I've been reading your attempts at de-bunking (if you will excuse the pun) the theory of Evolution. What I am actually wondering is what it is that you DO believe?
(I'm posting these seperately because they will no doubt generate lengthy discussions. Boy am I in trouble now!)
Posts: 239 | Location: Great lakes area | Registered: 11-07-05
I'm trying to train my brain to automatically filter out things that aren't true, and I give my filter unrestricted access to everything, including both my religious beliefs and science.
You'd be surprised how liberating it can be to get rid of excess baggage.
I've already answered this first question elsewhere, but the topics are so long you probably can't find them.
Basically, I believe that God created everything. His plan is to incubate his family here on this planet, and at the harvest we will all be "born" into his home.
That's a fancy way of saying "resurrected." I'm deliberately couching my beliefs in these terms because his creation identifies him and his plans from top to bottom, and it has become obvious to me that he intentionally imbedded within nature lessons for us to learn, resurrection being one of them.
As for evolution, it's fairly obvious just from observation that evolution takes place, but I'm not a sucker. Just because someone tells me that evolution can go so far as to change a living thing from one species to another, I'm going to need proof of that, since it cannot be redily observed.
The fossil record most certainly does not tell us anything of evolution. What we have are a lot of bones, and we interpret them according to our own beliefs, and sometimes according to our own biases. As long as evolutionists are prejudiced against religionists (and vice versa) I will always distrust the claims from both sides.
Posts: 239 | Location: Great lakes area | Registered: 11-07-05
Just because someone tells me that evolution can go so far as to change a living thing from one species to another, I'm going to need proof of that, since it cannot be redily observed.
But it has been observed. There have been observed instances of speciation.
This "yes, limited evolution, but not a lot of evolution" idea is common in Creationist misinformation. Scientifically, there is no difference between the mechanism of micro- and macro- evolution. One means change within a species, and one means enough to change to amount to a new species. It's the same mechanism, just more of it. Saying you can have one without the other is like saying you can take two steps but not ten steps. You need to tell us what mechanism you propose that limits evolutionary change. How do two isolated groups know when they have changed too much from each other? What stops the changing?
"Speciation", as you call it, has never been observed in mammals. As far as I know, only in bacteria and virus', and amphibians because they have alleles unique to their "kind" that are not present in any other living thing.
But you're missing two incredibly obvious points. When "speciation" takes place, the single new offspring does not EVER automatically doom all other members of the same species to death with no further offspring, they continue reproducing.
And the new species (if that's what you want to call it), still retains the genes of previous generations. They don't just whiff into thin air.
This does not create a new species, unless it also creates the diversity that you so desperately would like to forget all about.
I don't stretch "speciation" as far as you do, and I'm sure you can't find a single observed example in any living thing other than what I mentioned above, especially in mammals.
Posts: 239 | Location: Great lakes area | Registered: 11-07-05
So mammals are somehow exempt from speciation, because we haven't caught live ones at it?
What are those special 'alleles' in bugs and amphibians that allow evolution, but are missing in other organisms? Can you identify them? That's a real scientifc breakthrough - 'the evolution genes'.
Of course genes are sometimes retained, if switched off. We clearly have a gene for tail-growing as humans are sometimes born with one (bit difficult to really explain that without thinking of evolution, isn't it?).
The genes can also change, however. The DNA gets reshuffled, to put it crudely. In that case new information is created, and the old is lost. Of course, usually that has a negative effect on eventual reproduction - the 'new information' is gibberish. But sometimes, by chance (or Divine guidance, if you like) a small advantageous one. If enough of that kind of change happens often enough - over a long, long time - a new species gradually comes about. The small changes are cumlative - nothing has been identified that would stop an ongoing process of small changes form adding up to large change. A creature that is significantly different from its ancestor, or seperated groups of the same original ancestor can come about. The DNA and thus the organism and species do change significantly - but not all at once, of course, in complex organisms. Small changes, each one adantageous in some way, over time add up to a big change.
That's speciation. It isn't limited to bugs and amphibians (Why would it be? What evidence is there for that?) and it could, over billions of years, create exactly the diversity of species we see around us today.
So mammals are somehow exempt from speciation, because we haven't caught live ones at it?
Exactly.
quote:
What are those special 'alleles' in bugs and amphibians that allow evolution, but are missing in other organisms? Can you identify them?
