evolution unravled

[JesusFreak]

questionable claims

JF - I think we have a little hypocracy here don't you - you rebuke someone for using wiki - which is mostly ok, but can be rather patchy in its accuracy - and in response you post AIG - who even you know are liars - not even a kindergarten teacher would allow a citation from that

for a good example of some of the lies they are telling in the link you provided, they state that turbulent waters promote high plankton growth - this is a lie - the answer is the opposite (remember I'm a marine biologist so I know this stuff inside out) for plankton to bloom a stable water column is essential.

Scientists consider many factors that influence where and when phytoplankton blooms occur. Some of the most important factors include water temperature, density, and salinity, hydrography of the region, availability of nutrients, what species and the amount of phytoplankton biomass that is present, what types of zooplankton are grazing on the phytoplankton, and available sunlight levels. There are very few "permanent" parameters (i.e. bathymetry/hydrography) in this system; the constantly changing values of most parameters make blooms somewhat difficult to study. This primer is intended to focus only on the oceanographic principles that influence phytoplankton blooms that can be monitored by instruments on buoys and satellites.
http://serc.carleton.edu/eet/phytoplankton/primer.html

Your claim that plankton blooms only in stable waters seems questionable at this point.:bugeye:

On April 15, 2006, after weeks of snowmelt and rain the Danube River
reached its highest level in 111 years flooding parts of Romania, Bulgaria,
Hungary and Serbia. This June 10, 2006, MODIS/Aqua image shows the entire
Black Sea covered with intense phytoplankton blooms following almost two
months of heavy run-off. [http://fire.biol.wwu.edu/trent/alles/PhytoplanktonWeb.pdf] page 32


They state that increased nutirents would promote increased plankton growth - this is correct but only up to a point.
There is a point at which plankton cannot grow any faster regardless of how good the growth conditions are and how much nutrient is available (plankton growth dynamics are very similar to michaelis menten enzyme kynetics - for good reason - they use proteins to transport nutrients acrioss their cell membranes) - this point is approximately 10 times the highest growth rate we see in nature.

A plankton bloom is defined as a rapid and marked increase in the local population of plankton. The phenomenon can occur in a matter of days, and can disappear just as rapidly. Blooms generally mark a convergence of factors that encourage plankton growth. The main factors that cause blooms to occur are sunlight, nutrients, and changes in water temperature. Ocean currents can influence the nutrient supply of blooms, and they also conspire to maintain or restrain blooms due to the advection (movement) of water both at and below the ocean surface.

http://disc.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceancolor/scifocus/classic_scenes/12_classics_blooms.shtml

Forgive me but I am still trying to find the lies you accused them of.

However for the white cliffs of dover to form they would (using AIG's own figures) have had to grow at approximately 1,200,000 times their natural rate if we allow for time for the plankton to grow die, sink, be buried, lithified, have the surface eroded away, and then uplifted in the space of one year.

Finally - all coccoliths are marine - they die in freshwater - the flood would have rendered them extinct unless noah took them on the ark - but according to the article he didn't.

AIG has answers to your objections that are confirmed by additional sources. Yet, I will not bother citing them to you. It is obvious you consider them a joke because they are honest about their biases and beliefs. From what I found, your accusations of them lying are unfounded. It would be one thing if they were actually lying, but it is another when you resort to an ad hominem fallacy.

Conclusion?
You just made up story.



Conclusion?

