In my experience, I have come to understand almost identical comments to mean, "I cannot frame an argument against what you have written, and so I will pretend to defer it for later. My actual intention is to whistle past the graveyard and hope that it will be buried in the thread quickly." I will not hold my breath waiting for your calendar to free up, allowing you conduct a conversation that you started. Now you are just being obtuse. I already pointed out that every individual human (to include you and I) has between 200 and 200 original point mutations. You made no effort to challenge that assertion, since of course you cannot. It is an empirical truth. Each and every one of those mutations is a direct contradiction of your claim that offspring have "only the variability from the parent genes to draw on." Your claim is therefore an objective falsehood. You describe the general case, not the comprehensive reality. It is generally true that the appearance of red hair in the child of two brunettes is most commonly caused by the parents each being carriers of one of the several recessive variants of the MC1R-gene responsible. But those variants have not existed forever. It originally was a mutation (a set of mutations, actually) in a population completely lacking the gene in the first place. Estimates range from 20,000 to 100,000 years ago for the original modern human ginger. It is a fairly classic (though logically fallacious) tactic to pepper arguments framed to support dogma with flaccid qualifiers like "It did not spontaneously generate, that we can see." The Holocaust did not happen, that we can see. We did not land on the moon, that we can see. Obama was not born in Hawaii, that we can see. You must understand that serious researchers are comfortable with the understanding that contingent historical events cannot again be witnessed first hand. Yet... the evidence for them is no less powerful and persistent than the evidence for things we witness personally. The sort of point mutation that caused red hair is not rare. They are observed continuously. Normally pigmented parents give birth to albinos (full or partial) with some regularity. The mechanisms are neither mysterious nor magical. And all of them speak to a genome that is fluid and mutable; in which the illusion of "hard wiring" is an artifact of scale, not a reflection of truth. So what? If you want to argue about the definition of species, perhaps you should start another thread. It is a subject of endless and fascinating disagreement. This would be shocking were evolution not true. But since evolution is true, a rather fuzzy set of competing definitions is in fact what a thinking person would anticipate. You display a rather dated view of the Neandertals. It has been more than half a century since scientists have had any good reason to consider them "stupid brutes, backward & lower on some evolutionary scale." More to the point however, the concept of anything being "higher" or "lower" on an evolutionary "scale" betrays a fundamental misunderstanding that can be based only in an atavistic set of prejudices that evolution as a science does not hold. Evolution is not some inexorable process of "advance" or "rise." It is not a ladder. It is a bush. A modern nematode is exactly as "evolved" as a modern human is. We have histories and genealogies of exactly equal length, and in which we share the root. We have simply evolved in different directions. Do not let the religious arrogance of humanity as the purpose of all creation mislead you. We are no more the "paragon of animals" than is the parasite that eats us from the inside out.
First and foremost, there is no reason to presume that there ever was "a first place." If the laws of conservation and/or casualty are true (and we have never seen an exception to them) then the universe must necessarily be eternal. Both those laws lead only and inexorably to understanding the universe in terms of an infinite regress. Before you object that an eternal universe is "impossible," let me point out that religious creationists have already conceded the possibility of an eternal thing. So, if you are arguing from the perspective of an "eternal God," you cannot make an argument against an eternal universe without embracing a level of hypocrisy that would pretty much end all pretense of rational argument. If on the other hand you actually want to pretend that you are not a religious creationist and instead the sort of ambiguous materialist ID proponent that the Discovery Institute tries to present, I'd love to see an argument against an eternal universe that manages to deny either causation or conservation without imploding under its own absurdity. That statement is ultimately entirely tautologous. Bertrand Russel once observed that the existence of the universe is "a brute fact." No theory of origins can be seriously considered that denies it. If a universe exists (and as we all see, one does) then by definition it must have natural laws. These are ours. Did they have to be this particular set? I don't know. But if they weren't, we would likely not be here to argue about it. The assertion of "some kind of organizing power to bring everything to a head" is completely begging the question. It presumes its desired conclusion. It draws from no empirical evidence, and contradicts much of it. If we have learned one thing since Ilya Prigogine wrote Order out of Chaos in 1984 it's that no "organizing power" is necessary for much of anything. What would lead you to believe that? It's like the story of the blind men trying to describe an elephant. We observe this particular instance of universe from one direction only. So certainly, to us it looks unique. But the Big Bang is not over. It is still happening. We observe it directly every single day. That it preceded from a singularity is not the sort of conclusion that takes a Nobel Prize in Physics to understand. Most people can extrapolate backwards by the time they are five. But what does such a singularity look like from the other side? Well... look around the universe. We see singularities forming naturally and spontaneously all the time. We call them black holes. According to the math... yes. You certainly can.
