stretching out

[supersport]

Hello everyone. You don't mind if I stretch out and make myself comfortable here, do you? I'm done at RnR...so I'll be hanging out here a while if anyone cares to converse.

In this post I'm going to present my logic as to why common descent and evolution as a whole must both be false.

As you may know I do not believe in natural selection's ability to sway populations in adaptive directions. But let me start at the beginning:

Darwin was convinced of natural selection, but he had no idea how novelty came into being. He knew that something had to produce the variation from which selection could act, so he stole Lamarck's internal mechanism. Of course many in the evolutionary community soon figured out that it would be redundant if adaptive traits were generated from within each individual, only then to turn around and claim that natural selection adapted populations. This is only logical. It's either one or the other...adaptation doesn't happen twice.

So this has been the problem from the very beginning: the origin of novelty.

Ok. So we've got two problems: 1) is the origin of novelty. 2) is how to account for the insanely complicated (and huge) genetic code, which certainly seems miraculous, to say the least.

So to tackle these two problems, the neo-darwinists proposed that the origin of novelty was random genetic mutations....and it was these random genetic mutations that, when selected, enabled organisms' genomes to build up over time. In this way, the evolutionists overcame both problems and provided a scientific account for the common descent they had previously put their faith in.

Under this plan, natural selection was the cause of evolution. I've even read statements like "if it exists, it must have been selected," or somesuch. E.O. Wilson claims that all evolution happens by way of natural selection. Natural selection is thus the naturalists' substitute for God.

But see the aforementioned logic is backwards. Instead of saying "if it exists, it must have been selected,"....what should be said is "in order to be selected, it must first exist." Right? Doesn't that make much more sense?

Charles Darwin's Book was called "The Origin of Species," but what he should have called it was "The Origin of Novelty" because ultimately, the origin of species must come as a result of the origin of novelty. The origin of novelty, in fact, IS evolution...the origin of novelty, quite basically, is the origin of change.

But here's the thing: evos, due to their extreme hatred for real-life causes, have historically put their hands over their eyes and ears and ignored the true cause of novelty.... They wanted soooo badly for random mutations to be responsible for the origin of morphological variation. But unfortunately, as Allan Wilson says, molecular evolution is uncoupled from molecular evolution. http://yubanet.com/scitech/Tuatara-the-fastest-evolving-animal.php

Instead of natural selection (an external source) adapting populations by way of judging random molecular changes, the reality is that adaptation is an internal, emergent property of individuals. In otherwords, thoughts, minds and intelligence aren't the result of evolution, evolution is the result of thoughts, minds and intelligence. It flips everything upside down like a saturday morning pancake at IHOP.

But what science is finally admitting (though for decades they've locked the evo devos in closets like sexual degenerates) is that novelty is generated in developing embryos when the organism somehow generates adaptive traits by turning its genes on and off. In this way, what causes this adaptive novelty is what causes evolution. What causes the nervous system to be able to sense its internal and external environments and then release the appropriate hormones to self-generate fitness while it differentiates is what ultimately leads to the origin of novelty and species.

This is why the fossil record shows what it shows. This is why there are not any intermediates linking closely-related species to each other. This is why like-organism living in the same environment all exhibit the same traits such as size, color, shape, etc....it's because they're all self-organizing entities who live and change together.

So here's my point. Since this is all undoubtedly true, to be a darwinist, you must believe 2 things:

1) you must believe that darwinism was something that happened in the past, but is essentially finished now because each individual is adaptive, thus there is no need for selection to adapt. This is despite the fact that even supposedly "ancient" organisms such as insects are highly adaptive and able to self-generate new traits.

2) You must believe that somehow, some way, genomes evolved, despite the fact that all -- or most -- of the morphological change we see around us is not caused from mutations, much less the random kind....that all the morphological change we see in the field bypasses natural selection, and thus, bypasses evolution.

So my question is: how does common descent happen without natural selection? How is it that you can believe in common descent when what we see in the field are populations of dynamic, self-changing, self-adapting organisms, each of whom respond to environmental changes together?

Where's the evolution? I can't find it.

That only leaves creation.

[espritch]

Just one question: how do we know you are the real supersport and not another fake supersport?

[Ian Nerr]

I have an idea. Talk about something else.

[supersport]

Just one question: how do we know you are the real supersport and not another fake supersport?

well actually this is the real one...If you follow my replies it should become clear. The fakesupersport can only plagairize my OPs...he can't keep up the conversation afterwards.

[VoxRat]

Ah, my very first reason to exercise the "ignore" function here at TR. Let's see how this works...

[Ian Nerr]

Do the one about hopping on the sun. The one with the magic eyeballs. That's my favorite.

[ck1]

A couple of quick comments (to the real supersport):

how to account for the insanely complicated (and huge) genetic code

Terminology issue here. The "genetic code" is actually not so complicated. This term refers to the 3 base codons used to specify amino acids. There are 64 codons that were determined by Marshall Nirenberg by about 1966 and got him a Nobel in ~1968. Maybe you mean the huge genomes needed to specify humans and flies and, especially, amoebae.

molecular evolution is uncoupled from molecular evolution. http://yubanet.com/scitech/Tuatara-t...ing-animal.php

That study has gotten a lot of press. But note that those investigators compared the sequence of a short segment of the mitochondrial DNA extracted from a number of extant and fossil specimens. They did not look at nuclear genes that might influence morphology. It may be found that those genes have changed minimally.

What, again, is a "darwinist"? Do we have any here?

populations of dynamic, self-changing, self-adapting organisms, each of whom respond to environmental changes together

The ABILITY to respond to environmental cues is inherited and is subject to selection and mutation. The actual responses are not heritable. But I am sure you remember those previous discussions.
That only leaves creation.

Are you really a Creationist, with a capital "C"? Did Genesis happen exactly as written?

[Autodidact]

Watch out, supersport, I'm here, and I'm watching you. Better not cite any living scientists.
[you remember me, aka TomboyMom and Gaytheist.]

[supersport]

A couple of quick comments (to the real supersport):

how to account for the insanely complicated (and huge) genetic code

Terminology issue here. The "genetic code" is actually not so complicated. This term refers to the 3 base codons used to specify amino acids. There are 64 codons that were determined by Marshall Nirenberg by about 1966 and got him a Nobel in ~1968. Maybe you mean the huge genomes needed to specify humans and flies and, especially, amoebae.

molecular evolution is uncoupled from molecular evolution. http://yubanet.com/scitech/Tuatara-t...ing-animal.php

That study has gotten a lot of press. But note that those investigators compared the sequence of a short segment of the mitochondrial DNA extracted from a number of extant and fossil specimens. They did not look at nuclear genes that might influence morphology. It may be found that those genes have changed minimally.

What, again, is a "darwinist"? Do we have any here?

populations of dynamic, self-changing, self-adapting organisms, each of whom respond to environmental changes together

The ABILITY to respond to environmental cues is inherited and is subject to selection and mutation. The actual responses are not heritable. But I am sure you remember those previous discussions.
That only leaves creation.

Are you really a Creationist, with a capital "C"? Did Genesis happen exactly as written?

I have no reason to doubt Genesis, as written.

As far as the "ability to respond to environmental cues" as a trait that came to be because of selection, you do realize that this is a belief and not science? And to believe this you would have to believe that organisms who are now adaptive wholes did not used to be such things, even though many so-called "ancient" organisms are still around and are apparently adaptive wholes?

[dancer_rnb]

What is the difference between the gene for malarial resistance hemoglobin/sickle cell anemia and a normal hemoglobin gene, and how did it come about?

[supersport]

What is the difference between the gene for malarial resistance hemoglobin/sickle cell anemia and a normal hemoglobin gene, and how did it come about?

I'll answer that as soon as you tackle my OP.

[ck1]

I have no reason to doubt Genesis, as written.

OK, I didn't know that about you.

As far as the "ability to respond to environmental cues" as a trait that came to be because of selection, you do realize that this is a belief and not science? And to believe this you would have to believe that organisms who are now adaptive wholes did not used to be such things, even though many so-called "ancient" organisms are still around and are apparently adaptive wholes?