You've misrepresented my post. Amphibians have the alleles (not "bugs"). If you'd like, you can pursue your own research offline.
quote:
Of course genes are sometimes retained, if switched off.
All of them?
quote:
The genes can also change, however.
The amazing, changing genes. Presto, chango! You're a monkey!
quote:
The DNA gets reshuffled, to put it crudely
You mean like Down's Syndrome? Is that a healthier, better surviving humanoid? Birth defects are destructive in nature. That's why they call them defects.
quote:
Of course, usually that has a negative effect on eventual reproduction - the 'new information' is gibberish.
Better tell FrankPuli. He's confused about this.
(Newnickname, you told me once that you couldn't imagine yourself living without constantly having new ideas. So why are you defending this tired old argument so energetically? Could it be that you have founding morals or founding ideas, and you're just not willing to admit it?)
Posts: 239 | Location: Great lakes area | Registered: 11-07-05
But sometimes, by chance (or Divine guidance, if you like) a small advantageous one.
Track one for me.
Better yet, instead of a genetics lesson, I'll just make a game of this one, since this is at the heart of another objection I have against evolution. I'll humor you, and just take you at your word without explaining.
You're so good at research, list for me on a post (as long as you want to make it), how many truly beneficial mutations you can find. (Keep in mind that you have to find real ones, not theoretical ones.)
Anyone can get in on this one. This might be fun.
Posts: 239 | Location: Great lakes area | Registered: 11-07-05
" "Speciation", as you call it, has never been observed in mammals. As far as I know, only in bacteria and virus', and amphibians because they have alleles unique to their "kind" that are not present in any other living thing."
"I don't stretch "speciation" as far as you do, and I'm sure you can't find a single observed example in any living thing other than what I mentioned above, especially in mammals."
" So mammals are somehow exempt from speciation, because we haven't caught live ones at it?
Exactly." - Bunkboy
-------- 5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation
The following are several examples of observations of speciation.
5.1 Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization.
5.1.1 Plants (See also the discussion in de Wet 1971).
5.7 Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata
In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses. WH × WH - 75% P1 × P1 - 95% P2 × P2 - 80% P1 × P2 - 77% WH × P1 - 0% WH × P2 - 0%
They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations. - TalkOrigins.org -------- Example three:
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)
Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41 ---- Example four:
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.
(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)
Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348 ---- Sharman, G.B., Close, R.L, Maynes, G.M., 1991, Chromosome evolution, phylogeny, and speciation of rock wallabies, Australian Journal of Zoology, Volume 37(2-4), pages 351-363. ---- Nevo, E., 1991, Evolutionary Theory and process of active speciation and adaptive radiation in subterranean mole rats, spalax-ehrenbergi superspecies, in Israel, Evolutionary Biology, Volume 25, pages 1-125.
... on and on to about #50 if you like...
There are about 100 each for every year before 1991 to 1987 in my database. ---- # Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. (rapid fish speciation in African lakes). Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.
# Hauffe, Heidi C.. Searle, Jeremy B.. A disappearing speciation event? (response to J.A. Coyne, Nature, vol. 355, p. 511, 1992). Nature. V357. P26(1) May 7, 1992. Abstract:
Analysis of contact between two chromosomal races of house mice in northern Italy show that natural selection will produce alleles that bar interracial matings if the resulting offspring are unfit hybrids. This is an important exception to the general rule that intermixing races will not tend to become separate species because the constant sharing of genes minimizes the genetic diversity requisite for speciation.
# Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992.
Nores, Manuel. Bird speciation in subtropical South America in relation to forest expansion and retraction. The Auk. V109. P346(12) April, 1992. Abstract:
The climatic and geographic history of the Pleistocene and Holocene periods modified the distribution of the bird population in the South American forests. Forest birds are found dispersed in the Yungas and Paranese areas with only minimal infiltration of the Chaco woodland, indicating an atmospheric change during the interglacial periods. In the Chaco lowlands, the interactions between non-forest birds reveal the existence of presence of a forest belt along the Bermejo and Pilcomayo rivers.
I do not currently have references to cite for the speciation of fish, however I have a couple for the case of rats. Genus Rattus currently consists of 137 species [1,2] and is known to have originally developed in Indonesia and Malaysia during and prior to the Middle Ages [3]. ([1] is the only source I have consulted.)