Its just a story

JF - if you had ever read a decent book on the subject you wouldn't need me to embarass you publicly with this - that's why I STILL recommend you read one

Let us get back to the discussion at hand.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

Scientists consider many factors that influence where and when phytoplankton blooms occur. Some of the most important factors include water temperature, density, and salinity, hydrography of the region, availability of nutrients, what species and the amount of phytoplankton biomass that is present, what types of zooplankton are grazing on the phytoplankton, and available sunlight levels. There are very few "permanent" parameters (i.e. bathymetry/hydrography) in this system; the constantly changing values of most parameters make blooms somewhat difficult to study. This primer is intended to focus only on the oceanographic principles that influence phytoplankton blooms that can be monitored by instruments on buoys and satellites.
http://serc.carleton.edu/eet/phytoplankton/primer.html

Your claim that plankton blooms only in stable waters seems questionable at this point.

or you failed to read or understand it properly - read the passage on stratification - it agrees with me

On April 15, 2006, after weeks of snowmelt and rain the Danube River
reached its highest level in 111 years flooding parts of Romania, Bulgaria,
Hungary and Serbia. This June 10, 2006, MODIS/Aqua image shows the entire
Black Sea covered with intense phytoplankton blooms following almost two
months of heavy run-off. [http://fire.biol.wwu.edu/trent/alles...anktonWeb.pdf] page 32

so it happened after the floods when the water stratified - seems to agree with me 100% again - remember what i said about your reading comprehension?

A plankton bloom is defined as a rapid and marked increase in the local population of plankton. The phenomenon can occur in a matter of days, and can disappear just as rapidly. Blooms generally mark a convergence of factors that encourage plankton growth. The main factors that cause blooms to occur are sunlight, nutrients, and changes in water temperature. Ocean currents can influence the nutrient supply of blooms, and they also conspire to maintain or restrain blooms due to the advection (movement) of water both at and below the ocean surface.

again you failed to comprehend correctly - the point I made was that at very high concentrations of nutrients, the plankton cannot assimilate them and grow/ reproduce any faster - think about it - it doesn't matter how many cheese burgers are on a plate in front of you, you can still only eat them at a certain speed - AIG however claim that this is not the case - either they are stupid and don't check their facts or they are lying

AIG has answers to your objections that are confirmed by additional sources. Yet, I will not bother citing them to you. It is obvious you consider them a joke because they are honest about their biases and beliefs. From what I found, your accusations of them lying are unfounded. It would be one thing if they were actually lying, but it is another when you resort to an ad hominem fallacy.

actually I would be very interested in those sources - I'll prove those wrong for you as well if you like.

ps - I would look up a efinition of ad hominem if I were you - that case doesn't fit - my argument revealed their deception by dismantling their flimsy arguments - therefore not ad hom.

you are 0 for 4

 

[electrafixtion]

Does it really matter who's right and who's wrong? You're all going to die anyway so why waste your time arguing until you're blue in the face on a subject that none of you are ever going to agree on no matter what evidence is offered. Just my imo. Not like any of you care about that either

Whereas this is pretty much the fundamental truth, what grates me is the feigned arrogance and complete and total pretense that unguided evolution is reality based on observed progressive genetic mutation. That's total bullshit.

The real truth is that it merely supports the guided evolution theory and that's the position I personally take.

Only a completely biased individual that has come to accept popular science on the pretense of faith would claim that the exacting order that exists on Earth came to be by chance. The odds against that are beyond astronomical. Chance is the platform that unguided evolution stands on unless you believe that the entirety of our reality is one living organism.

 

[CptBork]

Just to let you know JF, I have thought about some responses to your last reply and I've got some real juicy stuff for you to look at, but it will have to wait because I'm heading off to class soon. Hopefully this evening I'll get to post my response.

 

[GeoffP]

GeoffP
In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.

Note the bolded text: this is entirely correct. Chance often dictates evolutionary possibilities. Chance changes in environment, random mutations that allow the exploitation of new environments or superior exploitation of old ones. In what way should evolution always lead to the best outcome? Why would this be necessary to produce the amazing diversity of life seen on Earth? Is this required? As you observe, chance often dictates result. Is an appendix necessary? And so forth.

as you see they have missing links but they always get missing links look they say we evolve from the monkey what did the monkey evolve [from?]