I hope you recall that numerous posters have given you information on the genes involved in the cell signalling processes responsible for responses to environmental cues. Lots of papers describe studies on these genes and modifications to these genes - science, not "belief".

If you are interested in so-called "ancient" organisms that are still around, you should check out Dave's horseshoe crab thread.

[ericmurphy]

Absent common descent with modification, what's your falsifiable explanation for the existence of nested hierarchies? Any idea what they are? Any idea why they support common descent? Any explanation for them that doesn't depend on common descent?

[Per Ahlberg]

you remember me, aka TomboyMom and Gaytheist.
Say, Tomboy, I knew about the gay bit but I never realized you were a theist...;)

[Ray Moscow]

Charles Darwin's Book was called "The Origin of Species," but what he should have called it was "The Origin of Novelty" because ultimately, the origin of species must come as a result of the origin of novelty. The origin of novelty, in fact, IS evolution...the origin of novelty, quite basically, is the origin of change.



Have you read the book? No?

Understand it? No.

Then STFU.

[SAWells]

I have no reason to doubt Genesis, as written.

Even though it's both internally contradictory and also inconsistent with evidence? Wow.

[Wolfhound]

Reboot of Lamarckian Mind Woo Trainwreck in 3...2...1...

[Obd]

This is why the fossil record shows what it shows. This is why there are not any intermediates linking closely-related species to each other.

Oh really? We keep finding new fossils that can be classified as intermediates between older and newer fossils and they even turn out to be in the age range we'd expect them to be if descent with modification were true.


This is why like-organism living in the same environment all exhibit the same traits such as size, color, shape, etc....it's because they're all self-organizing entities who live and change together.

Do they? Are you saying dogbreeds are totally unlike eachother?


So here's my point. Since this is all undoubtedly true, to be a darwinist, you must believe 2 things:

I'd say that 150 years after Darwin hardly anyone would consider themselves to be a 'Darwinist'.


1) you must believe that darwinism was something that happened in the past, but is essentially finished now because each individual is adaptive

Being adaptive isn't some on/off switch. It's the ability to cope with changes in the environment. It's even quite meaningless to assign a single variable to it. No matter how well fish are adapted to living in a lake, they'd be quite unadapted if the lake would run dry.


, thus there is no need for selection to adapt. This is despite the fact that even supposedly "ancient" organisms such as insects are highly adaptive and able to self-generate new traits.

What, you mean like butterfly wombs?


2) You must believe that somehow, some way, genomes evolved, despite the fact that all -- or most -- of the morphological change we see around us is not caused from mutations, much less the random kind

I'm sure you have an extensive amount of scientific literature to back assertion up.


....that all the morphological change we see in the field bypasses natural selection, and thus, bypasses evolution.

Really, ever heard of Hox genes?


So my question is: how does common descent happen without natural selection? How is it that you can believe in common descent when what we see in the field are populations of dynamic, self-changing, self-adapting organisms, each of whom respond to environmental changes together?

Where's the evolution? I can't find it.

The problem is that your entire assertion about selection is bogus, therefore your question is completely meaningless.

[Febble]

Hello everyone. You don't mind if I stretch out and make myself comfortable here, do you? I'm done at RnR...so I'll be hanging out here a while if anyone cares to converse.

In this post I'm going to present my logic as to why common descent and evolution as a whole must both be false.

Good for you.

As you may know I do not believe in natural selection's ability to sway populations in adaptive directions. But let me start at the beginning:

Darwin was convinced of natural selection, but he had no idea how novelty came into being. He knew that something had to produce the variation from which selection could act, so he stole Lamarck's internal mechanism. Of course many in the evolutionary community soon figured out that it would be redundant if adaptive traits were generated from within each individual, only then to turn around and claim that natural selection adapted populations. This is only logical. It's either one or the other...adaptation doesn't happen twice.

OK, here is your first logical error. The ability to adapt (for example, the ability of trees to grow stronger material on the windward side of the trunk) may itself be an adaptation (trees with this ability are more likely to survive long enough to shed seeds). There is no "either one or the other" about it. Adaptation occurs at both the organism and the population level, but the adaptation in each case is different.

The organism "adapts" to a prevailing wind, say from the east.

The population of trees "adapts", through natural selection, the capacity to adapt to any prevailing wind, wherever it is blowing from.

You can actually see this where an old growth forest has been logged. The newly exposed trees at the edge of the forest are very vulnerable to wind, as they have not "adapted" to the higher winds they are now exposed to. And they blow down. But the forest as a whole is adapted to this eventuality, because new trees that grow up on the new edge will have inherited the naturally-selected capacity shared by all the trees in the forest to grow stronger material on the windward side.

[supersport]

Absent common descent with modification, what's your falsifiable explanation for the existence of nested hierarchies? Any idea what they are? Any idea why they support common descent? Any explanation for them that doesn't depend on common descent?

I don't really understand the whole logic of nested hierachies and how it is that it points to common descent.

[supersport]

obd: Do they? Are you saying dogbreeds are totally unlike eachother?

their differences cannot be explained by way of mutation.

[supersport]

Hello everyone. You don't mind if I stretch out and make myself comfortable here, do you? I'm done at RnR...so I'll be hanging out here a while if anyone cares to converse.

In this post I'm going to present my logic as to why common descent and evolution as a whole must both be false.

Good for you.

As you may know I do not believe in natural selection's ability to sway populations in adaptive directions. But let me start at the beginning:

Darwin was convinced of natural selection, but he had no idea how novelty came into being. He knew that something had to produce the variation from which selection could act, so he stole Lamarck's internal mechanism. Of course many in the evolutionary community soon figured out that it would be redundant if adaptive traits were generated from within each individual, only then to turn around and claim that natural selection adapted populations. This is only logical. It's either one or the other...adaptation doesn't happen twice.

OK, here is your first logical error. The ability to adapt (for example, the ability of trees to grow stronger material on the windward side of the trunk) may itself be an adaptation (trees with this ability are more likely to survive long enough to shed seeds). There is no "either one or the other" about it. Adaptation occurs at both the organism and the population level, but the adaptation in each case is different.

The organism "adapts" to a prevailing wind, say from the east.

The population of trees "adapts", through natural selection, the capacity to adapt to any prevailing wind, wherever it is blowing from.

You can actually see this where an old growth forest has been logged. The newly exposed trees at the edge of the forest are very vulnerable to wind, as they have not "adapted" to the higher winds they are now exposed to. And they blow down. But the forest as a whole is adapted to this eventuality, because new trees that grow up on the new edge will have inherited the naturally-selected capacity shared by all the trees in the forest to grow stronger material on the windward side.

then it sounds like we're on the same page. We both agree that individuals have the capacity to change with a changing environment. But from there we both must rely on faith. I have faith that God created animals adaptive to changing environments, you believe that natural selection did it. Unfortunately, neither one of us can prove our worldviews.

One problem you do have, however, is for decades evolutionists have been using their neo-darwinist assumptions to place dates on fossils. For example, they might assume that a bat evolved from a mouse...and if this were to happen via darwinism, it might indeed take millions of years for the lucky genes to mutate and get selected....but if it were to be a situation whereby somehow bats were actually mice who had their genes reexpressed by some environmental or developmental cue, "evolution" could happen in a relative heartbeat. This fact shrinks down the long ages evos have long assumed.....they have assumed that the earth is billions of years old because it would take that long for animals to evolve via darwinism...but ifyou take darwinism out and replace it with something else -- some other lightning-fast mechanism -- then the logic of the long ages fizzles.

[ninewands]

This is why the fossil record shows what it shows. This is why there are not any intermediates linking closely-related species to each other.
I beg to differ. (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/pelycodus.html)
Where's the evolution? I can't find it.
It's all around you. You would find it if you would open your mind to the scientific method.
That only leaves creation.
No, SS, even if the ToE is completely wrong, which it is not, that says absolutely nothing about the truth of creationism. Your ffalse dichotomy is showing. There could be some other, as yet undiscovered mechanism. Creationism has to stand on its own, which requires evidence that it is, in fact, true. There is none.

