Hello, Jurassic Park

[Rust]

I'll deal with your recap, to save space.

Recap:

Duplication does not cause new information, only a repeating of what is already there. A mutation of a duplication may cause a new function, but it is not proof of evolution. To follow the evolutionist theory, the mutated duplication if expressed would have to provide a survivable advantage in order to be passed on (Natural selection). If it was not expressed, then it bore no import either way.

As pointed out above, the new genes described by Ian show a duplication event plus mutation to provide *novel* function. This rather obviously meets the requirement for mutation to create new function, in spite of Sarfatti's handwaving.

Further, contrary to your statement, evolutionary theory does not claim all mutations are beneficial - far from it in fact. Most mutations are either harmful or neutral. A neutral mutation for example would be a gene duplication that was only partial, and that gave rise to a non-functional DNA segment or pseudogene that was still new. A subsequent mutation in that pseudogene that made that DNA code for a novel protein that helped the organism flourish (say the nylon enzyme above) would then be a beneficial mutation, which would then represent an addition of new coding DNA in the organism. Nylon is an artificial polymer after all...

So Donnel has gone from 'mutations can't lead to new coding DNA' which is clearly wrong, to somehow 'even if it does it doesn't prove evolution'. I think we should focus on the 'can mutations lead to the appearance of new coding DNA segments', instead of making new claims.

Recap: Why does the process of new genes arising from duplication and mutation not count as 'new information' as you defined it?

I want the receipts themselves! Show me where someone has documented proof of new traits/structures emerging via a mutation where it wasn't actually a LOSS or CORRUPTION of genetic material.

Done already in this thread. Stop moving the goalposts.

--R.

[Zanchief]

Donnel, you seem to be misunderstanding the basic principals of evolution.

It's not a matter of positive or negative mutation. It's random. Whether it has a positive or negative effect on an organism is solely based on its environment and further generations of natural selection.

[Donnel]

Donnel, you seem to be misunderstanding the basic principals of evolution.

It's not a matter of positive or negative mutation. It's random. Whether it has a positive or negative effect on an organism is solely based on its environment and further generations of natural selection.

By positive or negative mutation I am only referring to a net gain in genetic information (information being blueprints for a structure or system that the organism had no blueprints for prior, for example a reptile growing feathers) not the mutations effect on that organism. Some mutations are advantagous, those are the ones we still see around today (loss of eyes on cave fish is an advantagous mutation, though it is still a LOSS or CORRUPTION of a genetic blueprint).

[Tikker]

STOP WITH THE FUCKING GOOGLE POSTING

Don't be a retard


As soon as someone posts a statement that they wrote that contradicts your (or anyone else's) belief system, you scream "OMFG PROOF, NEED REFERENCES"



If someone posts a well written, thoughtful idea, with some sort of valid reference don't fucking whine, just because some of the bigger words hurt your brain

Tikker, you are so wrong it's borderline hilarity.

Find me a post where I ever said something like that and I will bow out.

My point is the fucking incessant posting of random shit from google and his pseudo-wannabe-science bullshit is making me sick.

Let me rephrase then

When someone/anyone posts a statement that goes against a belief held by someone else, that someone else (or a 3rd party with the same belief as the someone else) will request proof of some sort, generally accepting a link to a non whackjob website

So whining about someone posting the relevant data to start with is more than retarded

[Rust]

Tikker, you are so wrong it's borderline hilarity.

Find me a post where I ever said something like that and I will bow out.

My point is the fucking incessant posting of random shit from google and his pseudo-wannabe-science bullshit is making me sick.

To paraphrase a comic I read two days ago, it would be nice if Finawin would indeed 'bow out', it's difficult to hear other people over the duelling banjos that accompany his posts.

--R.

[Rust]

Donnel, you seem to be misunderstanding the basic principals of evolution.

It's not a matter of positive or negative mutation. It's random. Whether it has a positive or negative effect on an organism is solely based on its environment and further generations of natural selection.

I get the feeling you've actually studied biology. Admit it.

--R.

[Langston]

While you're waiting for Rust to find proof Ugz, Please show us undisputable proof of your belief system


k, thx

I'm not the one claiming that my "beliefs" are undisputable fact, as Rust is. There is no burden of proof for me.

I haven't even stated what I personally believe. I asked a simple question of Rust - and I'm waiting for the response. Thanks for chipping in though, Tikker.

[Harrison]

He probably didn't find the answer on google to cut and paste quick enough so decided to divert the attention with more cut/paste mastery.

[Rust]

Rust - all you're doing is saying "NUH UH!!!!11!"

