|
Post by randwick on Jan 25, 2009 22:20:08 GMT
.
The definition of a specie is that if individuals can interbreed and have fertile offspring they are of the same specie IE , dogs, horses ,cats, cattle .... donkeys and horses , tigers and lions can interbreed but the result is overwhelmingly sterile
Of course they can belong to different subspecies , previously called races before the term became taboo it rely on identifiable characteristics transmitted in a group
There is ample evidence that people from all origins can successfully interbreed , so we are of the same specie there is no doubt the pure strain of people can identify they group so there is human subspecies , Thanks god for that or else it would mean we have wiped out our cousins since our emergence
it would make us Homo genocidus
Evolution is not a theory it's a well established fact However the mechanics are not understood ,
Darwinian theory postulate the survival of the fittest , the fittest is described as the ones who survive in short " the survival of the survivors " not really helpful ! it assume infinitesimal incremental changes It doesn't explain anything
IE why did the Coelacanth survive , they are as fit as as a 1890 steam car on the freeways .
Random evolution is absurd , it's like arguing that modern economic evolved from winning the lottery one million time in a row
two theories contended around 1810
one by Cuvier , the supreme paleontologist , who at a lecture chipped a block of gypsum , revealing a bone , he described a marsupial tree climber , chipped the rest of the block and was right .
He held that evolution happened by a succession of catastrophes new opportunities create the space for new specialization
his opponent , Lamarck held that behavior was the guiding force , it would promote the body changes needed to fit with the behavior , those changes would happen during the life of an individual ( not too much problem there ) and be transmitted to its offspring That bit get geneticist frothing at the mouth
Both theories were largely ignored or discredited in favor of Darwin's , both have now been given a new lease in the Darwinian views
.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 25, 2009 22:54:28 GMT
The evolution of the reptile/mammal jaw is one example where the fossil record is coincidentally in favor of common descent. Reptiles have a different joint in their jaw than mammals, reptilian lower jaw is also made of several bones wheras the mammal lower jaw is made of one. In the right time periods in the fossil record are found fossils which have both joints, with later fossils showing use of the mammal one primarily with the reptilian one becoming vestigal or used for another purpose. The number of bones in the lower jaw is also transitional, as are the teeth, etc. It all points to a certain line of reptiles slowing becoming the first mammals, which necessitates a biological mechanism to explain how such changes can occur over time. We can see today how species can change over time, how selection can alter the genome and form of creatures. It's not really much of a stretch to see that over millions of years the transition from some reptiles into the first mammals could take place, especially when some of the staging posts are found in the fossil record. Even if the details are not all known (which specific genes were involved, etc), the evidence is overwhelming that this is how it happened. The problem here is the periods where there were not 'millions of years' available - after ELE's for example. I don't think anyone here is arguing that changes due to environmental stress do not occur - the mystery is how the process produces new species & genera. What you describe may or may not produce new species, but it's a process that takes, as you say, millions of years. Where are the fossils? There are hardly any which combine characteristics of two lines - if the transitional process takes so long, we should be rolling in transitional fossils because over such time frames, the rarity problem goes away. The Punctuated Equilibrium idea came about to address precisely this issue - but they don't have mechanism. Find the mechanism that allows for the sudden spurts of species & genera & we will have an answer (probably) for how things came to be. I would imagine that nautral mutation will be a factor in the mechanism, but I think it's going to be one little piece in a much larger picture. In agw, the CO 2 situation is analogous - nobody is denying it has an effect on things, just that it is THE effect. I think here also it will turn out to be a contributing factor to what we eventually track down as the system which causes weather & climate (& they may be two different systems) but I doubt it will be major. One problem i have is how well the whole agw scam... sorry, scare tracks with 1975 ‘Endangered Atmosphere’ Conference where they laid out the tactics for the coming campaign. And Gore has always troubled my 'snake-oil salesman' bump. This is the guy who 'invented' the internet - unfortunately for him I lived through quite a number of years before the internet came into being - never once did I hear of him being involved.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Jan 25, 2009 23:30:08 GMT
Somehow we are here. We cannot escape the problem of origins. All science points to a beginning & and end. The problem itself isn't solvable by logic or science. Evidence is always interpreted within the framework you choose. There is no neutrality, no unbiased position. All "facts" exist in an interpretive framework.
