Moderator of Air Conditioning?
Denial of Evolution VI.
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
- Status
Moderator of Air Conditioning?
I do not deny the concept of evolution, in principle. I contend that the existing version of the theory is short a few variables which renders it only a useful first approximation to rational people who don't leave out variables.
A rational theory should be able to make predictions that are better than vague and nebulous. Prove the existing theory can predict anything with specificity? The theory is more like drawing a curve through data, but there is no equation to predict new data. Where the data ends so does the curve, so does the theory.
As an analogy, say I had a theory of gravity that can only say the rock will fall downward, but it cannot be used to predict where or when, that is modern evolution in a nut shell. If gravity was that limited, at least physics would be open to an update. Evolution, as is, is actually closer to history, than it is to say rational science like physics. History can explain the past, with scholarly arrogance, but it can't predict the future unless history starts to repeat itself. Rational science is in the now and can be used to mold the future.
Because it is only equal to history there will always be this debate. Science is self standing. When was the last time you saw religion going after Newtons law of gravity? It does not do this because it knows rational from revisionist history. History uses science to help define time and place and to help create context, but history is not science all by itself. That is modern evolution/natural history.
A rational theory should be able to make predictions that are better than vague and nebulous. Prove the existing theory can predict anything with specificity? The theory is more like drawing a curve through data, but there is no equation to predict new data. Where the data ends so does the curve, so does the theory.
As an analogy, say I had a theory of gravity that can only say the rock will fall downward, but it cannot be used to predict where or when, that is modern evolution in a nut shell. If gravity was that limited, at least physics would be open to an update. Evolution, as is, is actually closer to history, than it is to say rational science like physics. History can explain the past, with scholarly arrogance, but it can't predict the future unless history starts to repeat itself. Rational science is in the now and can be used to mold the future.
Because it is only equal to history there will always be this debate. Science is self standing. When was the last time you saw religion going after Newtons law of gravity? It does not do this because it knows rational from revisionist history. History uses science to help define time and place and to help create context, but history is not science all by itself. That is modern evolution/natural history.
The various theories describing quantum mechanics CANNOT determine things with any specificity. When will a nucleus decay? Can't be sure. What is that particle's energy and position? Not only can you not be sure, there is in fact no way to know.
And yet quantum mechanics is one of the most rational and well-researched theories in existence today; much of modern technology is based on it.
And modern quantum mechanics.
1758. Before that you could be imprisoned or even killed for claiming that the Earth was not the center of the universe, and books that claimed that it was were banned.
It actually did do this.
This is wrong (well, the last sentence is correct, the implications in the beginning are wrong): There are lots of theories and phenomena that involve randomness and unpredictability, where the specific outcome cannot be determined:
-Radioactive decay: when will this atom decay/which atom will decay next?
-Roulette: where will the ball land?
-Coin flip: heads or tails?
-Where will that lightning strike?
-What's tonight's winning lottery number?
-Which slit is that photon going through/where is it going to hit?
We can say that pressure in one direction will cause adaptation to that pressure, but the exact "design" of the adaptation results from random changes so it can't be predicted. If you want to consider that a limitation that's fine, but you need to recognize that it is not a limitation unique to evolution and not, per se, a weakness in the theory.
yes.
apparently species undergo rapid change in a short period of time.
there must be something that accounts for that.
my opinion is the minimum span would be 2 or 3 generations, maybe even less.
focusing on environmental causes could be keeping answers from you.
it also appears, in my opinion, evolution might not have ANYTHING to do with the environment.
the stasis we see is the natural state of the species, these variations have nothing to do with environment.
the rapid change is probably the same process but amplified by some weird protein configuration or base pair positions.
in my opinion evolution could be driven by molecular structure, not the environment.
we still have the gaps in the record, what about those?
it was because of the gaps these scientists reached this conclusion.
the fossil record does not (as of 1983) show a smooth gradual change from one lifeform and the next.
That's one of several competing theories, based on a particular set of assumptions, and not necessarily operating outside of gradualism.
That's the challenge for paleontologists, biologists and geologists who try to decipher the evidence.
There are genetic controls against that happening. However, mutations are widely observed which is why the theory incorporates it.
I don't think there is any such focus, nor that a definitive explanation is at arm's length. But since the environment defines the habitat, and hence the opening and closing of each niche, its influence has to be properly weighed. It's easier to see the windows closing, since we live in an era of disappearing habitats, even when sometimes only mild human impacts have been the cause. The evidence for natural selection is just too strong to ignore.