Can you do me a favor, please? Can you post a link (I know how you love your links!) to a website that details one incident of proof that macroevolution has, genuinely, occured - as evidenced in the fossil record or otherwise ("otherwise" doesn't include "proof" which is a group of scientists believe it to be so).

I'm looking for proof of MACROevolution, not more links to theories - or, worse yet, links to sites that you feel counter other people's beliefs/theories.

Can you manage that much, Big Guy?

Well, certainly the fossil record shows all kinds of examples of macroevolutionary change. I would first ask you to define what you think 'macroevolution' is - probably the most normal meaning is 'evolution at or above the level of species'. That would include genera, classes or even phyla.

One of the most studied examples of macroevolutionary change at the level of classes would be the transition from reptile-to-mammal. link

Other examples would be the reptile-to-bird series, the evolution of man from earlier primates, the evolution of whales from land animals. Then there are the countless examples of species-level evolution where new species arise from older ones, sometimes replacing them and sometimes living alongside them.

I post the links for a reason, the people who wrote those articles took a lot of time and effort to do so, specifically because we got sick of new Creationist idiots coming onto talk.origins every few weeks and claiming that 'there are no transitional fossils' - it was just easier to have someone write up a FAQ on it and then point your clueless Cedarville College student du jour to the FAQs.

And asking for 'proof' of a scientific theory is exhibiting a serious lack of understanding how science works. Ask for 'evidence' instead.

--R.

[Langston]

My point is made. There is no proof. It is a theory, as you have stated earlier. As a theory, there is room for error. In other words, you could be 100% wrong.

Not so?

In other words - stop trying to be a dick and telling everyone they're stupid simply because they don't agree with the theory that you espouse.

[Arlos]

Ugz, Plate Tectonics is a theory, with no "proof" to it whatsoever. There is significant amounts of evidence backing up the theory, but it is STILL just a theory. Yet to disbelieve it at this point, at least in it's overall form, is to do a serious ostrich maneuver, planting head in sand and ignoring reality. Evolution is the same way. There's no more proof to Plate Tectonics than there is to Evolution. That's how science works, NOTHING is "proved". Ever. If you disbelieve Evolution, at least in it's overall explanation, you're doing the exact same thing as someone who disbelieves plate tectonics: sticking your head in the sand and not listening.

-Arlos

[Narrock]

Anybody care to do a synopsis of everything Rust wrote? I refuse to read regurgitated evolution website propaganda. Please refrain from posting the caca icon however appropriate and tempting it may be for some of you in answering my question.

Just for the record... my first major in college was Anthropology. I took Physical Anthropology, which dealt mainly with primates, then I took Paleo-Anthropology because Dr. Louis Leakey was my hero as a child... and I've always wanted to go on a dig in the Olduvai Gorge in Northern Tanzania, and then I took Cultural Anthropology which dealt with differing cultural lifestyles. I got all A's :P.

Anyway, I realized what a crock of crap they were teaching us, and it was all based on on conjecture, theories, fancy guesswork, extremely inaccurate dating methods and techniques, and some pretty bizarre philosophies. I was fascinated with Dinosaurs as a kid, so that part of Paleo-Anthropology was fun and interesting. Other than that, I could not take it seriously.

Physical Anthropology and Paleo-Anthropology tried desperately to sell the theory to us that man not only evolved from apes, but from a mudskipper prior to that. Since there is no evidence, living, or in the fossil record, about the essential and necessary "missing link" needed to support such foolish and fantastic theories, I had no choice but to take what they were trying to teach us with a grain of salt. Homo Habilus, Homo Erectus, "Lucy," the duck-billed platypus, etc. etc. etc. are in no way even remotely proof of an evolutionary process. Like I said... it's all fun and interesting, but beyond that it's a bunch of silliness.

As hard as it is for atheists to believe that there is one God who created everything who is outside of our space/time continuum, it still makes a hell of a lot more sense than the theories that humans evolved from little mudskippers. Now, it's your right to believe in the evolutionary process... whatever floats your boat. But I choose to believe in something much more logical and promising, such as "God" and "Jesus Christ" and "The Holy Spirit." There's just way too many inaccuracies and erroneous philosophies associated with evolutionary processes as they allegedly pertain to "man." It's fun to watch and listen to the theories though for entertainment purposes.

[Diabolik]

Muddy Mudskipper --> Grape Ape --> Captain Caveman

[Narrock]

Muddy Mudskipper --> Grape Ape --> Captain Caveman

[Langston]

Arlos... we're not discussing Plate Tectonics, are we?