From tarziers or something similar, more like. Tarziers and whatnot from rodents, rodents from mammal-like reptiles earlier on, and so on.

and and what did that evolve to many missing links it doesnt prove nothing but im glad you put a effort in to finding proof

You give us, like a conspiracy theorist trying to describe the CIA, entirely too much credit. We've been at this only 100 years or so. That's precious little time for a gaggle of underfunded paleontologists to find every single bone of every single organism that's every existed! The scale of life on Earth goes back hundred of millions of years, with varying preservation of specimens. Is it reasonable to think we could possibly have found every single transitory form in this time? Yet, we've found many good series: horses, fish-to-amphibians (I quite like Ichthyostega) and hominids.

Lol - not quite there bud- you just do not understand.

Oh, dear. You see, I'm rather afraid I do.

Microevolution precedes, in many cases, macroevolutionary change. Molecules proceed to man, as it were. Chance mutation in something as simple as citrate utilization allows even this simple bacterium to use a different substrate and differentiate, taking advantage of new niches. Now, if it is able to squeeze out the other bacteria by still occupying their old niche, it replaces them. I assume from reading the article you noticed the substantial morphological changes in the bacteria kept in-lab? Now, if these citrate users retain such morphological differences and were, say, released into some home environment from which they were derived, that morphological change would be recognisable as they "took over" that home environment. Morphological differentiation - certainly would be apparent, and might be massive at the relative size of a bacterium. Presto! - macroevolution. They'd be identified as different species on basis of standard microbiological technique. You must understand also that the microbiological point of reference for this finding is the only way in which to differentiate them; much the same, though different in scale, as we would separate dogs and cats.

Stop with the dishonesty and logical fallacies. Equivocation, red haring, straw men tactics is all this is. If you seriously have an open mind check out this link concerning your E. coli bacteria.

I will ask you one time - and one time only - to refrain from passing judgement on my character and argumentation. I appreciate that my post was clearly irksome to you - you responded to it three time - but you have no point to argue red herrings. I advise you to reread the article. I will investigate yours likewise.

I have read your article. The problem is interpretation - the encoding of a citrate transporter (CT) is a fairly prodigious leap. Prior to this, they were only able to incorporate citrate via plasmids that encoded a CT! This is akin to human cells suddenly being able to chuck out their mitochondria (!) and is, by any microbiological definition, a huge change.

Here is some more information on your so called evolution being observed with E. coli bacteria.

You seem to be very angry about this finding. Why is this?

Secondly, your article states that the development of such a mutation fits the "creation model". Yet, and which is not understood by the writer, is that the evolution of more 'developed' forms occurred in parallel, over millions of years and with many more individual gene-lines and populations than 12 E. coli pops in a single laboratory. Further, if Lenski's case even is only adaptation, could you explain to me how it fits into a "creation model"? I was under the impression that the creation model states that all organisms were created perfectly for their own environments, remaining completely unchanged in all aspects. Yet - if we assumed the author's arguments to be correct - there should be no adaptive evolution either. What god is this that has created everything so perfectly, yet allows them the opportunity to evolve?

Best,

Geoff

 

[GeoffP]

Whereas this is pretty much the fundamental truth, what grates me is the feigned arrogance and complete and total pretense that unguided evolution is reality based on observed progressive genetic mutation. That's total bullshit.

I suggest you re-read my posted article. It demonstrates it quite strongly.

The real truth is that it merely supports the guided evolution theory and that's the position I personally take.

Unfortunately, as JF has unintentionally illustrated, there is a conflict of this with the "creation model".

Only a completely biased individual that has come to accept popular science on the pretense of faith would claim that the exacting order that exists on Earth came to be by chance. The odds against that are beyond astronomical. Chance is the platform that unguided evolution stands on unless you believe that the entirety of our reality is one living organism.

The odds simply are not that astronomical. You also fail to recognize the interactions that all organisms have with each other. No species is isolate from any other; they create the environment that each other lives in.

 

[electrafixtion]

I suggest you re-read my posted article. It demonstrates it quite strongly.



