Denial of evolution II

[Liebling]

I am sure he can speak for himself, and I am fairly sure he will.

I do not know him, and haven't interacted with him in the past either. I simply have a special place in my heart for outlaws. I like people who can turn the tables on people to get them to stand up and see the bigger picture. He comes across that way to me, with a particular bravado that is admirable. He is the kind of person that I like to be around because they challenge my notions as well, and make me a better person. They make us think differently. That's not to say they are always right, but that they always think outside the lines and that is more powerful than any dictated thought or blindly followed lesson. But they do rub people who have a vested ego in their postings the wrong way, and that is why they are often percieved wrongly themselves. As if they are attacking the person and not the position, but I think in this case... Meursalt has an interesting tactic that is playing out quite well and exposing an ill protected soft underbelly. I think it's fantastic.

In short, I wish I knew more people like him. Yes.

 

[Ophiolite]

His "philosophy" was one-track - he was obsessed with the idea that humanity as a whole could be divided into two sets of people - himself, as the star of his own private show, and the rest of the world, which consisted almost entirely of deluded, stupid people nominally out of his league.

I don't know if it is the same person, but the stetson certainly fits.

The inability to address the topic - which was evolution and his lack of knowledge in that arena - is normally only seen in creationists. The same blind supercilious confidence is there to. Perhaps he's a creationist who has finally seen the dark.

Given his attitude and zero contribution I would imagine you guys will be taking care of him before too long. Good luck with that.
There is always a third way, but not for the unimaginative.

 

[Ophiolite]

You (Leibling) have observed , with a touch of pathos, in another thread that no one saw fit to comment on this contribution. I shall do so.

The common misconception is that evolve means mutate when we are talking about Evolution.

One of the means by which evolution is provided with 'raw material' on which to work, is through mutation. I'll cite as an example the development of lactose tolerance in adulthood through the persistent activity of the gene that produces lactase, the enzyme that breaks lactose down.
Burger, J., Kirchner, M., Bramanti, B., Haak, W., and Thomas, M. G. (2007). Absence of the lactase-persistence-associated allele in early Neolithic Europeans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 104: 3736-3741

Secondly I can't say I have run across this as a common misconception. Evolve does not mean mutate, true, but mutations can and do fuel evolution. Would you agree?

Darwin posited that it wasn't that specific species were changing or adapting to their environment as they went, but that the stronger specimens of the species were more likely to live longer and propagate more often in their lifetime

No, he spoke of the fittest surviving, not necessarily the strongest. That is a really important distinction.

thereby creating a large number of the stronger genetic species at the top.

The top of what? Are you implying a heirarchy of evolution? Are you suggesting a nematode is better than an E.coli, that a rat is better than a frog, and that men are better than all of those? Perhaps not, but the moment you imply a heirarchy you open the door to such flawed implications.

it's just that the development of the opposable thumb in one of the species, caused that particular genetic specimen to provide food for himself a little better than his friend without the opposable thumb

And how was that thumb developed? Conventional wisdom says through mutation (which might simply be the reactivation of a long silent gene). Are you suggesting some other mechanism? If so, what and what is your evidence for it?

Species become extinct, and are replaced by stronger species all the time.

To repeat, they are replaced by fitter species. And we must add the caveat in that particular environment.

Evolutionist don't claim that we have mutated, only that the strongest of the species survives.

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. While mutation is not the only means by which variation is generated for natural selection to act upon, it is a key means of generating such variation.

The population of the earth evolves into the stronger of all the species, not the individual species itself.

Fitter.

The problem is in the misconception.

I agree, but I think it is your misconception.

 

[Liebling]

Yes, the mutation starts with one or two individuals at the DNA level, but the misconception that I think most creationists have is that the DNA itself evolves and not the species. That the mutation occurs because of the environment and not in spite of. But in reality, the mutation is not cause and effect, it is that the mutation allows the species to adapt to their environment and therefore be a fitter specimen for survival and propagation of said species. Mutations are not the root of the theory of evolution, they allow the fittest of the species to adapt and survive longer because of the mutation.

Evolution is not a impatient affair. And it is not seen by the impatient mind because it can only be discernable over a long bit of time. Not hundreds of years, but hundreds of thousands of years. The assumption is that human kind did not exist before written history complicates the misunderstanding. Because the Bible and it's ilk ellude to there being no humans before written history, it makes it harder for most Creationists to understand.