[Tikker]

No, but he made a valid analagy

As hard as it is for atheists to believe that there is one God who created everything who is outside of our space/time continuum, it still makes a hell of a lot more sense than the theories that humans evolved from little mudskippers. Now, it's your right to believe in the evolutionary process... whatever floats your boat. But I choose to believe in something much more logical and promising, such as "God" and "Jesus Christ" and "The Holy Spirit." There's just way too many inaccuracies and erroneous philosophies associated with evolutionary processes as they allegedly pertain to "man." It's fun to watch and listen to the theories though for entertainment purposes.

This is the part where those of faith differ from the non religious

I don't see anything even remotely logical about jumping to the conclusion that a god exists
Science attempts to explain how natural phenomenon occurs while religion just ascribes anything we don't understand to some mystical being

During my lifetime, I've yet to see anything that remotely smacked as gods work
I have however seen advances in science

[Lyion]

As Ugz impled, and as Rust skirted around in a deft fashion calling a fish a piece of bread, macroevolution is a guess with many holes and will most likely undergo <more> wild gyrations of change.

The issue circularly comes back to the question of 'Why are we here', and what happens after we die?
Different people have different beliefs.

We really are just skirting the edge of discovery in regards to many of these things.

[shiraz]

By positive or negative mutation I am only referring to a net gain in genetic information

This happens all of the time in agriculture. Polyploidy (additional chromosomes) result in much bigger fruits and vegetables. http://www.actahort.org/books/626/626_18.htm

The corn genome has also grown, and is radically different from other grasses/crops.

If you're looking for an example of an animal growing another pair of lungs for increased respiratory efficiency or some huge morphogenic change, then we'll probably have to wait a bit longer. We've only been studying this stuff for 100 years or so, that's just a blink in evolutionary time.

[Arlos]

The thing is, belief in Evolution is entirely and completely compatible with the belief that god created everything. After all, you attribute omniscience and omnipotence to god, yes? Well, how do YOU know his preferred method of causing humans to come into existance wasn't to cause the Big Bang to happen just "so", knowing that if he did that, then billions of years later, Earth would form, and billions of years of evolution later, Humans would arise. Still have god creating it all, but instead of the rather rediculous (and completely bogus according to science) "waves hands over a week's time, and POOF, here's humans and the rest of the fauna", he created a universe with natural laws, and manipulated those to cause humans to eventually come into being. After all, if he's omniscient and omnipotent, he could do just that, yes? Certainly seems more believable to me to figure it happened that way, assuming you go in for diefic creation of the universe, than the strict creationist view where Earth was created on Sunday, October 27th, 4004 BC.

-Arlos

[Lyion]

We do not know. We aren't claiming to have proof.. We are claiming to have faith. Most of us have open minds, but are a bit biased based on our religous beliefs. We do not claim otherwise.

Others are biased by their anger at religion, and have a purpose to prove 'their' point with science versus just learning and admitting ignorance and that we do not have all the answers. They are also the types who most likely had pure undisputable scientific 'proof' the world was flat, because logic said it was!

There are many questions we are not close to answering. This thread is a great example of that, if you read the underlying facts and see the weakness in arguments on both sides.

[Rust]

My point is made. There is no proof. It is a theory, as you have stated earlier. As a theory, there is room for error. In other words, you could be 100% wrong.

Not so?

In other words - stop trying to be a dick and telling everyone they're stupid simply because they don't agree with the theory that you espouse.

Of course there's room for error - we're talking about science. *Nothing* in science is perfect. Over time, science develops newer theories that explain the way the world works better. New evidence is found that challenges old theories and so new ones are proposed.

But to simply say 'I don't agree with evolution, it's only a theory' is indeed stupid. Gravity is 'only a theory'. I mean, nobody knows why the planets move around the sun. Nobody's been to Pluto and measured 'gravity' there. Maybe it's angels pushing the planets around in their orbits! Sure, we can measure gravity here on earth, but that's just local. Let's call it 'microgravitation'. There's no proof that 'microgravitation' and 'macrogravitation'- the claim that gravity can move whole planets, or stars or galaxies- are related. After all, gravitation is only a theory! It's not proven!

If you don't like the idea that humans are evolved from primates, that's fine. But it's not scientific to say it's merely false. If you want to make a serious scientific claim about human origins, find the evidence, and present it. You'll be *famous* if you can disprove hominid evolution. People who claim that evolution is false because it conflicts with their religious beliefs have to deal with the problem that science doesn't care about religious beliefs. It's about dealing with evidence and coming up with explanations of how the world really works.

