Can some of you science people help me with this??

AnarchyMell
Superfan
AnarchyMell's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-09-23
User is offlineOffline
Can some of you science people help me with this??

 

 

 

 

Can some of more educated, science people help me with this.  I know how to refute it in my head, but actually making it sound coherent in type, is not working out so well.  Thanks!

 

 

 

Much of the reason for evolution's privileged status has been due to confusion over just what people mean when they use the word evolution. Evolution is a slippery term. If evolution simply means "change over time," this is non-controversial. Peppered moths, Hawaiian drosophila fruit flies, and even Galapagos finches are clear examples of change over time. If you say that this form of evolution is a fact, well, so be it. But many scientists extrapolate beyond this meaning. Because "change over time" is a fact, the argument goes, it is also a fact that moths, fruit flies, and finches all evolved from a remote common ancestor. But this begs the question.

The real question, however, is where do moths, flies, and finches come from in the first place? Common examples of natural selection acting on present genetic variation do not tell us how we have come to have horses, wasps, and woodpeckers, and the enormous varieties of living animals. Evolutionists will tell you that this is where mutations enter the picture. But mutations do not improve the scenario either. In speaking of all the mutation work done with bacteria over several decades, the great French zoologist and evolutionist Pierre-Paul Grasse' said:

What is the use of their unceasing mutations if they do not change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.

When I speak of evolution or Darwinism, it is the origin of new biological forms, new adaptive structures, morphological and biochemical novelties that I am referring to. This is precisely what has not yet been explained. When people question the popular explanations of the origin of complex adaptations such as the vertebrate limb, or sexual reproduction, or the tongue of the woodpecker, or the reptilian hard-shelled egg, they are usually given a litany of reasons why these structures are beneficial to the organisms. More precisely, the selective advantage of these structures is offered as the reason they evolved. But this begs the question again. It is not sufficient for an evolutionist to explain the function of a particular structure. What is necessary is to explain the mechanistic origin of these structures!

Natural selection does explain how organisms adapt to minor changes in their environment. Natural selection allows organisms to do what God commanded them to do. That is to be fruitful and multiply. Natural selection does not, however, explain the crucial question of how complex adaptations arose in the first place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anarchism is the only philosophy which brings to man the consciousness of himself; which maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man's subordination. Anarchism is therefore the teacher of the unity of life; not merely in nature, but in man.

Emma Goldman


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2390
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Mel

 

 

 

                  I'm not one of the science people you asked for but I do have an answer for you.   When god commands his creations to "go forth and multiply" he is telling them to adapt and NOT go extinct.  God screwed up!!  99% of ALL life forms that have ever existed HAVE gone extinct. God screws up 99% of the time.  Would you buy a used car from that deity?

 

 

                 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5816
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
There is no evidence of a

There is no evidence of a mechanism preventing evolution step-by-step from eventually going arbitrarily far from the orignal form. Such a thing would require the existence within the organism of some unchanging reference gene for mutations to be checked against.

All the various ways in which genes, parts of genes, and individual elements can be duplicated, deleted, replaced and relocated have been observed, so there is nothing to block any gene pattern from eventually mutating into any other, subject only to the requirement that each intermediate arrangement still be viable. Since most mutations are neutral or positive, and there are a vast number of paths by which any such change can proceed, given the number of genes involved, this is not an intrinsic problem.

Observing any individual colony of bacteria will not likely show much net change away from a form which is obviously pretty well adapted, even under short-term stress.

Nevertheless, the long-running experiment by Richard Lenski has demonstrated the acquisition of new capabilities in bacteria under sustained selective environmental conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


AnarchyMell
Superfan
AnarchyMell's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-09-23
User is offlineOffline
This just came to my mind,

This just came to my mind, the nylon microbe/bacteria.  That did not even exist until nylon was invented.  Wouldn't that be a good example to refute the above statement?

Anarchism is the only philosophy which brings to man the consciousness of himself; which maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man's subordination. Anarchism is therefore the teacher of the unity of life; not merely in nature, but in man.