Fitter is a much better word than stronger. I appreciate the correction.

I do agree with you about Dawkins, his writing style is egotistical and in that he loses his audience. I don't want to be told what to think, I want to be challenged to think on my own.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes, the mutation starts with one or two individuals at the DNA level, but the misconception that I think most creationists have is that the DNA itself evolves and not the species. That the mutation occurs because of the environment and not in spite of. But in reality, the mutation is not cause and effect, it is that the mutation allows the species to adapt to their environment and therefore be a fitter specimen for survival and propagation of said species. Mutations are not the root of the theory of evolution, they allow the fittest of the species to adapt and survive longer because of the mutation. .

Now this I like. Your rewording now broadly matches how understand evolution. I'm still a little uncomfortable with saying the DNA does not evolve, but I see where you are coming from. Evolution is acting on the phenotype, not directly on the DNA. The change in the DNA is enabling evolution, but it is not evolution. Have I grasped what you are trying to say?

Evolution is not a impatient affair. .

Very true. I love the words of James Hutton when speaking of the probable age of the Earth, "No vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end."

 

[Liebling]

Now this I like. Your rewording now broadly matches how understand evolution. I'm still a little uncomfortable with saying the DNA does not evolve, but I see where you are coming from. Evolution is acting on the phenotype, not directly on the DNA. The change in the DNA is enabling evolution, but it is not evolution. Have I grasped what you are trying to say?

Very true. I love the words of James Hutton when speaking of the probable age of the Earth, "No vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end."

Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to say to begin with. Thanks for helping me clarify. While I am often wrong, I am more often just misunderstood.

 

[leopold]

evolution by natural means is pseudoscience.
the process of evolution requires millions of years and is totally outside the bounds of current science to test.
some will point to various scientific tests that "prove" evolution but i submit that those results are the result of intelligent intervention.

(really hesitant to press 'post quick reply', but hey, let's see what happens.)

 

[Baron Max]

There are mainly two reasons / answers to your question:

(2) It is my philosophy and desire to try to understand things I see and experience. I know that can NEVER be done with certainty -... ... ...however, I chose to believe that physics and biology are about something real and to a large extent understandable, if you put forth the effort.

Billy, I think that's admirable in anyone - the attempt to understand something is, I think, inside most of us. But that wasn't the question. The question was not why you study evolution or why you seek to understand, it was .... Why must you decide when you don't have all the info?

How would you like it if you were on trial for murder and the evidence against you was so unclear and so full of suppositions? And worse, how would you feel if the jury members decided to convict on those suppositions? Would so easily agree that it was okay to make such a major decision based on so little?

In quite a few cases, there is more than one plausible explanation or POV about some observation's causes. If none stands out as clearly more probably then I sort of do as you suggest - but usually I not say "I do not know."

What's wrong with "I don't know."? And what's wrong with telling people you don't have enough info, and you're going to study it some more? See? Why make ANY decision when you don't have to ....especially based on so little factual info? Do you do that with any other major issues in life?

You are correct that nothing, certainly not evolution, is known with certainty. But I do not enjoy remaining totally ignorant / un-accepting of the more plausible "facts" such as that there is an Earth that goes around the sun, there was a "Big Bang" start of the universe* all the way down to and including things from the ancient past like Plate Tectonics and evolution theory.

Knowledge does not necessarily mean avid belief or full acceptance. If one doesn't have enough info, or the info is suspect, why not just keep studying and reading and learning? You've already admitted several times that we can't know for sure, so why make a decision about it when you don't have to? And what forces you or anyone to decide with such certainty ...when you don't have all the facts?

How can "The Big Bang" theory be, in any way, plausible? It goes completely against everything that science has taught us. For something to go 'bang' there has to first BE something! What was there to go 'bang' in the first place?

Again, for me, it's not the study, it's not theorizing, it's not the suppositions, it's not the assumptions, or the floating rafts of debris, ....., it's that "final" decision! The "final" belief. And worse, of course, is the intense fervor in that belief that people are willing to insult and ridicule others for their beliefs ....when their own beliefs are not a helluva lot more factual. Odd, ain't it?