It is impossible to test the 'billions' of years of time and the equally as many environmental variables. Perhaps if this could be achieved each time we would arrive at different results...
What you have are codons consisting of three letters. You have also have a strat codon and a stop codon. So the codons link amino acids in sequence to create protiens and stop when the stop codon is at the end of the chain and begin a new sequence with a start codon. You can look up what codon (three letters) are code for what amino acid and which three letters are stop and start codons. If the bacteria DNA were arranged differently they would either die or become a different organism. So it is a least possible that some bacteria (or other organism) evolved to become what mankind considers more complex just by a different arrangement of the letters.
Still nothing relevant I see. Not looking for a gotcha, nor do I care about your complaints from another thread... just pointing out the fallacies of your entropy claim and trying to bring you around to addressing the very issues you yourself raised.
In Richard Fortey's book http://www.amazon.com/Life-Natural-History-First-Billion/dp/037570261X He makes exactly that point. If we rewound back to the beginning chances are extremely high we would not get the same outcome we have today
An excellent point, to which I would add that we often enjoy positioning ourselves at the top of this imaginary ladder as a result of a false presumption. That our dominance on the planet is a result of advanced evolution relative to other species, In other words that we are more highly adapted. However, it's not so much that we have adapted to our environment, but that we have adapted our environment to us.
The introduction here of point mutations should be sufficient to demonstrate to any reasonable observer that our genome is not a closed hard wired system. Point mutations are considered to be among the raw materials or mechanism for increased genetic complexity and resulting phenotypic variability. Going beyond point mutations, and to the 'hard wired' fallacy, the genome does not exist behind an impenetrable fire wall. Interspecific transformations of exogenous genetic material occur both naturally and artificially. We actively modify (increase the complexity) of genome compliments regularly by exploiting natural systems and inventing mechanical systems which facilitate the transfer of both nuclear and cytoplasmic dna between organisms.
This is an excellent point in that we have adapted our environment to us, specifically the ability to maintain the preferred temperature all year round. The temperature variation in the natural environment limits many species activities. Our social structure would look entirely different without the invention of electricity for our homes and businesses.