[1] T. Yosida. Cytogenetics of the Black Rat. University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980. [2] D. Morris. The Mammals. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1965. [3] G. H. H. Tate. "Some Muridae of the Indo-Australian region," Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 72: 501-728, 1963. - TalkOrigins.org -------- Biological & geological patterns of speciation
Speciation by Allopatric Divergence is characteristic of 'typical' vertebrates Mammals (especially Carnivora) & birds Look for ecogeographic, clinal subspecies highly vagile, large Ne, K-selected, ecological generalists Freshwater fish: waterfalls & shallows, watershed recaptures create barriers Epicontinental marine fishes: N/S temperature gradients, river outflow (Ex.: Gulf of St. Lawrence) - Mun.Ca/Biology -------- This project aims to show how some small African mammals evolved in the face of paleaoclimatic changes in tropical Africa. Ultimately, we intend to test the assumption that climatic cyclic changes are an important driving mechanism for speciation in small terrestrial mammals. Our results have already resulted in the description of new mammal species and have allowed the molecular characterisation of historically isolated sets of populations. Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences -------- Macroscope January-February, 2002
The Real Biodiversity Crisis
Phillip S. Levin and Donald A. Levin
If ecological diversity is lost in this way, some conservation biologists argue, speciation rates will be lowered permanently. And because species diversity represents a dynamic equilibrium between extinction and speciation, a lowered rate of speciation would undoubtedly create a lower equilibrium in species number. Thus some foresee a persistent speciation crisis and a plummeting number of species as the main threat to biodiversity in the long term.
Although this argument may hold for, say, the bigger mammals, which presumably require large areas for speciation, it is unlikely to apply to the many terrestrial organisms that are immobile or have small home ranges—in particular, plants and many invertebrates.
In many cases, human actions may merely alter the character of habitats rather than eliminate them. That process might, in fact, foster speciation. - Duke.edu -------- Mice and rats and wallabies, Oh My! ********************************************************* 11-10-05, 09:40 PM newnickname Excuse me:
Of course some genes are sometimes retained, if switched off. We clearly have a gene for tail-growing as humans are sometimes born with one (bit difficult to really explain that without thinking of evolution, isn't it?).
The genes can also change, however.
I'm sorry if I misread your comment As far as I know, only in bacteria and virus', and amphibians because they have alleles unique to their "kind" that are not present in any other living thing. You meant only amphibians then. (Actually speciation has most often been observed in plants, apparently.) I take it you can't identify these magical alleles that allow evolution in the organisms that have them, but are missing from others. Pardon my cynicism, but you didn't just make them up, did you?
Your responses to the last three quotes are just silly. Of course I didn't imply any "Presto, change!" at all. I was careful to stress gradual, cumulative, small changes.
I said that when the DNA is 'reshuffled', the result usually has a negative effect on eventual reproduction. Down's Syndrome would be an example of this kind of thing, yes. Actually the changes mostly have a neutral effect.
I also said that sometimes, by chance (or Divine guidance, if you like) a small advantageous change occurs. That's the crucial point. Often the new information is gibberish; sometimes (not often at all), it is useful.
It provides a small, change advantageous (relative to others of the species) to survival and reproduction. This change may spread throughout a population, because it gives such an advantage. If so, the allele frequency of the population will have changed. A small difference will have been made. In a while another small change might happen in just the same way. Given enough time (and assuming a big hairy predator doesn't eat everyone, or the food supply doesn't dry up, bringing about extinction), there isn't a limit to how many times this can happen. So new information is created, at random, and some of the 'old information', contained in the pattern of the original DNA is 'lost'.
That's evolution.
quote:
You're so good at research, list for me on a post (as long as you want to make it), how many truly beneficial mutations you can find. (Keep in mind that you have to find real ones, not theoretical ones.)
Who said I was good at research?
Anyway, I take it you mean recently observed instances of beneficial mutation - you don't just want a list like "upright posture", "bigger brain", "loss of troublesome and deeply uncool tail" and so on.
11-10-05, 10:27 PM bunkboy Newnickname: Doriangreyed is kicking your bee you double tee.
Nice work.
This is what information looks like.
(Got any?)
One interesting one that caught my eye was the half cabbage half radish.
(It couldn't reproduce, though.)
11-10-05, 10:30 PM bunkboy
quote: Who said I was good at research?
I did.
(Isn't sickle cell anemia fatal without blood transfusions? How beneficial is that?)
(Did the mutations in humans produce a new species?)