And you, Billy, seem to understand that I'm not arguing "against" evolution so much as trying to figure out how and why others believe the theory with such fervor and intensity. Very freakin' little can actually be known about what happened umpty-eleven million years ago, yet many will fight viciously in order to cling to their opinions about those ancient times. Odd, ain't it?

Baron Max

 

[Clucky]

evolution by natural means is pseudoscience.

This is subjective, but as it is an opinion it does not pose a problem. Points of view are generally subjective.

the process of evolution requires millions of years and is totally outside the bounds of current science to test.
some will point to various scientific tests that "prove" evolution but i submit that those results are the result of intelligent intervention.

Can you give examples of these tests, and subsequently discredit them, to validate your, currently, somewhat veracious statement.

 

[Saquist]

I looked on the first page, but did not find your three points. I am not inclined to search thru all of the pages. Please give at least the post number if not a direct link as I often do. Or alternatively, just copy them and post again. Thank you.

You can address
Post # 170 as to what you don't agree with. I'd love to get your understanding.

 

[Billy T]

... The question was not why you study evolution or why you seek to understand, it was .... Why must you decide when you don't have all the info?

I thought I had answered that but will try to re-state it slightly differently:

I recognize that I will never have all the information, especially about historical events where it is no longer possible to investigate them by observation and experiment. One can use only records and to some extent the impact of the event that still lingers. Man made records are usually somewhat suspect. For example, if Hitler had won the war there would not be photos of concentration camps but of Jews leaving on trains of the own free will to go to Israel, etc. Thus I tend to trust more the natural records, but they can be faked like the pit-down man fake.

If I waited until I had all the information, I would not have much I could consider as true. That is why I tend to accept one plausible explanation for observables that need to be understood and explained, such as that only 22 of the 10,000 or so possible amino acids are used to construct all the life forms (at least the animal ones) - this fact alone strongly suggest that they all came from a common source. (I.e. is very consistent with evolution theory.) I do not know of any, even slightly plausible, alternative explanation. So this fact and many dozens of others with no inconsistent facts makes me think that Evolution Theory is very likely to be true and explaining the currently observable life forms.

I could, as you seem to prefer, just say: "It ain't proven beyond all possible doubt yet." However, that can be said, as bishop Berkeley did, about the "fact" that the Earth goes round the sun (because as he showed with irrefutable logic* neither Earth nor Sun need actually even exist). Faced with this dilemma (that nothing can be known with certainty) I chose the strategy I described in prior post. Namely when one explanation exists that has no inconsistencies and is much better supported by lots of different evidence than any alternative explanation I accept it as truth NOW. This seems to me to be preferable to the alternative of saying: Because I do not have all the evidence, and there are some less probably alternates which have not been shown to be impossible, I refuse to accept any explanations as true.

I admit that occasional my position / method will make a mistake and accept as true explanation something that is later shown to be false. Phlogiston is a good example, widely accepted as true explanation for heat physics, until Lord Kelvin demonstrated a flaw in that theory of heat. Despite this risk, I prefer to accept as true fact NOW all explanations that (1) have no known inconsistencies & (2) are much more plausible (probable) than any alternative. When two mutually contradictory explanations meet condition (1) and neither does significantly better than the other on condition (2) then I say the jury is still out as to which (if not both) is the true explanation.

To give an example of this: I accept the fact, determned by careful analysis of nearly a million birth to death records in the English public heath service files, that drinking tea without adding milk or cream to it does significantly increase the rate of throat cancer, but AFAIK, no one knows if this is due to thermal effects (the milk cools) or the tanic acid effects (the tanic acid attacks and binds to the milk instead of the throat tissue) so I say the cause of this effect is unknown, at present.

It is a matter of choice. There is nothing wrong with your "I don't know."? But to be consistent, you need to answer that to ALL QUESTIONS AS NOTHING IS KNOWN BEYOND ALL DOUBT, except that you are a thinking being or spirit.)

I want to understand most things NOW even if there is slight risk I will misunderstand some INSTEAD of not understand anything as all things are to some extent uncertain or not proven. E.g. I accept that the Earth does go around the sun, despite the possibility that neither Earth nor Sun can be shown to even exist beyond all doubt. I.e. Bishop Berkeley's POV cannot be shown to e false.*
---------------
*Several dozens of people, if not hundreds, have tried and failed to find logical flaw in his strange position during the last 300 years. One, in final frustration of his failed attack with logic, refuted the Bishop's POV by kicking a stone and saying: If it does not exist, why does my toe hurt?