Emma Goldman


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5816
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
AnarchyMell wrote:This just

AnarchyMell wrote:

This just came to my mind, the nylon microbe/bacteria.  That did not even exist until nylon was invented.  Wouldn't that be a good example to refute the above statement?

Yeah, same sort of thing that was demonstrated in Lenski's experiment,  where some strains developed the ability to metabolize substances that the original strain couldn't.

Actually, in some ways, the nylon-eating is even better, because, as you say, nylon was something that they had not encountered before.

The great thing about Lenski's experiment is that it was done under carefully controlled conditions and documented the rates of mutation and many other aspects of the process very thoroughly. He also checked that the most significant mutation, the ability to metabolize citrate, which has never been observed in wild populations of the bacteria (E. Coli), could evolve repeatedly in separate samples cloned from populations which lacked the ability, and specifically tested that it did not come from outside contamination, but had definitely evolved within the experimental strains.

It appears to have been very thorough, and is by far the best experiment yet to demonstrate how evolution works.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
AnarchyMell wrote:This just

AnarchyMell wrote:

This just came to my mind, the nylon microbe/bacteria.  That did not even exist until nylon was invented.  Wouldn't that be a good example to refute the above statement?

 

Except it is still a bacteria.  Not a paramecium or something.

We have lots of examples of speciation.  Changes happen and this new critter can not interbreed with other descendants of its great-great-grandparents.  What we don't have is a living example of a new family that has recently evolved.  But it doesn't matter.  If we found one, christians would only point and shout "No it isn't!"

We have lots of fossil examples, but christians only point and shout "No it isn't!"

I once was discussing evolution with a cretinist.  He didn't believe the source I quoted.  The source had a PhD in paleontology - 8 to 10 years of specialized education - and over 20 years of research and publishing history.  This cretinist told me he knew more about evolution than the source quoted because he had god and the bible on his side and the scientist didn't.  That kind of chutzpah just ticks me off.

For the rest of my argument, "what Bob said".

And if anyone knows of a new family - or genus - put up a link.  It would be fun to know.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5816
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Another interesting example

Another interesting example of the fuzziness of the concept of species are what are called "ring species".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

They amount to a real-time example, as distinct from the historical/paleological, of how what appear to be distinct species have a continuous genetic linkage through a series of small differences which each are well within the normal range of one species. Thus clearly showing how such small steps can eventually amount to as big a change as required to form what is a clearly different species.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Another

BobSpence1 wrote:

Another interesting example of the fuzziness of the concept of species are what are called "ring species".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

They amount to a real-time example, as distinct from the historical/paleological, of how what appear to be distinct species have a continuous genetic linkage through a series of small differences which each are well within the normal range of one species. Thus clearly showing how such small steps can eventually amount to as big a change as required to form what is a clearly different species.

 

They never mention dogs.  A male great dane that tied a chihuahua would kill her.  A male chihuahua would be unable to tie a great dane.  But you can breed all the way up and all the way down as long as the size difference is not too great.  Technically, you could artificially inseminate, but effectively, they are separate breeding populations.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5816
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:BobSpence1

cj wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Another interesting example of the fuzziness of the concept of species are what are called "ring species".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

They amount to a real-time example, as distinct from the historical/paleological, of how what appear to be distinct species have a continuous genetic linkage through a series of small differences which each are well within the normal range of one species. Thus clearly showing how such small steps can eventually amount to as big a change as required to form what is a clearly different species.

 

They never mention dogs.  A male great dane that tied a chihuahua would kill her.  A male chihuahua would be unable to tie a great dane.  But you can breed all the way up and all the way down as long as the size difference is not too great.  Technically, you could artificially inseminate, but effectively, they are separate breeding populations.

Funny, I was thinking of mentioning dogs.

"Great minds...."

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


kierantitheridge
kierantitheridge's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2010-06-25
User is offlineOffline
AnarchyMell wrote: The real

AnarchyMell wrote:

 

The real question, however, is where do moths, flies, and finches come from in the first place?