As far as i can see, the ability to interbreed indicates a shared heritage. Reproductive isolation happens within certain species, like some horse types, cats, fruit flies, etc. It does not indicate distinctly new genetic material, or any big jumps in complexity. Mutations account for some of this, as they do for fur color, or other minor variations WITHIN the life form in question, but it does not compel me to believe there was something that made the horse 'evolve' into a cat, or vice versa. The problem that genetics brings up is reduced variability as life forms become isolated. They do NOT 'evolve' major new genetic traits, grow feet, feathers, add or subtract chromosomes. These reduced variability creatures become extinct, & their traits are lost. This from a study about cats: Well, sh*t, then. Why bother? I thought you were going to provide a logical, scientific discussion, but it looks like you just want to whistle. ..perhaps i hit a nerve with my 'juicy grant' crack.. no reason to get high & mighty about it. I do work, & have a life outside of the forums, unlike some, it seems... I do not deny mutations, & their function to allow SOME variation WITHIN the genetic parameters. Albinos, sickle cell anemia, & plenty of genetic health issues are caused by mutation. My point is that by observation, these mutations are either neutral or negative, & do not ADD complexity. THAT is what we observe. You are making the grand claim that the observable, repeatable phenomenon of mutation can add chromosomes, or genome pairs, causing big leaps. I watched a fascinating study about bacteria on tv... they were messing with the flagella,, trying to figure out how it 'evolved'. There are multiple, complex parts of the flagella, which had to happen all at once. They could not have evolved individually. This was from an evolutionist, who could not explain it. I am satisfied not knowing mysteries like this, though i will also continue to search for truth & reality. But i am NOT compelled to embrace pseudo science for matters that are unknown, not blend philosophical & religious arguments. BTW.. obtuse? You're making the strawman out of my arguments. You're distorting my views & calling me a liar. I can see this discussion going the way of many others, as you scream 'blasphemy!' over my attacks of your sacred cows. I don't mind a spirited conversation, as long as there is substance to it, & the demeaning tone is minimal. Yeah, yeah... blah, blah, blah.. I'll keep it simple. F*ck you. You want to discuss the science behind this sh*t, fine. Make your points, frame your arguments, & i'll examine them. But if all you have are distortions of my arguments, & needling ad hominems, i'm not interested. There are hundreds of threads on this forum i can get on to call names & yell at people with diverse opinions about subjective reality. I understand this is all you are used to, & it is difficult to break old habits. But this is the standard of this thread, & until it completely devolves to pissy insults, which it is doing, that will be my goal. I have corrected the old views of neanderthals, not promoted old theories. Recessive genes were my point.. there are some mutations that are new, but many are carried on by the parents. genetically, all beings are identical to their parents, with some minor mutations. That is not adding complexity. You cannot demonstrate HOW to bridge a chromosome, so it goes from 24 to 23. You cannot ADD genome pairs & major complex variation. You cannot even 'evolve' a flagella. The science of this concept is purely speculative, dependent on assumptions & imagination. The 'complexity' argument you make is a dodge. Of course you are suggesting an increase in complexity, unless you are arguing a 'big bang' of devolution, where all life forms are devolving. And yes, i will demand to 'see' evidence. I have historical evidence for the holocaust, or other historic events. there are eyewitnesses, & corroborating evidence for the event. There is NO such corroboration for your claim about increasing complexity in evolution. ALL i observe, & ALL anyone has observed for thousands of years has been decreasing variability within species. Man has struggled mightily to 'save' poor creatures from extinction. They do not have the variability to preserve themselves, so they die. It is pretty lame to compare the science of evolution to the holocaust. This is likely our last interaction.. you'll probably come back with a fired up flaming retort, & i'll glaze over. The goal seems to be to deflect from any scientific examination of these philosophical arguments. Any scrutiny of the science brings in the jihadists.. crying 'blasphemy!', & 'Kill the infidels!'
These are fine assertions.. you can assume time has some kind of mystical power to cause increases in genetic complexity, but you cannot demonstrate it, scientifically. Yes, just because something 'looks' different does not mean any genetic complexity has been added. That is all assumed & imagined. We observe devolutions & decreased variability within species, not increasing complexity. THAT is speculated, as a philosophical explanation of origins. It is not a scientifically valid hypothesis or theory. IF evolution is so plainly true, why cannot we observe it or repeat it in controlled settings? We are to believe it happens randomly, without any explanation, & these jumps in genetic complexity happen. There is NO evidence for it, only imagination & assumption. Yet these religious fanatics CLAIM the high ground scientifically. IMO, the evolution evangelists are no different than any religious dogma of the past, or speculations about alien seeding, or magic sky fairies. Most people just believe what they are told.. They do not examine the evidence with a critical eye, but trust all the 'really smart people' to figure it out for them. ..and the problem with the 'really smart people' is they assume the other scientific disciplines have the corroborating evidence for the claim. Their data supports the theory, IF you accept the assumptions. But the problem is, the assumptions are invalid, & contrary to observed science. Living things do NOT increase in complexity. They decrease. Mutations cause minor variations.. they do not add chromosomes or significant traits like warm blood or feathers. There is NO WAY to provide evidence for this phenomenon, so it is done by assertion. Any questions for these assertions are met with ridicule & indignation, for daring to question the basic tenets of the faith.