Unfortunately, as JF has unintentionally illustrated, there is a conflict of this with the "creation model".



The odds simply are not that astronomical. You also fail to recognize the interactions that all organisms have with each other. No species is isolate from any other; they create the environment that each other lives in.

Ah, but "demonstrate quite strongly" is not "proof" is it? What it does "demonstrate" is supportive at best.Therefore evolution is by no means a FACT. If you choose to believe evolution is fact, I respect that because it is your inalienable right to exercise faith. Go right ahead.

I would like to see the evidence you have that supports the ridiculous notion that all natural order as we know it is quite predictable or routine representing nothing extraordinary whatsoever.


I would also like you to specifically show me how a Polar Bear effects and shapes (and is therefore non isolatory) the environment of a species of fish native to specific rivers and cyclically occurring oxbow lakes in South America.

 

[GeoffP]

Ah, but "demonstrate quite strongly" is not "proof" is it? Therefore evolution is by no means a FACT. If you choose to believe evolution is fact, I respect that because it is your inalienable right to exercise faith. Go right ahead.

Well, there is rarely such a thing as inarguable "proof". But my version of "faith" has a far higher likelihood than a model cooked up on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. In which test is proof established for the creation model? At what significance level? On what statistical table can I find a critical threshold value for God? It is outside our ability to discuss, as far as I'm concerned.

I would like to see the evidence you have that supports the ridiculous notion that all natural order as we know it is quite predictable or routine representing nothing extraordinary whatsoever.

It's actually quite extraordinary. But you want to see all the evidence? It's impossible for me to present it all. There are - literally - tens or hundreds of thousands of articles on it. Could you be more specific? Why not pick an interesting subject or article? There's a great deal to be interested by.

I would also like you to specifically show me how a Polar Bear effects and shapes (and is therefore non isolatory) the environment of a species of fish native to specific rivers and cyclically occurring oxbow lakes in South America.

You're stretching the analogy far too far. Buffering by intermediary environments would almost certainly prevent such an association in any meaningful way, given in particular that the "Butterfly effect" as described in the original example is a load of crap. But imagine that polar bear hunting out all the seals in its region. That would certainly affect it; first as it fattens up, then as it starves when they've all gone. It must migrate then or die. Meanwhile, the dearth of seals means an increase in anchovies, which affect something else lower down in the ecological web. And so on.

 

[spidergoat]

And stop using wiki it is not a credible source - most college professors do not allow students to cite wiki.

Most college professors would give your essay a failing grade. Anyway, there is nothing controversial about the information I quoted. If it were, I would use a primary source. You have been intellectually dishonest about the origins of intelligent design. Nothing in multiple fields like biology or geology would make sense with a young Earth, it's a bunch of nonsense as obsolete as the humours theory of disease.

 

[electrafixtion]

Well, there is rarely such a thing as inarguable "proof". But my version of "faith" has a far higher likelihood than a model cooked up on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. In which test is proof established for the creation model? At what significance level? On what statistical table can I find a critical threshold value for God? It is outside our ability to discuss, as far as I'm concerned.



It's actually quite extraordinary. But you want to see all the evidence? It's impossible for me to present it all. There are - literally - tens or hundreds of thousands of articles on it. Could you be more specific? Why not pick an interesting subject or article? There's a great deal to be interested by.



You're stretching the analogy far too far. Buffering by intermediary environments would almost certainly prevent such an association in any meaningful way, given in particular that the "Butterfly effect" as described in the original example is a load of crap. But imagine that polar bear hunting out all the seals in its region. That would certainly affect it; first as it fattens up, then as it starves when they've all gone. It must migrate then or die. Meanwhile, the dearth of seals means an increase in anchovies, which affect something else lower down in the ecological web. And so on.

It's very important in an effort to clarify my position on the matter of evolution that I state emphatically that I do not believe the 6, 24 hour periods of time, version of "creation" for a second. My desire is not to discuss "God" or beliefs in God within this thread.