That would require throwing out virtually all of the evidence. Camouflage is one of the more obvious examples. The adaptations of tetrapods to terrain, the specific environmental tempering of eggs to the marine, freshwater and dry habitats - we could spend months tracing it and barely touch the enormity of it all.
I think your prior statement needs to be reversed. Completely dismissing the environment leads to this. Any discussion of punctuated equilibrium is a reflection of punctuated strata, and hence punctuated environments. You can't dismiss the end of geologic eras without overlooking some of the main reasons for Gould's theory.
In the case of genetic comparison between humans and apes, there is a fusing of chromosomes 2a and 2b, a process that relates to a particular anomaly proximately related to telomeres, which are associated with apoptosis and immune response - both related to environmental factors. Gould discusses the implications of mutations in the HOX gene, which determines body segmentation, but there is also a central role of hormones during fetal development which controls the decoding of HOX as the fetal plate unfolds. That is, there are many levels to morphology, and many of them are indirect. A better view of evolution is one that doesn't focus on a single cause for speciation, but rather, a complex causal nexus.
Best evidence says both are drivers.
Two critical biological functions come to mind. One is diffusion within the cytoplasm (and all transport in general), which relies on Brownian motion, which is the random collision between molecules in a fluid. Another is crossover during meiosis, which randomizes the mix of grandparents' genes in gamete formation, ensuring better randomization of each offspring's genetic code -- among the species that propagate through sexual reproduction. We are each a living example of this random process.
That was supposed to be 50%. Anyways, the only way to calculate the true chance of Creationism being true would be:
Evidences of Christianity/Evidence of Christianity & Evolutionism, which is impossible as we cannot add up all of the evidences of Creationism, or all the evidences of Evolutionism.
You are implying that Christianity is synonymous with creationism whcih is not true, there are many christians that believe in evlolution. Actually the official stance of the largest christian denomination is that evolution is true.
As far as the equation, Evidence of Creatonism/Evidence of Creationism & Evidence of Evolution, this is indeed impossible to calculate.
While there is plenty of evidence of evolution, there is no evidence of creationism so the equation has a zero in the numerator and is therefore undefined.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Wellwisher. When DNA sequencing first became possible, one of the first things that was apparent was that the DNA of close relatives is more similar than that of distant relatives, or of unrelated individuals. So people realised one prediction of the theory of evolution is that DNA of different species said by evolution to be close relatives would indeed be more similar to one another than that of more distantly related organisms.
Guess what they found!
This is a triumphant and unassailable vindication of a prediction of the theory, being based, as it is, on a whole science (molecular biology) that did not even exist in Darwin's day. There is nothing nebulous about this.
It is analogous to the success of relativity in correctly predicting the precession of the orbit of Mercury.
leopold
There will always be gaps, fossilization is a rare occurrence, some fossils are buried where they are unlikely to be found, some fossils are destroyed by geological processes, some species(in fact likely the majority)do not have any fossils at all, most of the fossils have yet to be found, some creatures do have large changes in morphology over relatively short periods of time(a few thousand generations)and the intervening species were not fossilized,....
There are many causes for gaps, but each and every fossil represents a "missing link" between two other species. When a fossil is found it turns one large gap into two smaller ones. It's like an old movie of a car crash on film, each picture in the 24 frames per second is a different still picture, a snapshot in time, but even with a lot of frames(even most of them)missing or burned, the progress of the accident is still visible. And that is how we see evolution in the fossil record, yes there are gaps, but the process is still visible.
So? Evolutionary theory is not dependent on the pace of any one fossil line, each has a unique history. Evolution is change, period. Examples are the crocodilians, they have hardly changed for the last 150 million years(and those changes were gradual). Man rose from the apes in about 8 million(when the last common ancestor between homos and troglodyte apes lived)and most of the intervening species in that line lived in jungle where fossilization is EXTREMELY rare. In fact most hominid fossils are found in the caves of carnivores or where they lived or were buried. That's the point, there are many, different processes in evolution(genetic drift, gene swapping, exposure to radiation, PE and Gradualism(actually the same process at different rates)and an argument about which is more responsible in no way invalidates evolution itself. And 1983 was 3 DECADES ago(3/10 of a century), we've learned a lot since then, especially in genetics and DNA. The paper you cling to is OBSOLETE.
That is an OPINION, not a fact. And that opinion expressed in the paper is WRONG. PE is gradualism in times of great stress.
The resolution of our dating methods(past the 50,000 year carbon limit)is thousands of years at best. That is about one or two hundred generations in dogs and horses, millions and millions of generations of bacteria. You are simply ignorant of the facts(as you yourself admitted)so your opinion on the matter is pretty well crap.
