens as an example of such inability. [/quote]
I’m not sure that natural selection was entirely responsible as the selection method. There are various means in which mutations can be passed along. Genetic drift would probably be the most substantial, since at any given time, any given human being has something like 60-80 genetic mutations in their code.
You are asking for a complete detailing of our history, which I don’t see why it is necessarily. Science doesn’t work off of certainty - it works off of induction, abduction, and falsification.[/quote]
No, complete detailing isn’t necessary, a brief outline of the origin of homo sapiens (while of course pointing out how a given trait appeared/fixated thanks to the principle of Natural Selection) would do.
Don’t think one exists though, even after 200 years of research with enormous funding etc.
As for the angle I am “pushing”, like I said I’m not a specialist in the field so I’m not the one to “push” anything. But like the saying goes - “You don’t have to be a tailor to see that the king is naked”.
so can sometime define recombinance specifically as it applies to less plastic genomic species. species that have hard coded conserved regions. And how speciation can occur with such regions not being open to mutation without it being terminal or causing sterile offspring.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
I’m not questioning the common ancestry part right now.
I’m questioning the ability of the proponents of the principle of Natural Selection to describe exactly how the said principle applies in practice using the explanation (or, rather lack of it) for the origin of Homo Sapiens as an example of such inability. [/quote]
I’m not sure that natural selection was entirely responsible as the selection method. There are various means in which mutations can be passed along. Genetic drift would probably be the most substantial, since at any given time, any given human being has something like 60-80 genetic mutations in their code.
You are asking for a complete detailing of our history, which I don’t see why it is necessarily. Science doesn’t work off of certainty - it works off of induction, abduction, and falsification.[/quote]
I tend to be of the mindset that genetic drift is less of a factor in our evolution before our epoch of meta-cognition, and more of a factor after that shift. It seems that genetic drift becomes more of a player when other epigenetic regulators such as memeology and modern medicine expand the playing field.
i don’t have anything other than impressions of what I have read to back it up.[/quote]
I think what I wrote was slightly unclear. I was talking about more of a quantity point of view and it seems you are talking about more of a quality point of view. Perhaps, anyway.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
ooh genetics, yay lets start.
so can sometime define recombinance specifically as it applies to less plastic genomic species. species that have hard coded conserved regions. And how speciation can occur with such regions not being open to mutation without it being terminal or causing sterile offspring. [/quote]
perhaps they cant, perhaps they die if their environments change too much.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
No, complete detailing isn’t necessary, a brief outline of the origin of homo sapiens (while of course pointing out how a given trait appeared/fixated thanks to the principle of Natural Selection) would do.[/quote]
We do not have a complete work up of our ancestors DNA though, I fail to see how this is even possible in theory. You seem to be asking the impossible, and for no reason.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Don’t think one exists though, even after 200 years of research with enormous funding etc. [/quote]
Why would it? It was only recently before we got the modern human genome sequenced - and we have ample sources for that! So how on earth could we expect to have genomes for ancestors that no longer exist sequenced?
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
As for the angle I am “pushing”, like I said I’m not a specialist in the field so I’m not the one to “push” anything. But like the saying goes - “You don’t have to be a tailor to see that the king is naked”. [/quote
Yeah, but right now all you’ve at best shown is that there are things we don’t know - and I’m not even sure you’ve done that.
If that’s what your content with, fair enough. It’s not a rational reason to reject evolutionary theory though, since it is the best explanation (combination of explanations) that we have.
So I guess I’m a bit puzzled by what you hope to achieve and what you think you’ve achieved.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
ooh genetics, yay lets start.
so can sometime define recombinance specifically as it applies to less plastic genomic species. species that have hard coded conserved regions. And how speciation can occur with such regions not being open to mutation without it being terminal or causing sterile offspring. [/quote]
perhaps they cant, perhaps they die if their environments change too much.
[/quote]
orion not directed to you.
But humans are apes, wiki says so.
what a freaking joke.
macroevolution is a theory of chaos, and technically we are supposed to be moving towards more chaos not more structure, given the systematic and measurable phenomena in nature I would presuppose this already to be false.
But hey let’s run with it.
so where are empirically derived data showing speciation of complex organisms. You have none and never will because it doesn’t exist.
And I will condition this with a mammal since humans are apes, preferably one in the same supposed ancestry of humans or primates,
show me real data and then you have an argument, otherwise what you provide is horrible retrospective speculation.