It is actually getting simpler. Instead of having to test genetical experiments with real data, many things can be simulated. It is that 'hard wired'. You have the genotype data, & can make reasonably accurate predictions, based on the real data from previous research. Now, of course, this is no substitute for the real data, which is necessary for the predictions to work. But the very fact that it DOES work shows it is indeed, 'hard wired'. You can predict outcomes, based on the genetic input. You do not have leaps & changes in the genetic code. That would make this science of genetics more random, which it is not. You can look for mutations, & isolate them, & 'select' them artificially, but they are still mutations, & not leaps over the genetic barrier. That is an assumed phenomena, which cannot be replicated in the lab, observed in nature, or confirmed as a past event. There is NO mechanism to do this, & experimentally, it is impossible. We can only create 'devolution' in genetic research, as we select certain traits for reproduction. This is reproductive isolation, not anything that resembles the claim of increasing complexity.
What TV show, and on what channel? It doesn't really matter to the argument, it's patently false - I'm just curious. What you're describing is irreducible complexity, which has been thoroughly debunked. Even the specific example you cite has already been used and shot down. Here is an article found from a quick Google search. There are many more you can research on your own. You're looking in the wrong place. Seriously? You claim to not embrace pseudo-science, but then go on about irreducible complexity and intelligent design? Come on, you're not fooling anyone but yourself. EDIT: Here are a ton of links: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
I think the fossil record is evidence enough that life has indeed progressed from simple forms to more complex forms. There isn't a complete picture yet, that's true, and whether or not there ever will be is entirely dependent on our ability to find more fossil evidence, which itself is dependent upon that evidence still being in existence without having been destroyed by natural Earth processes. As far as entropy goes, the outside force that is acting upon the life to make it progress from simple to complex is the life itself and the DNA/RNA contained within it. Entropy applies differently here than it does to rocks and gases that are not alive. Those things are just there waiting to be acted upon by the laws of physics, they are not developing, evolving, or adapting.
Well the entropy argument has always been a bit silly because Earth's environment is not a closed system. New energy is being constantly added into the system, from both the sun, and geologic activity
I did a quick search.. it was on the science channel.. here is the vid: [video]http://science.discovery.com/tv-shows/through-the-wormhole/videos/did-god-create-evolution.htm[/video] This is michael Behe, the author of 'Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution', published in 1996. He is a biochemist, & a practicing scientist. Now, this guy is arguing for intelligent design, but embraces all the rest of the ToE. IOW, he would try to refute the points i've made here. I am not arguing intelligent design, but am critiquing the evidence used to prop up the ToE, specifically, increasing complexity in the genetic code. Well, your dogmatic defense of the theory is admirable, but lacks the corroboration of scientific scrutiny. There are many people out here who will not accept brush offs as explanations, nor eye rolling, simplistic explanations, & ridicule of a straw man as valid 'evidence'. This is a fairly recent argument, & is mostly just waved off by the proponents of evolution. Why is that? Here is a valid, scientific problem with this theory, yet instead of really looking for truth, lame dismissals & ridicule are presented. Are the reasons being rebutted with evidence? NO! Dismissal, ridicule, & assertions are used, not anything that can be construed as science. Far from being debunked, irreducible complexity is a major problem for evolution. It is not addressed scientifically, but philosophically, & arguments of scorn & derision are used. This is science, not philosophy. You need to have evidence to back up your arguments, with repeatable, peer reviewed data to base the conclusions on. Yes, look only at an evolution propaganda site.. that's a good source of unbiased information! I dabbled in talk.origins when it was on usenet.. it was a propaganda machine then, & is the same, now. The same old tired, lame arguments are used, mostly incredulity, ridicule, & disdain. Very few attempts are made to address the real problems, but they are quickly reworked into an easier strawman, then dutifully dismantled, while trumpeting victory over their hapless victims. ..been there. ..done that. ..i used to have the t-shirt. If you don't examine ALL the evidence with a critical eye, you are just a propagandist, looking to prop up a religious view, rather than searching for scientific truth. If you're going to rebut REAL problems in the theory, you better come with evidence. What you can assert without evidence, i can dismiss without evidence.