Do you think environment means how much rain will fall? Evolution has EVERYTHING to do with environment. Random mutations create random traits(if it doesn't just kill the organism outright, ending the evolution of that line), it is the testing against the demands of the environment(Natural Selection)that determines who lives and who dies and thus which evolutionary changes survive and which don't.
Stasis means the environment is not changing, creating no need for an organism to change in order to survive. It is changes in the environment that kills those who cannot change enough to survive the new conditions. Rapid environmental change leads to rapid evolution, steady environment leads to little change.
You are talking about mutation, but that is only half the story. It is mutation tested by survival that makes up evolution. ALL evolution occurs in the genes, but it is tested(and either eliminated or retained)by the organisms survival in the environment so it can reproduce that set of genes with that set of traits. Descent with Modification and Natural Selection, just like Darwin said.
Grumpy
There will always be gaps, fossilization is a rare occurrence, some fossils are buried where they are unlikely to be found, some fossils are destroyed by geological processes, some species(in fact likely the majority)do not have any fossils at all, most of the fossils have yet to be found, some creatures do have large changes in morphology over relatively short periods of time(a few thousand generations)and the intervening species were not fossilized,....
There are many causes for gaps, but each and every fossil represents a "missing link" between two other species. When a fossil is found it turns one large gap into two smaller ones. It's like an old movie of a car crash on film, each picture in the 24 frames per second is a different still picture, a snapshot in time, but even with a lot of frames(even most of them)missing or burned, the progress of the accident is still visible. And that is how we see evolution in the fossil record, yes there are gaps, but the process is still visible.
So? Evolutionary theory is not dependent on the pace of any one fossil line, each has a unique history. Evolution is change, period. Examples are the crocodilians, they have hardly changed for the last 150 million years(and those changes were gradual). Man rose from the apes in about 8 million(when the last common ancestor between homos and troglodyte apes lived)and most of the intervening species in that line lived in jungle where fossilization is EXTREMELY rare. In fact most hominid fossils are found in the caves of carnivores or where they lived or were buried. That's the point, there are many, different processes in evolution(genetic drift, gene swapping, exposure to radiation, PE and Gradualism(actually the same process at different rates)and an argument about which is more responsible in no way invalidates evolution itself. And 1983 was 3 DECADES ago(3/10 of a century), we've learned a lot since then, especially in genetics and DNA. The paper you cling to is OBSOLETE.
That is an OPINION, not a fact. And that opinion expressed in the paper is WRONG. PE is gradualism in times of great stress.
The resolution of our dating methods(past the 50,000 year carbon limit)is thousands of years at best. That is about one or two hundred generations in dogs and horses, millions and millions of generations of bacteria. You are simply ignorant of the facts(as you yourself admitted)so your opinion on the matter is pretty well crap.
Do you think environment means how much rain will fall? Evolution has EVERYTHING to do with environment. Random mutations create random traits(if it doesn't just kill the organism outright, ending the evolution of that line), it is the testing against the demands of the environment(Natural Selection)that determines who lives and who dies and thus which evolutionary changes survive and which don't.
Stasis means the environment is not changing, creating no need for an organism to change in order to survive. It is changes in the environment that kills those who cannot change enough to survive the new conditions. Rapid environmental change leads to rapid evolution, steady environment leads to little change.
You are talking about mutation, but that is only half the story. It is mutation tested by survival that makes up evolution. ALL evolution occurs in the genes, but it is tested(and either eliminated or retained)by the organisms survival in the environment so it can reproduce that set of genes with that set of traits. Descent with Modification and Natural Selection, just like Darwin said.
Grumpy
But there are very specific predictions. There are predictions about where we can possibly find certain kinds of fossils, for example.
But gravity cannot predict how bodies will move exactly. We still need to include the details of where these bodies are and what other forces, electromagnetic or otherwise, are acting on these bodies. Without those details, any possible theory of gravity can only produce a vague idea of where a body will move.
You seem to be applying a high standard where you wish to apply it.
Yes. That is called "punctuated equilibrium."
Agreed. That something is called evolution.
It is quite true that for some simple mutations (i.e. loss of a tail) you can see a change in a few generations. Most changes in traits take much longer - tens of thousands of years to tens of millions.