Anyone that studies biology and various earth sciences understands about specialization and natural selection. There is no question that evolution exists within it's strictest definition. Adapt and overcome. If this were not the case, we would still be living within a prehistoric environment that we most assuredly know existed.

However, one need not over simplify the concept in an effort to quickly (relatively speaking) support it's unguided and therefore, non intelligently controlled advancement. This in and of itself requires as much faith as those even more so exotic explanations. I mean after all, is not all faith relevant apart from it's storyline? Is there really any logic within a proclamation that claims more validity because it's less outlandish than the other guy's?

Still in yet, none of us were born with all the answers were we?

When I look around and determine by the most logical manner I can personally muster, the exactness of nature and it's literal precision, it's obvious that there is more to evolution than process, there is order. Undeniable order and therefore, humbly I admit that I am about to personify, intent is a logical stepping stone. Design.

 

[jessiej920]

To answer the question there was a big bang I just know who banged it.

You do? It seems to me that once you get over the argument of evolution that still leaves you with no evidence whatsoever to 'who' actually created the universe. Now you must offer proof that your creationist (I'm assuming you call him God, because, let's face it, your name is JesusFreak) is the right one. So let's suspend all reality for a moment and say, for the sake of argument, that the universe was designed by a higher being or power of considerable intelligence. Tell me then, really, what proof do you have that YOU know who banged the universe into existence?

 

[synthesizer-patel]

Ah, but "demonstrate quite strongly" is not "proof" is it? What it does "demonstrate" is supportive at best.Therefore evolution is by no means a FACT. If you choose to believe evolution is fact, I respect that because it is your inalienable right to exercise faith. Go right ahead.

That's an interesting contradiction you make there EF - on the one hand you state that evolution is conjecture - and on the other you beleive that it is real and has been guided by some intelligent agent - which is it to be?

One of the points that you have continually missed in this thread - is that even according to you and to JF - evolution really does exist - he beleives it only takes place within species - you beleive that it's intelligently guided.

So one of my early posts still stands unrefuted by you - indeed you confirm it - evolution IS a fact - the (insignificant) debate is HOW it takes place and to what extent.

So lets seee what you've got on your side - for example some of the most compelling evidence that refutes both creatioin and ID are the existence of homologous forms, analogous forms, vestigalism, and parallel evolution.

Explain these occurances within the framework of intelligently guided evolution.

 

[electrafixtion]

#1 That's an interesting contradiction you make there EF - on the one hand you state that evolution is conjecture - and on the other you beleive that it is real and has been guided by some intelligent agent - which is it to be?

#2 One of the points that you have continually missed in this thread - is that even according to you and to JF - evolution really does exist - he beleives it only takes place within species - you beleive that it's intelligently guided.

So one of my early posts still stands unrefuted by you - indeed you confirm it - evolution IS a fact - the (insignificant) debate is HOW it takes place and to what extent.

#3 So lets seee what you've got on your side - for example some of the most compelling evidence that refutes both creatioin and ID are the existence of homologous forms, analogous forms, vestigalism, and parallel evolution.

Explain these occurances within the framework of intelligently guided evolution.

Lets start with mistake #1. I have never claimed that all evolution was false. I have most certainly claimed that UNGUIDED evolution is an ill sufficient explanation for the origin and order of life as we know it on Earth. So be clear on that much.

#2, again we find a quick and far overtly self confident ill comprehension of what has been stated clearly by myself. I never once stated that evolution apart from the origin and original responsible process, was not a fact. I stated clearly that "The Theory of Evolution" (Darwin's) is not a fact and it is not. It's a speculative theory for which there is significant, although inconclusive, supporting evidence. The Theory of Evolution is not a fact because it specifically has never been proved. Do not attempt to dance.