[Ray Moscow]

No, SS, even if the ToE is completely wrong, which it is not, that says absolutely nothing about the truth of creationism. Your ffalse dichotomy is showing. There could be some other, as yet undiscovered mechanism. Creationism has to stand on its own, which requires evidence that it is, in fact, true. There is none.

You forget the greatest Evidence of all!

http://www.personalizationmall.com/cat_image/1117D-C1.jpg

:D

[ck1]

then it sounds like we're on the same page. We both agree that individuals have the capacity to change with a changing environment. But from there we both must rely on faith. I have faith that God created animals adaptive to changing environments, you believe that natural selection did it. Unfortunately, neither one of us can prove our worldviews.

One problem you do have, however, is for decades evolutionists have been using their neo-darwinist assumptions to place dates on fossils. For example, they might assume that a bat evolved from a mouse...and if this were to happen via darwinism, it might indeed take millions of years for the lucky genes to mutate and get selected....but if it were to be a situation whereby somehow bats were actually mice who had their genes reexpressed by some environmental or developmental cue, "evolution" could happen in a relative heartbeat. This fact shrinks down the long ages evos have long assumed.....they have assumed that the earth is billions of years old because it would take that long for animals to evolve via darwinism...but ifyou take darwinism out and replace it with something else -- some other lightning-fast mechanism -- then the logic of the long ages fizzles.

We only agree that individuals have a LIMITED capacity to change in response to a changing environment through cell signalling cascades activated by these cues.

WE have identified genes involved in these signalling cascades responsible for the response to environmental cues. We can and do investigate those genes and their functions.

YOU have faith...in a lightning fast mechanism (that could change mice into bats) for which you have no evidence at all.

[ck1]

Supersport,

How old is the earth?

You seem to be arguing for some sort of superfast near-instantaneous "evolutionary" changes. I thought creationists argued that creatures like mice and bats represent "kinds" that were made in their current forms.

[supersport]

Supersport,

How old is the earth?

You seem to be arguing for some sort of superfast near-instantaneous "evolutionary" changes. I thought creationists argued that creatures like mice and bats represent "kinds" that were made in their current forms.


I don't know how old the earth is. My gut tells me it was an instantaneous, supernatural creation out of nothing just a few thousand years ago. But it could be that the universe was created eons ago and just recently got inhabited by lifeforms. I don't know or read much about the age of the earth so I am not able to debate the ins and outs of that....but I think the evidence shows quite clearly that lifeforms have not been on earth for very long -- starting with the fact that dinos have been unearthed with soft, red tissue still attached to their bones and that they were depicted in ancient art and written about in ancient literature.

As far as bats and mice being different kinds, it's hard to say. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. I'm all for doing experiments on animals to see if new environments can re-express animals' morphology. It wouldn't surprise me if organisms have a huge potential for change. In fact, I'm leaning more and more in that direction. Heck, if it could be shown that apes and humans were interchangeable by the re-expression of genes, as suggested here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060309190112.htm... I would be forced to accept it.

[SAWells]

Supersport,

How old is the earth?



I don't know how old the earth is. My gut tells me it was an instantaneous, supernatural creation out of nothing just a few thousand years ago.


That's not your gut.

[Obd]

obd: Do they? Are you saying dogbreeds are totally unlike eachother?

their differences cannot be explained by way of mutation.

Simple sequence repeats as advantageous mutators in evolution
Yechezkel Kashi and David G. King

Skeletal morphology in domestic dogs
A different type of evidence, showing that variation generated by SSRs can supply the raw material for evolutionary divergence in phenotype, has recently been provided by Fondon and Garner's [17] analysis of 92 breeds of domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris).

When Fondon and Garner examined 17 genes known to influence morphological traits, they found ‘only a few silent SNPs’. By contrast, they found that these 17 genes had ‘extraordinary levels of tandem repeat variation’, with a polymorphism in almost every gene examined. Furthermore, the exceptional purity of repetition in these morphogenetic genes, in contrast to less-perfect repeats at other sites, suggests that diversifying selection has followed purifying mutational slippage too recently to permit the accumulation of new point mutations.

Although the function of most of the observed SSR polymorphism remains unknown, Fondon and Garner [17] found that the length ratio of two adjacent SSRs in the runt-related transcription factor Runx-2, encoding 18–20 glutamines followed by 12–17 alanines, was correlated with measures of facial shape across breeds. In humans, the homologous CBFA1 gene, which encodes osteoblast-specific transcription factor OSF2, is known to influence craniofacial structure, and an expansion of the alanine stretch from 17 to 27 has been found in members of one family who have cleidocranial dysplasia [30]. Fondon and Garner also found that in Great Pyrenees, a dog breed characterized by polydactyly, the presence of extra toes was consistently linked with a 51-bp contraction of a hexanucleotide repeat in Alx-4, a gene previously associated with polydactyly in mice.

This evidence strongly suggests that genetic variation supplied by SSRs is at least partially responsible for phenotypic differences among dogs within the same breed and for morphological divergence among dog breeds. Although the traits that distinguish dog breeds have been shaped by human breeders, there is no reason to suppose that artificial selection draws on a source of variation any different from that which sustains natural selection.

link (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TCY-4JKHKXT-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0c57836b986883c05f261415ea4d7da0)

[Wolfhound]

I don't know how old the earth is. My gut tells me it was an instantaneous, supernatural creation out of nothing just a few thousand years ago. But it could be that the universe was created eons ago and just recently got inhabited by lifeforms. I don't know or read much about the age of the earth so I am not able to debate the ins and outs of that....but I think the evidence shows quite clearly that lifeforms have not been on earth for very long -- starting with the fact that dinos have been unearthed with soft, red tissue still attached to their bones and that they were depicted in ancient art and written about in ancient literature.Wow, looks like Dave has a kindred spirit in the "dating techniques are crap" and "sky daddy poofed everything here instantaneously" science denial silliness. The "evidence shows quite clearly" (when it clearly doesn't) delusion is right outta' Dave's book of favorite phrases.

I know many of us would love your spin of things on the Dave Dating Denial thread currently in progress.:banana:

[ck1]

Supersport,

How old is the earth?

You seem to be arguing for some sort of superfast near-instantaneous "evolutionary" changes. I thought creationists argued that creatures like mice and bats represent "kinds" that were made in their current forms.


I don't know how old the earth is. My gut tells me it was an instantaneous, supernatural creation out of nothing just a few thousand years ago. But it could be that the universe was created eons ago and just recently got inhabited by lifeforms. I don't know or read much about the age of the earth so I am not able to debate the ins and outs of that....but I think the evidence shows quite clearly that lifeforms have not been on earth for very long -- starting with the fact that dinos have been unearthed with soft, red tissue still attached to their bones and that they were depicted in ancient art and written about in ancient literature.

As far as bats and mice being different kinds, it's hard to say. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. I'm all for doing experiments on animals to see if new environments can re-express animals' morphology. It wouldn't surprise me if organisms have a huge potential for change. In fact, I'm leaning more and more in that direction. Heck, if it could be shown that apes and humans were interchangeable by the re-expression of genes, as suggested here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060309190112.htm... I would be forced to accept it.

That sciencedaily link deals with a paper that looks at the relative contribution to evolution of genes that code for proteins vs genetic sequences responsible for regulating expression of those genes. Both types of sequences are inherited through the genome, and mutations in both types of inherited sequences have been associated with the types of morphological changes that concern you.