I linked a study where bacteria were shown to have evolved an entirely new feature not present in the population before. Get off your cross and address the material. If complexity cannot be added over time, how is it that in a lab, bacteria were able to evolve the ability to metabolize an entirely new nutrient? That's laboratory demonstration of evolution. Check and mate. If bacteria can gain a new trait over a non-geologic time scale, and the evolution of that trait was shown to be gradual, then it follows that evolution of other traits is possible. Combined with the massive amount of historical evidence - transitional fossils, genetic analysis, common structures between all vertebrates - your science is nonexistent. There's no conspiracy against believers in some sort of magic creation of the world and life upon it. The evidence is simply contrary to your position.
I'll be honest, I'm surprise the Science channel aired such a program. I know they're part of the discovery network, who in recent years has gone into the crapper when it comes to actual informative scientific programming, but the science channel is usually a bit higher-brow than the others. I am very familiar with Behe and I was pretty sure that's who the show was about when you mentioned it, since irreducible complexity (IC) is his baby. It seems as though you are not aware that he has been thoroughly discredited, along with IC. He is not taken seriously in the scientific community, and for good reason. That quite the caveat - irreconcilable, in fact. Straw man? You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. Myself, and may others in this tread are responding directly to your arguments. There are no straw men in sight. You often throw out defenses like this, and "dogmatic", "brush-off", "ridicule", etc, but it's nonsense. You just don't seem to get it. Just because you disagree with parts of the ToE, doesn't automatically make you correct. I'm afraid all the evidence is against you, quite a bit of which has been presented to you in this thread, yet you continuously brush it all off with inane replies such as above. No, it isn't. There has been quite a large amount of actual scientific work gone into showing how completely bogus the idea is. No, it isn't. It isn't even a little bit of a problem. It has no basis, and really isn't even scientific. It's basically a statement of, "this seem really complex, so there's no way it could have evolved on its own". That's not science, but rather little more than an argument from incredulity. Of course there is evidence, a ton of it. You just ignore it because it makes your cognitive dissonance twitch. You are the only one dismissing anything. IC and ID weren't just hand-waved away, there are many scientific papers and studies showing exactly why it's crap. Absolutely debunked, and not the slightest bit of a problem. It's quite easy actually. Logically, we don't even have to know exactly how a system came to be, we only have to show a scientific possibility and the entirety of IC is shot to (*)(*)(*)(*). You don't seem to understand - IC and ID have been so thoroughly and excruciatingly beaten, that scorn and derision are the proper first response to someone still claiming they have any credibility. And not just because it goes against popular scientific consensus or some other lame excuse, but because it has been demonstrated and explained as such - by science. Ad hominem fallacy. Address the content, not the source. Fact is, Talk Origins is a wealth of scientific knowledge. It's dedicated to spreading true scientific information and debunking the rampant anti-evolution bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Of course you're going to call it biased. Tough. There you go again - incorrectly labeling something a strawman. Perhaps you should start with a dictionary before attempting to tackle the sciencey stuff. I have examined the "evidence" (purposely in quotes), and so have countless scientists. It doesn't hold up. It is you who needs to stop grasping onto it. I have, and so have many other people in this thread. Your quote should be changed to, "what you can assert with evidence, I can arbitrarily dismiss as it's not evidence that conforms to my world-view".