And for the last couple of centuries, scientists have found that life arose on the earth a long time ago, and a series of life forms appeared over time, through ice ages, mass extinctions, and the like. The fossil record, comparative anatomy, molecular biology and other sources of data have been used to construct an explanation of how this life is all related.

That explanation is the theory of evolution. Like I said, if you don't like it, I have no problem with you. But to attack it without even understanding it and expect to be taken seriously is like walking into an operating room and criticizing the surgeon removing a tumor because medicine doesn't account for evil spirits causing cancer, and then demanding that the evil spirit theory be taught in medical schools. Get some evidence, and come back.

Likewise, claims that 'mutations can't give rise to new coding DNA' are simply silly. But that doesn't stop people from claiming they've somehow discovered some massive flaw in evolution because some snake-oil peddler like Gish, Ham or Sarfati has lied to them once again. Evolutionary theory is *complex* - God knows *I* don't understand it well in detail. But you don't disprove science with misquotes, lies and prejudices, you do it with facts, with data, with evidence. People who don't like evolutionary theory should get busy and find data to disprove it. Until they do, it's just as solid science as gravitation, or the germ theory of disease, and they should stop trying to impose their religious prejudices on science.

--R.

[Donnel]

According to your religious bias...

Rust, you believe in the religion of science. Science doesn't need a god of any kind to make itself feel right.

However if you do believe in a god or THE God then you will perceive the world in a fashion as to support your belief in that religion.

Religion is not just something that you do on Sunday (or Sabbath, or whenever) it's something that is intended to shape the way you relate to everything.

We will just have to agree to disagree. My bias shows support of a universe created without random mutation causing genetic information to spring up where that code did not exist before. Your bias supports that it did happen that way.

Guess we will find out when we both die, eh?

[mofish]

Haha. I always love that one. 'Religion of science.'

Religion relies on dogma. When evidence is discovered that conflicts with said dogma, chaos ensues. The evidence is either discarded completely or spun to somehow mesh with the dogma, bull-in-a-china-shop style. After all, the perceived word of God cant be wrong. Can it? Of course not.

Science is nothing like this. New evidence? Great. A change in how we think the world works? Super. No wringing of hands. No gnashing of teeth. The problem, the conflict, is religion's, not science's. To classify science as just another dogmatic belief system reliant upon faith, is ignorant.

[Donnel]

Who has a conflict? I don't.

Hey Mo!,

Think of it more along the line of a bias in favor of a deity and a bias in favor of no deity. Obviously there are some crossovers, but there is definately a "Religion of Science".

[Lyion]

We can agree to disagree that micro and macro evolution are different processes. Many notable Biologists do, and I certainly am not an expert in biology.

I personally wouldnt compare a sound physics and mathematics based theory that we have a grasp on to something we do not, such as macroevolution.

We'll have to wait until science catches up.. But I seriously doubt it ever will. Each advancement and decade shows us how little we know and that there are paradoxes, even if people such as yourself scoff at laws, such as the second law of thermodynamics.

From Wikipedia:
Humans construct theories in order to explain, predict and master phenomena (e.g. inanimate things, events, or the behaviour of animals). In many instances, it is seen to be a model of reality. A theory makes generalizations about observations and consists of an interrelated, coherent set of ideas.

A theory has to be something which is in some way testable; for example, one can theorize that an apple will fall when dropped, and then drop an apple, to see what happens.

---------------

Mofish, you realize many of the greatest scientists in our history were very religious men?

Also, religion relies on faith, and readily admits it. Unfortunately, most of our present day science is also a leap of faith, which is contradictory to what science is. Best guesses are not truths, which is why we have theories and anyone who is truly religious encourages the pursuit of truth. Ironically, many who are atheists are against it, unless it fits into their box of the world.

Courtesy James Stenson

The evolutionary sciences are especially susceptible to difficulty in
establishing certitude. Unlike physics or chemistry, which are verifiable
through controlled laboratory experimentation, the evolutionary disciplines
are essentially historical. All the forms of paleontology (including
paleoanthropology, the study of ancient man) seek to determine what
happened to living things over the course of time.

When researchers advance hypotheses to explain fossil phenomena, they are giving *reasonable interpretations* which are verifiable only through subsequent research.
Later findings may confirm these explanations, or perhaps render them less
plausible, or even prove them *wrong*--that is, very highly unlikely. Thus
what is generally accepted by specialists today may be outmoded only a few
years from now. The field is highly dynamic.