Nat Rev Genet. 2007 Mar;8(3):206-16.
The evolutionary significance of cis-regulatory mutations.
Wray GA.
Department of Biology and Institute for Genome Sciences & Policy, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA. gwray@duke.edu

For decades, evolutionary biologists have argued that changes in cis-regulatory sequences constitute an important part of the genetic basis for adaptation. Although originally based on first principles, this claim is now empirically well supported: numerous studies have identified cis-regulatory mutations with functionally significant consequences for morphology, physiology and behaviour. The focus has now shifted to considering whether cis-regulatory and coding mutations make qualitatively different contributions to phenotypic evolution. Cases in which parallel mutations have produced parallel trait modifications in particular suggest that some phenotypic changes are more likely to result from cis-regulatory mutations than from coding mutations.

http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v8/n3/abs/nrg2063.html;jsessionid=5F17AAB031797D1880323E3883 F9C9BF

[ninewands]

then it sounds like we're on the same page. We both agree that individuals have the capacity to change with a changing environment. But from there we both must rely on faith. I have faith that God created animals adaptive to changing environments, you believe that natural selection did it. Unfortunately, neither one of us can prove our worldviews.
You fail to see that it is not a difference of worldview. It is a difference of evidence. There are literally mountains of evidence that support the understanding that the earth is very old and that life evolved from the initial living thing into the diversity we see today through purely natural processes. It is also a lack of understanding, on your part, of just what the Theory of Evolution says and what that means.
One problem you do have, however, is for decades evolutionists have been using their neo-darwinist assumptions to place dates on fossils. For example, they might assume that a bat evolved from a mouse...and if this were to happen via darwinism, it might indeed take millions of years for the lucky genes to mutate and get selected....but if it were to be a situation whereby somehow bats were actually mice who had their genes reexpressed by some environmental or developmental cue, "evolution" could happen in a relative heartbeat. This fact shrinks down the long ages evos have long assumed.....they have assumed that the earth is billions of years old because it would take that long for animals to evolve via darwinism...
Actually, no ... geologists reached the conclusion that the earth was very old several decades before any theories related to evolution were first propounded.
but ifyou take darwinism out and replace it with something else -- some other lightning-fast mechanism --
Like, for instance, MAGIC?
then the logic of the long ages fizzles.
No, because the "logic of the long ages" stands on its own, SS. As I said, above, it was well established scientific FACT that the earth was very old long before evolution was proposed. James Hutton's Theory of the Earth or an Investigation of the Laws observable in the Composition, Dissolution, and Restoration of Land upon the Globe was published by the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1788. His An Investigation of the Principles of Knowledge and of the Progress of Reason, from Sense to Science and Philosophy, in which he propounded uniformitarianism and the concept of deep time was completed in 1795, although his prose was so obscure and difficult to read that the ideas in it were not widely accepted until they were restated more clearly by John Playfair in 1802 and Charles Lyell in the 1830s. Oddly enough, it was Hutton who first proposed a mechanism for the application of uniformitarianism to living creatures, a sort of evolution if you please, and even proposed a "sort of" natural selection mechanism through which it would operate:
"...if an organised body is not in the situation and circumstances best adapted to its sustenance and propagation, then, in conceiving an indefinite variety among the individuals of that species, we must be assured, that, on the one hand, those which depart most from the best adapted constitution, will be the most liable to perish, while, on the other hand, those organised bodies, which most approach to the best constitution for the present circumstances, will be best adapted to continue, in preserving themselves and multiplying the individuals of their race." – Investigation of the Principles of Knowledge, volume 2.
As the quote shows, Hutton was a man ahead of his time, but the clarity of his writing sucked.

So, you see, it works the other way around. Charles Darwin's knowledge of geology (he had Lyell's books with him on the Beagle and he became close friends with Lyell on his return to England) allowed him to develop his thoughts on evolution.

[Gojira]

Absent common descent with modification, what's your falsifiable explanation for the existence of nested hierarchies? Any idea what they are? Any idea why they support common descent? Any explanation for them that doesn't depend on common descent?

I don't really understand the whole logic of nested hierachies and how it is that it points to common descent.

At this point, my PC gave up and rebooted itself in disgust.

Honest, it did!

It's a sign, I tell you! :D

[Lucretius III]

Do the one about hopping on the sun. The one with the magic eyeballs. That's my favorite.

Mine too :D

[ericmurphy]

Absent common descent with modification, what's your falsifiable explanation for the existence of nested hierarchies? Any idea what they are? Any idea why they support common descent? Any explanation for them that doesn't depend on common descent?

I don't really understand the whole logic of nested hierachies and how it is that it points to common descent.

That's kind of your problem, Supersport. I already sent you huge swaths of text that explains exactly how nested hierarchies support common descent; indeed, that common descent is the only known explanation for nested hierarchies.

But as I recall, you deleted that material unread. Any particular reason you weren't interested in learning about it? It's fascinating stuff.

[ericmurphy]

obd: Do they? Are you saying dogbreeds are totally unlike eachother?

their differences cannot be explained by way of mutation.

Sure they can. Different alleles for the same genes are responsible for different characters. Are you still unclear on the distinction between "alleles" and "genes"? This is stuff that was covered in my seventh-grade biology class, Supersport.

[Lucretius III]

Absent common descent with modification, what's your falsifiable explanation for the existence of nested hierarchies? Any idea what they are? Any idea why they support common descent? Any explanation for them that doesn't depend on common descent?

I don't really understand the whole logic of nested hierachies and how it is that it points to common descent.

At this point, my PC gave up and rebooted itself in disgust.

Honest, it did!

It's a sign, I tell you! :D

I actually discovered while reading Supersports "vision " nonsense a previously unknown function of my PC which I like to call SSO (Serious or Severe Stupidity Overload) which caused it to crash if I look at (mainly creationist ) nonsense too much in one day .
Very thoughtful of Bill Gates and Microsoft to include such a function I thought :)

[Ray Moscow]

I suggest that Supersport, and Dave also, go back and start reading some relevant science at, say, a high school level.

I don't say this to insult them, but just to point out that their posts show little or no understanding of science at even that basic level.

You have to walk before you run, and that's still a long way before you can pretend, with any credibility, that most of the world's top athletes (scientists) are incompetent -- as these guys do in practically every thread and damn near every post.

[dancer_rnb]

What is the difference between the gene for malarial resistance hemoglobin/sickle cell anemia and a normal hemoglobin gene, and how did it come about?

I'll answer that as soon as you tackle my OP.


From your OP.

- But what science is finally admitting (though for decades they've locked the evo devos in closets like sexual degenerates) is that novelty is generated in developing embryos when the organism somehow generates adaptive traits by turning its genes on and off.

There is no gene to turn on and off in the case of sickle cell trait.
It is a point mutation. It is either there, or it isn't.

[Fathermithras]

starting with the fact that dinos have been unearthed with soft, red tissue still attached to their bones and that they were depicted in ancient art and written about in ancient literature.

That is a flagrantly false statement. This was shot down years ago.

[Ian Nerr]

starting with the fact that dinos have been unearthed with soft, red tissue still attached to their bones and that they were depicted in ancient art and written about in ancient literature.

That is a flagrantly false statement. This was shot down years ago.

You have clearly never been to a dinosaur barbecue.

[RAFH]

Hello everyone. You don't mind if I stretch out and make myself comfortable here, do you? I'm done at RnR...so I'll be hanging out here a while if anyone cares to converse.

In this post I'm going to present my logic as to why common descent and evolution as a whole must both be false.

Good for you.

As you may know I do not believe in natural selection's ability to sway populations in adaptive directions. But let me start at the beginning:

Darwin was convinced of natural selection, but he had no idea how novelty came into being. He knew that something had to produce the variation from which selection could act, so he stole Lamarck's internal mechanism. Of course many in the evolutionary community soon figured out that it would be redundant if adaptive traits were generated from within each individual, only then to turn around and claim that natural selection adapted populations. This is only logical. It's either one or the other...adaptation doesn't happen twice.

OK, here is your first logical error. The ability to adapt (for example, the ability of trees to grow stronger material on the windward side of the trunk) may itself be an adaptation (trees with this ability are more likely to survive long enough to shed seeds). There is no "either one or the other" about it. Adaptation occurs at both the organism and the population level, but the adaptation in each case is different.

The organism "adapts" to a prevailing wind, say from the east.