I have always thought very clever the bishop's explanation of why the non-existent universe appears to follow the physical laws: He said God made it USUALLY do that, so God could do miracles occasionally. If there were not laws, no regularity to the universe, then even God could not work miracles as miracles are by definition events that violate the physics laws. You should consider reading what the good bishop wrote - much more logical than Descartes, who starts with "cogito ergo sum" and about 20 pages later has "logically derived" that god had to send his son to die on the cross to save mankind for his original sins! Too few "moderns" actually read what the intellectual giants of the past, like Newton, Adam Smith, Berkeley, etc. actually wrote.

...How can "The Big Bang" theory be, in any way, plausible? It goes completely against everything that science has taught us. For something to go 'bang' there has to first BE something! What was there to go 'bang' in the first place?

Just as evolution theory is silent on the cause of the first life form so is big bang theory silent on the cause of an infinite concentration of energy. It only describes the physical evolution of that concentrated energy, how it expanded, cooled enough for matter to form, etc. why it was only hydrogen and helium and about 20 years ago why it is matter that is now observed (and not equal amount of anti-matter - that was once a flaw in the big bang theory that help make the steady state theory have equal plausibility)

SUMMARY: WHEN THERE IS ONLY ONE EXPLANATION THAT HAS NO CONTRADICTIONS AND ALL OTHERS HAVE LITTLE OR NO FACTUAL SUPPORT, THEN I ACCEPT THAT EXPLANATION AS FACT. Evolution theory is exceptionally strong now with 150 years of increasing confirming evidence, especially as there is no evidence for any alternative theory that claims to explain the observations. I choose to not adopt the position that I know nothing as I do not have all the facts yet.

 

[Saquist]

That is not true.
The Big Bang (from what I know) was theorized to explain the expansion of the universe. At the time it was assumed that the backround radiation would show that the pace was slowing as though the aftermath of an explosion.

That was not the case.
They found through NASA that the expansion wasn't slowing at all. Infact it was accerlating. That invalidates the Big Bang.

 

[Oli]

That was not the case.
They found through NASA that the expansion wasn't slowing at all. Infact it was accerlating. That invalidates the Big Bang.

So if a car accelerates at some point that invalidates the fact that it started moving?
Incorrect conclusion.

 

[Clucky]

That is not true.
The Big Bang (from what I know) was theorized to explain the expansion of the universe. At the time it was assumed that the backround radiation would show that the pace was slowing as though the aftermath of an explosion.

That was not the case.
They found through NASA that the expansion wasn't slowing at all. Infact it was accerlating. That invalidates the Big Bang.

Not true. It invalidates the prediction that expansion was slowing; not the theory as a whole. The theory will continue to be refined, and thus strengthened with new discoveries. I agree, it is not flawless, but a quantity of evidence still validates it. This is not to say future discoveries won't disprove it, as physics has undergone vast overhauls before, but your conclusion is still hyperbolic and incorrect.

People make the point that we don't have all the evidence, but can you realistically expect us to, ever?

 

[Saquist]

So if a car accelerates at some point that invalidates the fact that it started moving?
Incorrect conclusion.

No it's wrong to assume that a car in motion was accerlated by an explosion. It doesn't invalidate the acceleration merely how it accelerated.
I was on board with the Big Bang before the evidence was seen that there is nothing relating to an explosion explosive about the Big Bang and now as I understand it a point of origin can't even be determine as they previously though would be the case which has lead to some withdrawing of what the Great Attractor is and just where The Local Cluster and everything in the Universe is racing toward. Apparrently something beyond it.

 

[Billy T]

That is not true.
The Big Bang (from what I know) was theorized to explain the expansion of the universe. At the time it was assumed that the backround radiation would show that the pace was slowing as though the aftermath of an explosion.
That was not the case.
They found through NASA that the expansion wasn't slowing at all. Infact it was accerlating. That invalidates the Big Bang.

No this is a good example of how a little knowledge leads to error.

It was simple mutual gravitation that should slow the expansion, nothing to due with the big bang model. This slowing was initially not observed to be true and that gave support to Hoyl's steady state alternative to the Big Bang. Einstein adjusted his theory of gravitation to put in the cosmological constant and set the value (it can drive the stars apart) to counter act or cancel the gravitational slowing - let the universe just coast along neither slowing nor speeding up. Later he took it out of the theory and still later called that his biggest mistake when it was discovered that the stars are now separating even faster than they were earlier (looking at the most distant ones) Now Dark Energy is postulated to be causing this speed up.