So you keep asserting, without evidence, & i will keep dismissing, without evidence. Your 'proof' of the bacteria is not an incremental change in complexity, but merely a rearranging of 'letters' in the dna. I have always agreed with the observable, repeatable science of breeding, hybridization, genetics, & virus research, which uses these genetic 'proofs' to accomplish their goals. There is sometimes a lot of variation WITHIN a species, & mutations increase that more. But i cannot make the logical 'leap' to assume that life increases in complexity through this method, when all the facts say otherwise. Breeding is a 'selection' of traits, as well as nature's breeding process. It relies on REDUCED variability, not increased. If what you say occurs, we could not breed animals or plants to narrow traits.. there would be new ones spontaneously springing up & spoiling the breed. You cannot observe the phenomenon you assert, nor describe it, nor find any evidence that it can happen. You are left with unbased assertions.. hardly a scientific process. Did you increase the chromosome count? Add genome pairs? Sprout feathers or grow feet? Add lungs? No. This is still a bacteria, which adapted to be able to eat as the food supply changed. Championing this as some kind of crowning achievement proving evolution is pretty far fetched.. I hear these kinds of things all the time, but they are usually new age goddesses, floating around in mumus, talking about aliens & communing with spirits. I'll keep my scientific skepticism, for now. This doesn't even make a dent in it. I'm open to real evidence, & have no dog in the hunt. I'm just tired of half baked half truths being constantly passed off as proven fact. So you can keep playing your game of chess, & pretend you are winning. But my king jumped several of your checkers, & you are arguing rules for the wrong game. Besides, i'm not about to be a pawn in this game of checkers..
Ironic, isn't it. I have been amused when looking at the programming on the 'science' channel. Guess which cable channel has the most programs on aliens, ghosts, metaphysical happenings, etc? yep.. the 'science' channel! It is highly ironic, but a little pathetic. It would be like the new york times running stories about aliens having michael jackson's baby, or obama wanting to start ww3... oh wait.. they do that, though, don't they? All it shows me, along with the forums here, is there is a fine line for people between what they BELIEVE is proven science, & what they BELIEVE as a religious or philosophical belief. Some people are so muddled they can't differentiate. It's a little scary..
Except, of course, actual evidence was provided, in exhaustive detail. Just because actual evidence refutes your ignorance doesn't mean it's not evidence, it means your ignorance is invincible. It absolutely is, unless you wish to redefine "complexity" to mean "something I deny happens even when my face is shoved into it." <remaining ignorance not worth wading through.>
Actually what it shows is that so few people care about science that presenting it on TV doesn't attract viewers. People are lots more interested in crap, so feed them crap. Ghosts, life after death, seances, UFO abductions, these sell. Irony is sometimes overpowering. I think I need a beer after that one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts You asked us to provide an example of an increase in complexity. This is an entirely new metabolic pathway. It's akin to humans suddenly being able to eat bark. Of course it's in a bacteria; evolution typically happens on a geologic timescale, and to produce it in a laboratory setting requires something that lives and dies quickly, like a bacteria. This is a new trait which did not exist before and which arose spontaneously, and was selected for via evolution. Sticking your hands in your ears and screaming that I don't have any evidence doesn't make it so. Evolution is the process where life forms change over time in reaction to their environment via the processes of natural selection and mutation. I have shown that mutation can and has created new traits. If you don't like the proof, you can move the goalpost back and try to get me to show a leg appearing suddenly, or a chromosome popping into existence magically, but that's not what science predicts, and I won't cowtow to it. Now, I've demonstrated that mutations can and have resulted in new information. What's your objection?
Hey, if you're happy with the explanations, & consider this valid evidence, i'm happy for you. But i don't see anything from the 'micro' side proving the 'macro' one, to use earlier terminology. I am very skeptical, & even cynical of the information forced upon my from my youth.. i can't help but be a bit mistrusting, & insistent on clearer & better evidenced science. You can believe this as proof of evolution if you wish. I have no problem with people's belief systems. I don't like it if you try to jamb it down my throat & tell me it's proven fact, but that's just me.