The population of trees "adapts", through natural selection, the capacity to adapt to any prevailing wind, wherever it is blowing from.

You can actually see this where an old growth forest has been logged. The newly exposed trees at the edge of the forest are very vulnerable to wind, as they have not "adapted" to the higher winds they are now exposed to. And they blow down. But the forest as a whole is adapted to this eventuality, because new trees that grow up on the new edge will have inherited the naturally-selected capacity shared by all the trees in the forest to grow stronger material on the windward side.

But trees don't grow stronger tissue on the windward side, it would make no difference if they did because the wind induces a moment couple that requires tensile strength on one side and compressive strength on the other, in other words, both sides would have to increase in strength which means the whole tree would have the same strength. Indeed, the wood that provides the strength in a tree is the heartwood which is dead. Sapwood is living (ie - sap) and has little or no strength in comparison. In any case, there is no variation in the strength of wood dependent on its location within the tree, other than the presence of knots, splits and checks. There is a tendency to develop additional tissue to windward, this includes both branches and foliage as well as the trunk. The additional foliage and branches helps to counter-balance the force of the wind somewhat but it can't be much or the tree would topple over the first time the wind abated, as winds are wont to do. The additional tissue in the trunk increases the depth of the section thus increasing both the section modulus and the moment of inertia. But there is no increase in useful stress levels. Indeed, there may be some increase of tissue on the leeward side as well, because as noted, the wind creates a cantilever and that creates a moment couple with tension on one side and compression on the other. Fact is, the leeward side will often be broader because compression also induced buckling and that requires width as well as depth to counter.

So, basically, falsie-gussie-sue is a complete fake, as far as science goes. One sort of wishes one could blame it on FUNDAMENTIA but in gussie-sue's situation, it's just the STOOPID.

[Febble]

Hello everyone. You don't mind if I stretch out and make myself comfortable here, do you? I'm done at RnR...so I'll be hanging out here a while if anyone cares to converse.

In this post I'm going to present my logic as to why common descent and evolution as a whole must both be false.

Good for you.

As you may know I do not believe in natural selection's ability to sway populations in adaptive directions. But let me start at the beginning:

Darwin was convinced of natural selection, but he had no idea how novelty came into being. He knew that something had to produce the variation from which selection could act, so he stole Lamarck's internal mechanism. Of course many in the evolutionary community soon figured out that it would be redundant if adaptive traits were generated from within each individual, only then to turn around and claim that natural selection adapted populations. This is only logical. It's either one or the other...adaptation doesn't happen twice.

OK, here is your first logical error. The ability to adapt (for example, the ability of trees to grow stronger material on the windward side of the trunk) may itself be an adaptation (trees with this ability are more likely to survive long enough to shed seeds). There is no "either one or the other" about it. Adaptation occurs at both the organism and the population level, but the adaptation in each case is different.

The organism "adapts" to a prevailing wind, say from the east.

The population of trees "adapts", through natural selection, the capacity to adapt to any prevailing wind, wherever it is blowing from.

You can actually see this where an old growth forest has been logged. The newly exposed trees at the edge of the forest are very vulnerable to wind, as they have not "adapted" to the higher winds they are now exposed to. And they blow down. But the forest as a whole is adapted to this eventuality, because new trees that grow up on the new edge will have inherited the naturally-selected capacity shared by all the trees in the forest to grow stronger material on the windward side.

But trees don't grow stronger tissue on the windward side, it would make no difference if they did because the wind induces a moment couple that requires tensile strength on one side and compressive strength on the other, in other words, both sides would have to increase in strength which means the whole tree would have the same strength. Indeed, the wood that provides the strength in a tree is the heartwood which is dead. Sapwood is living (ie - sap) and has little or no strength in comparison. In any case, there is no variation in the strength of wood dependent on its location within the tree, other than the presence of knots, splits and checks. There is a tendency to develop additional tissue to windward, this includes both branches and foliage as well as the trunk. The additional foliage and branches helps to counter-balance the force of the wind somewhat but it can't be much or the tree would topple over the first time the wind abated, as winds are wont to do. The additional tissue in the trunk increases the depth of the section thus increasing both the section modulus and the moment of inertia. But there is no increase in useful stress levels. Indeed, there may be some increase of tissue on the leeward side as well, because as noted, the wind creates a cantilever and that creates a moment couple with tension on one side and compression on the other. Fact is, the leeward side will often be broader because compression also induced buckling and that requires width as well as depth to counter.

So, basically, falsie-gussie-sue is a complete fake, as far as science goes. One sort of wishes one could blame it on FUNDAMENTIA but in gussie-sue's situation, it's just the STOOPID.

O RLY? Well, you know more about this than I do, and I confess to a deliberate over-simplification with the word "stronger" - I considered "greater tensile strength" - but I had understood that it was essentially true. Certainly the foresters in BC seemed to think so, as they were constantly pointing out it wasn't enough simply to ban logging of important old growth groves, but to ban logging of the forest around it. I saw a number of lovely old trees that had been blown over at edge of a logging site, because their neighbours were no longer there.

But I defer to your greater expertise.

[nygreenguy]

but I think the evidence shows quite clearly that lifeforms have not been on earth for very long -- starting with the fact that dinos have been unearthed with soft, red tissue still attached to their bones Could it be possible that there are processes for preserving these tissues that you simply dont know about?

(and can I get a source on this?)

and that they were depicted in ancient art and written about in ancient literature.
Firstly, Id also like to see the evidence of this. I remember of hearing of many fakes regarding this.

It also ignores the facts that perhaps these people stumbled upon the fossils as well and created stories from it. Also, what makes you think they are simply not just fantasies to begin with?

[Linus]

But what science is finally admitting (though for decades they've locked the evo devos in closets like sexual degenerates) is that novelty is generated in developing embryos when the organism somehow generates adaptive traits by turning its genes on and off. In this way, what causes this adaptive novelty is what causes evolution. What causes the nervous system to be able to sense its internal and external environments and then release the appropriate hormones to self-generate fitness while it differentiates is what ultimately leads to the origin of novelty and species.
That paragraph is a bit unclear. How does an individual's ontogentic development from fertilized egg to adult organism affect its genes? Do you envision that not only genes, but also their current states (on or off), are passed on to offspring?

[ck1]

starting with the fact that dinos have been unearthed with soft, red tissue still attached to their bones and that they were depicted in ancient art and written about in ancient literature.

That is a flagrantly false statement. This was shot down years ago.

You have clearly never been to a dinosaur barbecue.

I have. A great place. In Rochester, NY.

http://www.dinosaurbarbque.com/

Maybe NYgreenguy has been there also. (not so far from Syracuse)

Edit to note - I see they also have a location in Syracuse!!

[supersport]

Absent common descent with modification, what's your falsifiable explanation for the existence of nested hierarchies? Any idea what they are? Any idea why they support common descent? Any explanation for them that doesn't depend on common descent?

I don't really understand the whole logic of nested hierachies and how it is that it points to common descent.

That's kind of your problem, Supersport. I already sent you huge swaths of text that explains exactly how nested hierarchies support common descent; indeed, that common descent is the only known explanation for nested hierarchies.

But as I recall, you deleted that material unread. Any particular reason you weren't interested in learning about it? It's fascinating stuff.

I've actually read it, but quite honestly I just don't see how a classification of animals proves common descent. And without a valid mechanism to get one animal to change into another, it's really a moot point.

[ck1]

I don't really understand the whole logic of nested hierachies and how it is that it points to common descent.

That's kind of your problem, Supersport. I already sent you huge swaths of text that explains exactly how nested hierarchies support common descent; indeed, that common descent is the only known explanation for nested hierarchies.

But as I recall, you deleted that material unread. Any particular reason you weren't interested in learning about it? It's fascinating stuff.

I've actually read it, but quite honestly I just don't see how a classification of animals proves common descent. And without a valid mechanism to get one animal to change into another, it's really a moot point.
There is a mechanism. Descent with modification. Do your kids look exactly like you, or exactly like your wife?