11-10-05, 10:32 PM jusork
quote: Originally posted by bunkboy: I'm trying to train my brain to automatically filter out things that aren't true, and I give my filter unrestricted access to everything, including both my religious beliefs and science.
You'd be surprised how liberating it can be to get rid of excess baggage.
How do religious beliefs play into the idea of truth? Sounds more like excess baggage to me, considering you don't have near as much evidence to support theism as you demand to support these various scientific things that you're debunking because of scientists' inability to fully explain everything right now.
11-10-05, 10:39 PM bunkboy It would be prejudicial on your part to assume that there is no truth in religion. It is also prejudicial on your part to assume that I have no evidence supporting my religious beliefs.
Actually what I said is that I use truth to test religion, a very healthy exercise.
If you have a specific objection against religion or theism, why not post a question? I usually don't respond to philosophical debates, though. They're practically useless.
Just the facts, please.
11-10-05, 10:41 PM bunkboy Doriangreyed, instead of listing all the examples in your journals, just estimate how many you have.
If there are any specific mentions of speciation in humans, please let us know.
11-10-05, 10:45 PM jusork I'm not saying religion can't be true. I'm saying there's no reliable evidence that it's true, which is exactly what you say that you're demanding from science.
I would actually like to hear you explain how you use evidence to support your religious beliefs and how you use truth to test religion (and still find it completely credible). What kind of truths and evidence specifically do you find?
11-10-05, 10:47 PM DorianGreyed I didn't list all of them. I just listed enough to show that your statements (that I quoted at the top of my post) were wrong. Please don't blame me for the facts. After all, you did ask for them.
11-10-05, 10:47 PM Ogi when religion ruled the earth it was called the dark ages.
Ogi 11-10-05, 10:52 PM newnickname
quote:
Isn't sickle cell anemia fatal without blood transfusions? How beneficial is that?
'The sickle cell mutation is like a typographical error in the DNA code of the gene that tells the body how to make a form of hemoglobin (Hb), the oxygen-carrying molecule in our blood. Every person has two copies of the hemoglobin gene. Usually, both genes make a normal hemoglobin protein. When someone inherits two mutant copies of the hemoglobin gene, the abnormal form of the hemoglobin protein causes the red blood cells to lose oxygen and warp into a sickle shape during periods of high activity. These sickled cells become stuck in small blood vessels, causing a "crisis" of pain, fever, swelling, and tissue damage that can lead to death. This is sickle cell anemia.
But it takes two copies of the mutant gene, one from each parent, to give someone the full-blown disease. Many people have just one copy, the other being normal. Those who carry the sickle cell trait do not suffer nearly as severely from the disease...
...It turns out that, in these areas, HbS carriers have been naturally selected, because the trait confers some resistance to malaria. Their red blood cells, containing some abnormal hemoglobin, tend to sickle when they are infected by the malaria parasite. Those infected cells flow through the spleen, which culls them out because of their sickle shape -- and the parasite is eliminated along with them.
Scientists believe the sickle cell gene appeared and disappeared in the population several times, but became permanently established after a particularly vicious form of malaria jumped from animals to humans in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.
In areas where the sickle cell gene is common, the immunity conferred has become a selective advantage. Unfortunately, it is also a disadvantage because the chances of being born with sickle cell anemia are relatively high.
For parents who each carry the sickle cell trait, the chance that their child will also have the trait -- and be immune to malaria -- is 50 percent. There is a 25 percent chance that the child will have neither sickle cell anemia nor the trait which enables immunity to malaria. Finally, the chances that their child will have two copies of the gene, and therefore sickle cell anemia, is also 25 percent. This situation is a stark example of genetic compromise, or an evolutionary "trade-off."'
quote:
Did the mutations in humans produce a new species?
Of course not. Why would they have? These are examples of the kind of tiny changes that can create new species when they accumulate over millions of years. I think you need to sort out the various terms used. 'Variation' or 'mutation' are not the same as 'speciation'.
The nylon eater again; AIDS resistance; stunted wings; snake vertebrae (I guess being a longer or a shorter snake could be an advantage. The stunted wing thing raises an important point - whether a mutation is ‘beneficial’ or ‘detrimental’ depends also on the environment. It's not a beauty contest.)
Gene variant determines HRT benefit (A little mutation that had been sitting there quietly waiting for Hormone Replacement Therapy to come along. The randomness of evolutionary processes...)