#3 Listen Fred Astaire, when you decide to stop dodging the bullet that you so gracefully walked directly out in front of, I will meet your "round about" challenges. Until then, I'll be waiting for you to fully admit that evolution (as in the Darwinian Theory which is all this discussion has ever been about debating) is NOT fact. It's bits and pieces of the truth and that don't cut it in my book.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

#3 Listen Fred Astaire, when you decide to stop dodging the bullet that you so gracefully walked directly out in front of, I will meet your "round about" challenges. Until then, I'll be waiting for you to fully admit that evolution (as in the Darwinian Theory which is all this discussion has ever been about debating) is NOT fact. It's bits and pieces of the truth and that don't cut it in my book.

and if I do will you then post something intelligible that supports your conjecture?

 

[leopold]

#2, again we find a quick and far overtly self confident ill comprehension of what has been stated clearly by myself. I never once stated that evolution apart from the origin and original responsible process, was not a fact. I stated clearly that "The Theory of Evolution" (Darwin's) is not a fact and it is not. It's a speculative theory for which there is significant, although inconclusive, supporting evidence. The Theory of Evolution is not a fact because it specifically has never been proved. Do not attempt to dance.

how can evolution be false when every single process of it exists?

 

[spidergoat]

Evolution is a scientific fact. Scientific facts are not like mathematical proofs.

 

[electrafixtion]

how can evolution be false when every single process of it exists?

First off, every "process" is only a speculatively determined formula for a theoretical construct. If you take and break any hypothetical construct down you can easily find evidence to support all of it's parts. That's what makes it a theory to begin with. It's recreating and thus demonstrating the whole that constitutes scientific fact. Not making an intelligent guess at the whole based on an imaginary construction of speculative parts no matter how convincing the evidence. It must be proved or duplicable to be fact.

This is actually a side note, but it's one that I have always felt very strong about. IMO, it's not ethically correct, or sound in judgment, to go around stating this or that is a scientific fact when in FACT that claim is absent of proof.

That's specifically why Quantum Physics makes so much more sense even though mankind cannot readily duplicate many of it's discoveries. Most of what is claimed has been "proved" correct and therefore, it's factual.

Simply put, The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific fact because it cannot be proved. No matter how far we break down it's claimed processes, we find no conclusive proof. In fact, via the breaking down of observable process, we find more evidence to support the necessity for intelligent direction.

 

[spidergoat]

It is correct usage of the term.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

 

[spidergoat]

Top 10 Signs Of Evolution In Modern Man

 

[synthesizer-patel]

First off, every "process" is only a speculatively determined formula for a theoretical construct. If you take and break any hypothetical construct down you can easily find evidence to support all of it's parts. That's what makes it a theory to begin with.

wrong - what makes a scientific theory is it ability assimilate and explain existing data and make new predictions from that data that turn out to be correct -ToE has been fantastically successful at making predictions - the discovery of DNA and its role and behaviour, transitional fossils, obervation of speciation, random beneficial mutation, controlled experiments of natural selection - this is why ToE is such a successful and robust theory - this is why not one single thread of evide3nce has come foward in 120 years that supports a better alternative.

This is actually a side note, but it's one that I have always felt very strong about. IMO, it's not ethically correct, or sound in judgment, to go around stating this or that is a scientific fact when in FACT that claim is absent of proof.

but its not ABSENT of proof - even by your own admission there's tons of evidence that support it - and none that contradicts it- it merely lacks some fine detail in certain areas, or is rendered impractical for observation high taxon evolution due to the timescales required to oberve it

Simply put, The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific fact because it cannot be proved. No matter how far we break down it's claimed processes, we find no conclusive proof.

Not impossible - but unlikely unless the human race sticks around for a few million years and keeps really good records.

In fact, via the breaking down of observable process, we find more evidence to support the necessity for intelligent direction.

Don't silly - even Dembski admitted in a court of law he had no actual evidence of design - just "intuition"
But if we really are finding evidence than you'll be happy to post it right?