[supersport]

But what science is finally admitting (though for decades they've locked the evo devos in closets like sexual degenerates) is that novelty is generated in developing embryos when the organism somehow generates adaptive traits by turning its genes on and off. In this way, what causes this adaptive novelty is what causes evolution. What causes the nervous system to be able to sense its internal and external environments and then release the appropriate hormones to self-generate fitness while it differentiates is what ultimately leads to the origin of novelty and species.
That paragraph is a bit unclear. How does an individual's ontogentic development from fertilized egg to adult organism affect its genes? Do you envision that not only genes, but also their current states (on or off), are passed on to offspring?

yes, on/off states are heritable too. that's the whole stink that screws the theory of natural selection: if nongenetic adaptive changes are getting selected, then selection is not selecting genes, it's selecting minds...(or whatever internal self-organizing processes are responsible for turning genes on or off.)

[supersport]

That's kind of your problem, Supersport. I already sent you huge swaths of text that explains exactly how nested hierarchies support common descent; indeed, that common descent is the only known explanation for nested hierarchies.

But as I recall, you deleted that material unread. Any particular reason you weren't interested in learning about it? It's fascinating stuff.

I've actually read it, but quite honestly I just don't see how a classification of animals proves common descent. And without a valid mechanism to get one animal to change into another, it's really a moot point.
There is a mechanism. Descent with modification. Do your kids look exactly like you, or exactly like your wife?

that's not a mechanism, that's a belief. Besides, I've been meaning to ask you: evos say that inheritence is not blended....but what's up with the faces/bodies/personalities of children, who often share physical/mental/emotional characteristics of both parents? sorry if this is a dumb question.

[supersport]

I suggest that Supersport, and Dave also, go back and start reading some relevant science at, say, a high school level.



.

Nope. I'm officially done with science. I have no more use for it.

[ck1]

But what science is finally admitting (though for decades they've locked the evo devos in closets like sexual degenerates) is that novelty is generated in developing embryos when the organism somehow generates adaptive traits by turning its genes on and off. In this way, what causes this adaptive novelty is what causes evolution. What causes the nervous system to be able to sense its internal and external environments and then release the appropriate hormones to self-generate fitness while it differentiates is what ultimately leads to the origin of novelty and species.
That paragraph is a bit unclear. How does an individual's ontogentic development from fertilized egg to adult organism affect its genes? Do you envision that not only genes, but also their current states (on or off), are passed on to offspring?

yes, on/off states are heritable too. that's the whole stink that screws the theory of natural selection: if nongenetic adaptive changes are getting selected, then selection is not selecting genes, it's selecting minds...(or whatever internal self-organizing processes are responsible for turning genes on or off.)

And your evidence for that is....?

There are certainly a few examples of inherited alterations in gene expression that are not due to sequence changes. But these are few, so far. On the other hand, there are lots of examples of genetic changes in coding genes and regulatory sequences that alter phenotype. You have to yet to address those examples and explain why they have no real role in the generation of heritable phenotypic change.

[Laton]

I suggest that Supersport, and Dave also, go back and start reading some relevant science at, say, a high school level.



.

Nope. I'm officially done with science. I have no more use for it.

:rolleyes:

Except for all those nice conveniences that scientific research provides a basis for of course, oh - and antibiotics when you feel like it.

[ck1]

I've actually read it, but quite honestly I just don't see how a classification of animals proves common descent. And without a valid mechanism to get one animal to change into another, it's really a moot point.
There is a mechanism. Descent with modification. Do your kids look exactly like you, or exactly like your wife?

that's not a mechanism, that's a belief. Besides, I've been meaning to ask you: evos say that inheritence is not blended....but what's up with the faces/bodies/personalities of children, who often share physical/mental/emotional characteristics of both parents? sorry if this is a dumb question.

Not a dumb question.

Every person has two copies of every gene. One copy, or version of that gene, called an allele, comes from the mother and the other allele is from the father. So each individual has 50% of their genetic makeup from each parent.

Some alleles are "dominant" and will control the phenotype no matter what the other allele is (like the Huntington's disease gene). Other alleles are "recessive" and will be evident only if both genes have the recessive version (like albino or cystic fibrosis).

Each child will inherit a mix of dominant and recessive alleles from each parent and so will resemble each in different ways.

[Constant Mews]

Guzman, descent with modification isn't a belief: it's an observation. You just admitted that it's true.

Please take time to think through your posts before you make them.

[nygreenguy]

Nope. I'm officially done with science. I have no more use for it.

Then stop drinking your water, driving your car, typing on your computer, living in your house, eating any food, etc....


Trust me, you have use for it. :D

Now answer my questions!

[ck1]

I suggest that Supersport, and Dave also, go back and start reading some relevant science at, say, a high school level.



.

Nope. I'm officially done with science. I have no more use for it.

Are you saying that you are not interested in further (formal) science education?

Obviously you spend a lot of time on science forums, addressing issues that deal with science, so you clearly have some interest in the subject. You also seem to read a lot of popular science articles dealing with science.

Why do you spend so much time and effort on something you say you have no use for?

[Constant Mews]

I suggest that Supersport, and Dave also, go back and start reading some relevant science at, say, a high school level.



.

Nope. I'm officially done with science. I have no more use for it.Unfortunately, your inability to understand it means that you will always lose every single argument with a scientist. Every single one.

Consider this analogous case: you are engaged in an argument with someone about Christology. They say, "I read a Gospel once. But I'm officially done with theology. I have no more use for it." Would you even bother to try to talk to them about Christology? Would it even make sense for you to take anything they said about preterism seriously?

And yet you are making the same irrational demand: that we take your claims seriously despite the fact that you know NOTHING about the subject - by your own admission. You are being hypocritical here by demanding behavior from others that you would not offer yourself. Not very Christian, eh?

[supersport]

That paragraph is a bit unclear. How does an individual's ontogentic development from fertilized egg to adult organism affect its genes? Do you envision that not only genes, but also their current states (on or off), are passed on to offspring?

yes, on/off states are heritable too. that's the whole stink that screws the theory of natural selection: if nongenetic adaptive changes are getting selected, then selection is not selecting genes, it's selecting minds...(or whatever internal self-organizing processes are responsible for turning genes on or off.)

And your evidence for that is....?
.

well, it better be heritable....as I've given you multiple links that claim evolution happens by way of gene regulation, not changes in genes themselves. Why would they claim such a thing if the changes were not heritable?

Lee Spetner, Not By Chance:

...there are some genetic states that are heritable. The most outstanding examples of heritable genetic states are the changes in the genetic program that occur during the development of an embryo. During development, genes get turned On and Off as the cells divide.......

....One known way of setting the genetic state and making it heritable is by attaching a methyl group (CH3) to one of the carbon atoms of the cytosine bases in the DNA.

....Another way of making a genetic state heritable is to have the gene turn On and Off with a locking trigger. A trigger that turns a gene On can lock it in that state if the gene itself causes the synthesis of the control protein that keeps it On. Once the gene is turned On it will remain On even after the trigger is removed. Such a state can be heritable. Pg. 193

[supersport]

I suggest that Supersport, and Dave also, go back and start reading some relevant science at, say, a high school level.



.

Nope. I'm officially done with science. I have no more use for it.Unfortunately, your inability to understand it means that you will always lose every single argument with a scientist. Every single one.

Consider this analogous case: you are engaged in an argument with someone about Christology. They say, "I read a Gospel once. But I'm officially done with theology. I have no more use for it." Would you even bother to try to talk to them about Christology? Would it even make sense for you to take anything they said about preterism seriously?

And yet you are making the same irrational demand: that we take your claims seriously despite the fact that you know NOTHING about the subject - by your own admission. You are being hypocritical here by demanding behavior from others that you would not offer yourself. Not very Christian, eh?

I don't think life can be explained scientifically. Life is not a machine...life is a creation...life is art...life is an expression of something much deeper than what we can see.

[supersport]

Nope. I'm officially done with science. I have no more use for it.