Be cautious about this history, this is all by memory and I may have parts confused, but my main point is Most of your post is nonsense.

Big bang theory only concerns the early stages of the universe's history. It has nothing to say (directly at least) about what happened after there were stars. Certainly nothing to say about the rate of expansion of the universe or how it is changing. (It is the Doppler shift of stars that tells us about the rate of expansion.)

The big bang theory existed BEFORE it was known that there even was background radiation. I forget who first realized and predicted from the big bang theory that there should be CBR, but he was not given much attention, so when two guys (at Bell Labs as I recall) found some noise they did not understand in the very low noise amplifiers they were testing, they eventually determined that it was coming from the sky, but still did not know until sometime later that they had observed the predicted CBR.

The CBR does show some very slight non-uniformatity in the temperature and density of the early universe at the time when the plasma first had cooled enough for the CBR to escape. (There was a period of no ionization in the universe, until the stars had formed and their UV etc. re-ionized the gas of space.)

BTW I am still waiting for a link (or repost of the "facts") you claim support the religious POV about evolution of Darwin being less likely than the religious POV)

 

[Clucky]

I'd also like to point out that "explosion" is an obsolete descriptor of the events incorporated in The Big Bang Theory. I believe expansion is the preferred term these days. Lets stay accurate in our arguments.

 

[Oli]

No it's wrong to assume that a car in motion was accerlated by an explosion. It doesn't invalidate the acceleration merely how it accelerated.

The point is that the cause of the initial motion is irrelevant when considering whether any further acceleration is possible or not...

 

[Saquist]

No this is a good example of how a little knowledge leads to error.

And yet I know all this you're saying so far in the first paragraph. My research seems complete.

It was simple mutual gravitation that should slow the expansion, nothing to due with the big bang model. This slowing was initially not observed to be true and that gave support to Hoyl's steady state alternative to the Big Bang. Einstein adjusted his theory of gravitation to put in the cosmological constant and set the value (it can drive the stars apart) to counter act or cancel the gravitational slowing - let the universe just coast along neither slowing nor speeding up. Later he took it out of the theory and still later called that his biggest mistake when it was discovered that the stars are now separating even faster than they were earlier (looking at the most distant ones) Now Dark Energy is postulated to be causing this speed up.

And see...just like that...a physics discussion in a biology thread.
The only thing I haven't done extensive research is Dark Energy. For some reason I'm being incredulous of it.

Okay None of that explains origins. And explosion is nolonger supported unless someone has some proof you've left out. No point of origin, not decay of motion...Not an explosion. Tell me what I'm missing in your 1st paragraph. Is it Dark Energy that they've found proof of an explosion to suuport the Big Bang?

Be cautious about this history, this is all by memory and I may have parts confused, but my main point is Most of your post is nonsense.

Big bang theory only concerns the early stages of the universe's history. It has nothing to say (directly at least) about what happened after there were stars. Certainly nothing to say about the rate of expansion of the universe or how it is changing. (It is the Doppler shift of stars that tells us about the rate of expansion.)

Then there is a contradiction because I recall estimates of universal expansion and the speed of that expansion. Either you're wrong, the books were wrong or I'm remembering wrong.

The big bang theory existed BEFORE it was known that there even was background radiation. I forget who first realized and predicted from the big bang theory that there should be CBR, but he was not given much attention, so when two guys (at Bell Labs as I recall) found some noise they did not understand in the very low noise amplifiers they were testing, they eventually determined that it was coming from the sky, but still did not know until sometime later that they had observed the predicted CBR.

That is absolutely correct from what I remember.

BTW I am still waiting for a link (or repost of the "facts") you claim support the religious POV about evolution of Darwin being less likely than the religious POV)

Then look up.

 

[Saquist]

The point is that the cause of the initial motion is irrelevant when considering whether any further acceleration is possible or not...

I remember another article which stated the amount of visible matter in the universe as well as invisible matter in the universe should have caused a slowing by this point in time which is why it was expected to find deceleration instead of accerlation.

I thought it excluded further acceleration.
I'm guessing this is not so?