All organisms have common ancestors. If you keep regressing you will find that they all originated from some organism in the past. Of course species branch off but they all have a common ancestor. If you regress back far enough you will come to the first ever organism. What was that? We will probably never know.

 

AnarchyMell wrote:

What is the use of their unceasing mutations if they do not change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.

But they do change! This is why we have MRSA or Extended Spectrum Beta Lactamases or Vancomycin Resistant Enterococci. They are mutating and adapting to their environment. HIV is also capable of achieving resistance to drugs this is why HIV infected individuals eventually succumb to it. This is evolution happening as we watch it!

 

AnarchyMell wrote:

 

When I speak of evolution or Darwinism, it is the origin of new biological forms, new adaptive structures, morphological and biochemical novelties that I am referring to. This is precisely what has not yet been explained. When people question the popular explanations of the origin of complex adaptations such as the vertebrate limb, or sexual reproduction, or the tongue of the woodpecker, or the reptilian hard-shelled egg, they are usually given a litany of reasons why these structures are beneficial to the organisms. More precisely, the selective advantage of these structures is offered as the reason they evolved. But this begs the question again. It is not sufficient for an evolutionist to explain the function of a particular structure. What is necessary is to explain the mechanistic origin of these structures!

But it does explain this. A new organ or enzyme or behaviour does not spring into existence over night. It is subject to many revisions by the forces placed upon it by the environment. A monochromic photosensitive cell may become a polychromic photosensitive cell. It may then become a group of cells. Those cells may then begin to integrate their information. They may then begin behaving as a single unit. Eventually they may become an eye. At each step change occurs. That may be by novel mutations, insertions, translocations, or genetic recombinations. The genome has many tricks up it's sleeve for self improvement & propagation. Whether it propagates or not depends on whether it confers an advantage on the organism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
These "moving pictures" of

These "moving pictures" of which you speak cannot happen. Each frame is but a tiny variation from the last. Look at any decent-sized sample -- say, 60 frames or more -- and you will see that they are essentially identical, moving slightly about a median.

It is obvious that such small, left-and-right sideways variation cannot produce actual movement. The most you'll get will be a sort of wobbling on screen. There is no way in which such small variation can tell a coherent story, unless that story is, "People wobble on screen."

So please forgive me if I don't buy into this whole popular myth of "summer blockbuster." There is no way people wobbling on screen can be compelling based on such small changes about a median.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5816
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:These

nigelTheBold wrote:

These "moving pictures" of which you speak cannot happen. Each frame is but a tiny variation from the last. Look at any decent-sized sample -- say, 60 frames or more -- and you will see that they are essentially identical, moving slightly about a median.

It is obvious that such small, left-and-right sideways variation cannot produce actual movement. The most you'll get will be a sort of wobbling on screen. There is no way in which such small variation can tell a coherent story, unless that story is, "People wobble on screen."

So please forgive me if I don't buy into this whole popular myth of "summer blockbuster." There is no way people wobbling on screen can be compelling based on such small changes about a median.

Hah! Took me a moment there to work out what you were saying there, Nigel. Great response!

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, Nigel.

 

That's a simply brilliant way of looking at this. I guess the frames change so slowly our timespan doesn't allow us to perceive alterations in lifeforms. The 'show' is just so incomprehensibly long. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


kierantitheridge
kierantitheridge's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2010-06-25
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

That's a simply brilliant way of looking at this. I guess the frames change so slowly our timespan doesn't allow us to perceive alterations in lifeforms. The 'show' is just so incomprehensibly long. 

 

But bacteria & viruses can mutate & adapt in very short time frame. We have already seen that Gram Negative Bacteria have produced a new strain of Beta Lactam that has adapted to deal with modern antibiotics. There are other instances of this to. More alarmingly viruses do it even quicker especially HIV. Ok it is not an entirely different organism but it has evolved in a short period of time. It would appear that the quicker you reproduce & the more offspring you produce the quicker you can adapt. Of course for large animals that reproduce slowly & only sire a limited number of offspring then it occurs at very slow rate. The microscopic world on the other hand seems to respond much quicker.