Creationists often claim that new information cannot be created - that all these mutations are just deletions of genetic material, or expressions of genes that had previously been 'switched off'. This is not so. The duplicating and reshuffling processes do actually create (among a lot of junk) useful new information.
'As scientists piece together the genomes of more and more life forms---from fruit flies to humans---they're finding ample evidence that new genes have often been created through the duplication of existing genes. Of the more than 40,000 genes in the human genome, for example, about 15,000 appear to have been produced by gene duplication...'
11-11-05, 12:47 PM bunkboy Is anyone keeping track of how many speciations you've found?
Let me know when we reach a number closing in on 1000.
(I could actually make my point with a much larger number, but I don't want to wear you guys out. Great job so far, though.)
I promised you to raise a second objection, just because newnickname is dying to know, and I won't let you down.
As is always true, researching the truth is far easier than researching the debunking of the truth, so I have the advantage here. Nothign personal, but my part is really, really easy.
Here's a hint:
.000 000 000 000 000 1
...and I think I'm being very generous.
11-11-05, 02:19 PM newnickname
Your argument seems to be essentially that because we haven't directly observed enough of what has happened, we can't be sure that it happened the way we suppose. Fair enough.
However, some of us are content to draw conclusions from a sample, in the absence of any contradictory evidence. If I see a hundred apples fall to the ground (out of the billions that ever have), I'm content to suppose that the 101st one I watch will also fall to the ground. It might fly upwards, true - just as all the other unobserved apples might have performed crazy aerobatics when no one was watching.
It would take one flying apple to falsify our theories about gravity. No one has ever seen one. It would take one fossil out of place, or one speciation event or mutation inexplicable by the theory of evolution to falsify our theories on biology. No one has ever seen one. That's 0%.
We could argue about whether the sample of directly observed speciation events is big enough or not. I think it is - especially when put together with evidence from DNA, the fossil record and morphology. A tiny percentage of a mind-bogglingly huge number is sometimes enough to draw reasonable conclusions. No scientific enquiry promises absolute certainty.
You don't seem to have much to say about the examples of beneficial mutation. Can we assume that you accept that such events do happen?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 17279 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
quote: Originally posted by DorianGreyed: I didn't list all of them. I just listed enough to show that your statements (that I quoted at the top of my post) were wrong. Please don't blame me for the facts. After all, you did ask for them.
If you don't offer a number, I'll probalby score you very low.
11-13-05, 04:16 AM bunkboy
quote: Of course not. Why would they have?
Because you need to believe that human beings will eventually BE a new and better species, so that your faith in evolution will be justified.
The fact is that humans don't evolve, therefore you will never find this quality in homo-sapiens-sapiens.
I'll tell you what: if I'm wrong, I'll eat this lap-top.
(You don't get it, do you? Everytime you argue that there is only one human species and should be only one human species, you're actually making my point for me. Are you sure you want to be on my side? Wouldn't that upset your delicate balance of trying new ideas and rejecting only the new ones?)
11-13-05, 04:20 AM bunkboy
quote: However, some of us are content to draw conclusions from a sample, in the absence of any contradictory evidence.
From my observation, ALL evolutionists are willing to draw a conclusion even if the opposite is overwhelmingly demonstrable, because being different and nuanced is so valuable.
11-13-05, 04:35 AM newnickname
quote: Because you need to believe that human beings will eventually BE a new and better species, so that your faith in evolution will be justified.
No I don't. Some say that, because of modern medicine and civilisation, we have stopped evolving.
quote: Everytime you argue that there is only one human species and should be only one human species...
Well, there is only one human species now. The theory of evolution explains how and why such a situation can arise. Speciation is a relatively rare event, and extinction a common one.
I understand that there ia a hypothesis predicting that a huge number of hominid species should now exist - we could call it Bunkboy's Theory of Unlimited Speciation - but I think it has few real proponents.
quote: ALL evolutionists are willing to draw a conclusion even if the opposite is overwhelmingly demonstrable
Can you give us an example of how 'the opposite is overwhelmingly demonstrable'?
11-13-05, 04:45 AM bunkboy Yes. See my question in this forum posted seperately.
(And for further reference, even though you're pretending it's not so, refer to our previous discussions.)
11-13-05, 04:54 AM newnickname Which question? What is it supposed to demonstrate, exactly? The opposite of what?
Evolution is seen almost everywhere - it couldn't be a more obvious phenomenom.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