Then stop drinking your water, driving your car, typing on your computer, living in your house, eating any food, etc....


Trust me, you have use for it. :D

Now answer my questions!

I'm talking about evolutionary science -- the topic of this board.

[supersport]

There is a mechanism. Descent with modification. Do your kids look exactly like you, or exactly like your wife?

that's not a mechanism, that's a belief. Besides, I've been meaning to ask you: evos say that inheritence is not blended....but what's up with the faces/bodies/personalities of children, who often share physical/mental/emotional characteristics of both parents? sorry if this is a dumb question.

Not a dumb question.

Every person has two copies of every gene. One copy, or version of that gene, called an allele, comes from the mother and the other allele is from the father. So each individual has 50% of their genetic makeup from each parent.

Some alleles are "dominant" and will control the phenotype no matter what the other allele is (like the Huntington's disease gene). Other alleles are "recessive" and will be evident only if both genes have the recessive version (like albino or cystic fibrosis).

Each child will inherit a mix of dominant and recessive alleles from each parent and so will resemble each in different ways.

ok, so in a way, offspring are a blend of their parents....but what you're saying is that, for instance, a specific trait -- such as my daughter's eyes -- couldn't look like both mine and my wife's eyes?

[Constant Mews]

that's not a mechanism, that's a belief. Besides, I've been meaning to ask you: evos say that inheritence is not blended....but what's up with the faces/bodies/personalities of children, who often share physical/mental/emotional characteristics of both parents? sorry if this is a dumb question.

Not a dumb question.

Every person has two copies of every gene. One copy, or version of that gene, called an allele, comes from the mother and the other allele is from the father. So each individual has 50% of their genetic makeup from each parent.

Some alleles are "dominant" and will control the phenotype no matter what the other allele is (like the Huntington's disease gene). Other alleles are "recessive" and will be evident only if both genes have the recessive version (like albino or cystic fibrosis).

Each child will inherit a mix of dominant and recessive alleles from each parent and so will resemble each in different ways.

ok, so in a way, offspring are a blend of their parents....but what you're saying is that, for instance, a specific trait -- such as my daughter's eyes -- couldn't look like both mine and my wife's eyes?

Exactly. Although you should keep in mind that 'eyes' are not a specific trait. Eye colour would be a better example: an eye cannot be both brown and green at the same time (though having one eye each of two different colours is possible).

[Constant Mews]

Nope. I'm officially done with science. I have no more use for it.

Then stop drinking your water, driving your car, typing on your computer, living in your house, eating any food, etc....


Trust me, you have use for it. :D

Now answer my questions!

I'm talking about evolutionary science -- the topic of this board.But how can you talk about evolutionary science? You have stated quite clearly that you have turned your back on science. You have admitted you have neither the education nor the experience nor the training to engage in a discussion of science. Yet you are here. How do you expect to carry on a reasonable debate when you are self-admittedly ignorant of and uninterested in the basic topic?

[Constant Mews]

Nope. I'm officially done with science. I have no more use for it.Unfortunately, your inability to understand it means that you will always lose every single argument with a scientist. Every single one.

Consider this analogous case: you are engaged in an argument with someone about Christology. They say, "I read a Gospel once. But I'm officially done with theology. I have no more use for it." Would you even bother to try to talk to them about Christology? Would it even make sense for you to take anything they said about preterism seriously?

And yet you are making the same irrational demand: that we take your claims seriously despite the fact that you know NOTHING about the subject - by your own admission. You are being hypocritical here by demanding behavior from others that you would not offer yourself. Not very Christian, eh?

I don't think life can be explained scientifically. Life is not a machine...life is a creation...life is art...life is an expression of something much deeper than what we can see.

While you are entitled to your opinion on the subject, the very existence and utility of biology, genetics, evolutionary biology, and their support of medicine demonstrates quite clearly that you are egregiously wrong.

[Constant Mews]

yes, on/off states are heritable too. that's the whole stink that screws the theory of natural selection: if nongenetic adaptive changes are getting selected, then selection is not selecting genes, it's selecting minds...(or whatever internal self-organizing processes are responsible for turning genes on or off.)

And your evidence for that is....?
.

well, it better be heritable....as I've given you multiple links that claim evolution happens by way of gene regulation, not changes in genes themselves. Why would they claim such a thing if the changes were not heritable?

Lee Spetner, Not By Chance:

...there are some genetic states that are heritable. The most outstanding examples of heritable genetic states are the changes in the genetic program that occur during the development of an embryo. During development, genes get turned On and Off as the cells divide.......

....One known way of setting the genetic state and making it heritable is by attaching a methyl group (CH3) to one of the carbon atoms of the cytosine bases in the DNA.

....Another way of making a genetic state heritable is to have the gene turn On and Off with a locking trigger. A trigger that turns a gene On can lock it in that state if the gene itself causes the synthesis of the control protein that keeps it On. Once the gene is turned On it will remain On even after the trigger is removed. Such a state can be heritable. Pg. 193

Because the mechanisms of gene regulation are themselves a product of genetics and gestation - and hence inheritable. Think things through, Guzman.

[ck1]

yes, on/off states are heritable too. that's the whole stink that screws the theory of natural selection: if nongenetic adaptive changes are getting selected, then selection is not selecting genes, it's selecting minds...(or whatever internal self-organizing processes are responsible for turning genes on or off.)

And your evidence for that is....?
.

well, it better be heritable....as I've given you multiple links that claim evolution happens by way of gene regulation, not changes in genes themselves. Why would they claim such a thing if the changes were not heritable?

Lee Spetner, Not By Chance:

...there are some genetic states that are heritable. The most outstanding examples of heritable genetic states are the changes in the genetic program that occur during the development of an embryo. During development, genes get turned On and Off as the cells divide.......

....One known way of setting the genetic state and making it heritable is by attaching a methyl group (CH3) to one of the carbon atoms of the cytosine bases in the DNA.

....Another way of making a genetic state heritable is to have the gene turn On and Off with a locking trigger. A trigger that turns a gene On can lock it in that state if the gene itself causes the synthesis of the control protein that keeps it On. Once the gene is turned On it will remain On even after the trigger is removed. Such a state can be heritable. Pg. 193

And I gave you a review article describing mutations in regulatory sequences that alter phenotype. Did you notice that?

Epigenetics is a hot area right now. But known heritable epigenetic modifications are rare. Maybe you could provide a list of real examples.

[Wolfhound]

Nope. I'm officially done with science. I have no more use for it.Sig worthy and submitted to FSTDT! :notworthy:

[Constant Mews]

Nope. I'm officially done with science. I have no more use for it.Sig worthy and submitted to FSTDT! :notworthy:It does seem a fairly startling statement for someone posting on a science forum to make.

[ck1]

Nope. I'm officially done with science. I have no more use for it.Unfortunately, your inability to understand it means that you will always lose every single argument with a scientist. Every single one.

Consider this analogous case: you are engaged in an argument with someone about Christology. They say, "I read a Gospel once. But I'm officially done with theology. I have no more use for it." Would you even bother to try to talk to them about Christology? Would it even make sense for you to take anything they said about preterism seriously?

And yet you are making the same irrational demand: that we take your claims seriously despite the fact that you know NOTHING about the subject - by your own admission. You are being hypocritical here by demanding behavior from others that you would not offer yourself. Not very Christian, eh?

I don't think life can be explained scientifically. Life is not a machine...life is a creation...life is art...life is an expression of something much deeper than what we can see.

artsy-fartsy. Nothing that helps me run a research lab.

[ck1]

that's not a mechanism, that's a belief. Besides, I've been meaning to ask you: evos say that inheritence is not blended....but what's up with the faces/bodies/personalities of children, who often share physical/mental/emotional characteristics of both parents? sorry if this is a dumb question.

Not a dumb question.

Every person has two copies of every gene. One copy, or version of that gene, called an allele, comes from the mother and the other allele is from the father. So each individual has 50% of their genetic makeup from each parent.