If all offspring survived due to a 100% benign environment there would be no evolution. There are several prerequistes for evolution:
1) Heredity (DNA)
2) Mutation (random changes to that DNA)
3) Selection (environmental factors that allow only the best-adapted to survive)
There are indeed "weird base pair positions" that allow very rapid evolution. One is the set of homeobox genes. These genes allow a single mutation to (for example) add another pair of legs to the organism. This mutation, however, will not be retained unless the environment the organism lives in makes those extra legs advantageous.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
You don't understand the process of fossilization. It's a miracle (if you'll pardon the language
) that we have any fossils at all! The tissue of dead organisms is incredibly fragile.- For rather a long time, most life was aquatic. The bodies of organisms that die underwater are very unlikely to be preserved.
- The tissue of non-aquatic organisms decays through the action of microorganisms who use it for nutrition--often excreting enzymes and acids to facilitate the process.
- It is also consumed by larger organisms: detritivores or scavengers who tear it apart with their claws and teeth and then swallow it into their stomachs which secrete their own cocktail of enzymes and acids.
- Any dead critters that escape this fate then face the weather, which soaks, dessicates, freezes and heats their tissue, destroying its structural integrity.
- Earth movement buries them. Even a little mudslide puts them in the domain of the bacteria and worms in the soil, who are very hungry
- Major earth movement buries them under extreme pressure. This physical force is just as bad as biological force. Dead trees become peat, then coal, then petroleum, then natural gas. This is why we call these energy sources "fossil fuels": they are indeed fossils, but there's no way in hell to identify the component organisms.
- Larger earth movement like plate tectonics can simply bury them so deeply, or in such inaccessible places, that we don't find them.
cosmictotem
Registered Senior Member
+1000
grumpy,
i don't get how recent discoveries in genetics overturns how these scientists came to their conclusion.
these scientists, among them paleontologists, archaeologists, molecular biologists, and "evolutionists" came to the conclusion of a clear no.
and yes, various hypothesis were discussed to try and explain these gaps.
i don't get how recent discoveries in genetics overturns how these scientists came to their conclusion.
these scientists, among them paleontologists, archaeologists, molecular biologists, and "evolutionists" came to the conclusion of a clear no.
and yes, various hypothesis were discussed to try and explain these gaps.
you apparently missed the point.
something must explain the gaps.
that "something" apparently isn't a mutation because lab tests on fruitflies shows it's not possible.
it also must be able to produce males and females.
it also must explain how some species never change. this probably rules out an evironmental cause.
no, it almost has to be structurally related.
if THAT is true then you can infer that evolution can be reduced to an equation.
the species deviates around the "norm" until a certan molecular strucure is reached.
when this happens a "domino" effect takes places that transforms the species into something else.
a molecular structure driven evolution model will explain ALL of evolutions anomalies, in my opinion.
leopold
Yes, that was obvious. Did you know that we can now trace the DNA in the Mitochondria(inherited only from the mother)and say with near certainty that every human being on Earth today descended from a small number of females(possibly even just one female)from Africa(yes, we are all descended from black men and women)some 200,000 years ago. We didn't know that in 1983. We can trace traits back in time as well. Comparing DNA between species has opened up entirely new avenues of scientific investigation. The information is out there, go get it.
Just as the scientists in the 17th century came to the conclusion that Newton understood how gravity works. He was close, his laws are really good enough for most tasks, but if we didn't know that Einstein's Relativity is actually how the Universe works we couldn't have GPS. The scientists of the conference got fairly close(evolution is fact, descent with modification, etc.)but when it gets down to the details(PE, Gradualism, etc.)they were off.
I will no longer argue about an obsolete paper. What needed to be corrected has been. Get some new material, something in the last decade at least, this stuff has mold growing on it.
Grumpy
Yes, that was obvious. Did you know that we can now trace the DNA in the Mitochondria(inherited only from the mother)and say with near certainty that every human being on Earth today descended from a small number of females(possibly even just one female)from Africa(yes, we are all descended from black men and women)some 200,000 years ago. We didn't know that in 1983. We can trace traits back in time as well. Comparing DNA between species has opened up entirely new avenues of scientific investigation. The information is out there, go get it.
Just as the scientists in the 17th century came to the conclusion that Newton understood how gravity works. He was close, his laws are really good enough for most tasks, but if we didn't know that Einstein's Relativity is actually how the Universe works we couldn't have GPS. The scientists of the conference got fairly close(evolution is fact, descent with modification, etc.)but when it gets down to the details(PE, Gradualism, etc.)they were off.
I will no longer argue about an obsolete paper. What needed to be corrected has been. Get some new material, something in the last decade at least, this stuff has mold growing on it.
Grumpy
Nothing need explain the gaps in the fossil record. There are enough clear lines of evolution that the fossil record supports the theory. There is no species that doesn't evolve. They may retain a similar appearance over time, but that isn't the same thing.
- Status