Some alleles are "dominant" and will control the phenotype no matter what the other allele is (like the Huntington's disease gene). Other alleles are "recessive" and will be evident only if both genes have the recessive version (like albino or cystic fibrosis).

Each child will inherit a mix of dominant and recessive alleles from each parent and so will resemble each in different ways.

ok, so in a way, offspring are a blend of their parents....but what you're saying is that, for instance, a specific trait -- such as my daughter's eyes -- couldn't look like both mine and my wife's eyes?

As CM said, the shape of your daughter's eyes are the result of several different genes - genes with dominant and recessive allelic variants. You should not expect your child to be your clone.

[ericmurphy]

I don't really understand the whole logic of nested hierachies and how it is that it points to common descent.

That's kind of your problem, Supersport. I already sent you huge swaths of text that explains exactly how nested hierarchies support common descent; indeed, that common descent is the only known explanation for nested hierarchies.

But as I recall, you deleted that material unread. Any particular reason you weren't interested in learning about it? It's fascinating stuff.

I've actually read it, but quite honestly I just don't see how a classification of animals proves common descent. And without a valid mechanism to get one animal to change into another, it's really a moot point.

So you lied when you said you deleted it unread. Well, that's hardly surprising. Actually, I'm pretty sure you're lying now when you say you have read it, because classification is barely even discussed in the section on nested hierarchies, except as it relates to Linneaus's attempts to construct nested hierarchies for anything other than living organisms.

But read it or not, the meaning in those words completely escaped you. Nested hierarchies have nothing to do with classification. Classification is a convenience, a human nomenclatural construct. Monophyletic groups are not. Monophyletic groups are objective groupings based on physical or genetic characteristics that computers can construct. In fact, when you're attempting to recover the phylogeny of more than a handful of taxa, only computers can construct them.

The problem for your personal incredulity, Supersport, is that nested hierarchies of necessity imply common descent; common descent is the only known explanation for nested hierarchies (if you can come up with another one, there's some prize money awaiting you in Stockholm), and nested hierarchies are conclusive evidence for common descent even in the absence of any known mechanism by which organisms can evolve with time. But of course we do have a known mechanism by which organisms can evolve with time. In fact, unless each generation is a clone of the previous generation, evolution is inevitable and unavoidable.

But since you're "done with science," I don't imagine this will mean anything to you, whether you make an honest attempt to understand it or not.

[ericmurphy]

I've actually read it, but quite honestly I just don't see how a classification of animals proves common descent. And without a valid mechanism to get one animal to change into another, it's really a moot point.
There is a mechanism. Descent with modification. Do your kids look exactly like you, or exactly like your wife?

that's not a mechanism, that's a belief.
Of course it's a mechanism. What kind of "belief" is necessary to note that organisms are not clones of their parents? Are you denying the objective reality that your siblings look neither exactly like you nor like your parents?

Besides, I've been meaning to ask you: evos say that inheritence is not blended....but what's up with the faces/bodies/personalities of children, who often share physical/mental/emotional characteristics of both parents? sorry if this is a dumb question.

Inheritance is not "blended"? What do you think Mendel was demonstrating with his pea plants?

Not getting any less ignorant, I see, Supersport—no matter what name you go by.

[ericmurphy]

yes, on/off states are heritable too. that's the whole stink that screws the theory of natural selection: if nongenetic adaptive changes are getting selected, then selection is not selecting genes, it's selecting minds...(or whatever internal self-organizing processes are responsible for turning genes on or off.)

And your evidence for that is....?
.

well, it better be heritable....as I've given you multiple links that claim evolution happens by way of gene regulation, not changes in genes themselves. Why would they claim such a thing if the changes were not heritable?

Guzman, you've got to get over this idea that gene regulation is not genetic. What are genes regulated by? They're regulated by other genes. To say that the majority of evolutionary change is a result of gene regulation does NOT amount to saying that most evolutionary change has nothing to do with genetics.

[ericmurphy]

I don't think life can be explained scientifically. Life is not a machine...life is a creation...life is art...life is an expression of something much deeper than what we can see.

Whether or not life can be explained by science (and there's every indication that less and less of life remains mysterious as more and more is known about it), your own brand of mystical woo cannot explain anything about life, or anything else, for that matter.

[Ray Moscow]

I suggest that Supersport, and Dave also, go back and start reading some relevant science at, say, a high school level.



.

Nope. I'm officially done with science. I have no more use for it.

QFT

Then why, pray, do you repeatedly post about scientific topics and pretend to know more than people who study and work in science?

[snorkild]

I suggest that Supersport, and Dave also, go back and start reading some relevant science at, say, a high school level.



.

Nope. I'm officially done with science. I have no more use for it.

Isn't this a bit like sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and shouting "I'm right, and I can't hear you, LALALALA"?

Not much hope for a rational debate that way, it seems to me.

[Febble]

I suggest that Supersport, and Dave also, go back and start reading some relevant science at, say, a high school level.



.

Nope. I'm officially done with science. I have no more use for it.

Do you retract your OP then? It looked like a brave attempt at some science.

[ck1]

well, it better be heritable....as I've given you multiple links that claim evolution happens by way of gene regulation, not changes in genes themselves. Why would they claim such a thing if the changes were not heritable?

Lee Spetner, Not By Chance:

...there are some genetic states that are heritable. The most outstanding examples of heritable genetic states are the changes in the genetic program that occur during the development of an embryo. During development, genes get turned On and Off as the cells divide.......

....One known way of setting the genetic state and making it heritable is by attaching a methyl group (CH3) to one of the carbon atoms of the cytosine bases in the DNA.

....Another way of making a genetic state heritable is to have the gene turn On and Off with a locking trigger. A trigger that turns a gene On can lock it in that state if the gene itself causes the synthesis of the control protein that keeps it On. Once the gene is turned On it will remain On even after the trigger is removed. Such a state can be heritable. Pg. 193

Supersport,

Do you have this Spetner book? It sounds like he is saying only that epigenetic changes added during development are maintained as those somatic cells divide. Fine. I assume he gives specific examples of what he is talking about. Or citations.

It is true that a great deal of "evolution happens by way of gene regulation", but not in the way you seem to think. Mutations in genetic sequences responsible for gene expression are heritable and can affect evolution.

[ninewands]

Nope. I'm officially done with science. I have no more use for it.Sig worthy and submitted to FSTDT! :notworthy:
Done.

[Dneh]

yes, on/off states are heritable too. that's the whole stink that screws the theory of natural selection: if nongenetic adaptive changes are getting selected, then selection is not selecting genes, it's selecting minds...(or whatever internal self-organizing processes are responsible for turning genes on or off.)

And your evidence for that is....?
.

well, it better be heritable....as I've given you multiple links that claim evolution happens by way of gene regulation, not changes in genes themselves. Why would they claim such a thing if the changes were not heritable?

Lee Spetner, Not By Chance:

...there are some genetic states that are heritable. The most outstanding examples of heritable genetic states are the changes in the genetic program that occur during the development of an embryo. During development, genes get turned On and Off as the cells divide.......

....One known way of setting the genetic state and making it heritable is by attaching a methyl group (CH3) to one of the carbon atoms of the cytosine bases in the DNA.

....Another way of making a genetic state heritable is to have the gene turn On and Off with a locking trigger. A trigger that turns a gene On can lock it in that state if the gene itself causes the synthesis of the control protein that keeps it On. Once the gene is turned On it will remain On even after the trigger is removed. Such a state can be heritable. Pg. 193


Lee Spetner is a creationist SS-really how seriously should we take his claims when he is working on this basis?

[Linus]

yes, on/off states are heritable too. that's the whole stink that screws the theory of natural selection: if nongenetic adaptive changes are getting selected, then selection is not selecting genes, it's selecting minds...(or whatever internal self-organizing processes are responsible for turning genes on or off.)
Aha, so you think natural selection for minds and a kind of Lamarckian evolution is a better model than mainstream evolutionary biology. You've commented on the heritability of on/off states for genes during ontogenetic development, but how do you account for the fact that the DNA sequences that make up the genes are different in different species?