We personally need to make a choice between either
A. A blind chance, chaotic origin, with the corollary that there is no meaning or purpose in anything except what meaning and purpose that Man himself imposes on the universe/multiverse.
B. An active creative and purposeful origin. There are sub choices with this: (and variations within these!) B1. The Theistic God (of Abraham) as worshiped by Judaism, Christianity & Islam. B2. Some other God or God(s) B3. Pantheism: The Universe itself is aware & divine.
or
C. Something else we haven't thought of yet!
(I exclude the eternal cycle of a Universe ever creating & destroying itself, as this is a variant of A.)
We all choose, and our choice will colour our lives.
===================================================== I just enjoy the universe. Went for a walk in the bush <3km from where live. The kangaroos were in the car park! and along the path as we walked in. The bush smells were amazing. Almond like at one point, but eucalyptus oil smell mostly. Beautiful. I also glory in the weather. (whatever it is!)
Man's chief end is to glorify God & enjoy him forever.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 25, 2009 23:47:38 GMT
Do I have trouble with not being able to explain where the creator came from. Not at all. Am I curious? Absolutely! ex: A scientist sequences DNA to replicate the virus that was the source of the flu epidemic in the early 1900's because that virus no longer exists. (really, not made up. He wanted to see how it worked to find a vaccine for existing flus. www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol12no01/05-0979.htm) (amazing stuff) Now, the new virus had a creator. He took the building blocks, sequenced them together and made this virulent critter. Being a virus, it did not consider where it came from. It didn't have the capability. Man does. Some find comfort in the belief in a creator. It orders their world. It provides an explanation for the way things are. They look at the complexity of life and ask "how can anyone believe that this is all by random chance." Others look at the world and all of its violence and ask "how can there be a God who is compassionate?" As such, they are content(?) with the belief that there is none, and all that is or was came about by random chance. When we are gone, all is done. No consequence, no accountability. Just nothingness. If a being that would be considered multi dimensional, did in fact create us, would we understand their essence with current technology? It's a reasonable analogy but it doesn't quite work. First there's the issue that the DNA chunks came from another process - whether creation or evolution, something produced the DNA for him to stick together. Then there's the issue that the Scientist himself is the result of another process. (ie. Evolution or Creation) So it doesn't quite work nor really address the issues.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jan 26, 2009 3:19:28 GMT
Like I said Poits... You have great faith in your ideology. You have absolutely no scientific evidence to back up your claims. It is all conjecture and hypothesis. That cannot be verified. Thus, faith is required to accept it. While certain definitions of "faith" do apply, it's nothing like religious faith. Knowing how life works...evolution must inherently be true and continuing even today. It's inescapable. It would actually take an outside force to prevent evolution from happening. I'm sorry you're not capable of understanding the concepts. It saddens me but the bulk of the people in the world are unable to understand such things...learning everything as crystallized knowledge...tiny "facts" with no true relation to the rest of the information in the world. I do not live in that world. Almost everything I perceive and learn as a series of interconnections. I don't just see a monitor before me, I see it for how it functions, how it's constructed, the technologies and materials. I don't just perceive the monitors buttons as tiny pieces of plastic that just magically work...I understand that they use microswitches behind them and I know how the microswitches work. I know how many of the metals in those microswitches are processed, etc. I have evidence that evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. It's irrefutable...and sadly, the fact that you can say there's no evidence means you obviously have no clue what you're talking about. You might just as well be telling an auto mechanic that you KNOW engines work because there are gremlins turning little hand cranks and that there's no evidence that proves otherwise. Once again, the only way it's possible that evolution has not occurred is if everything has been built down to the subatomic level to make it look as if life evolved...but hey, believe what you want. Maybe you can even convince an auto mechanic to try to replace the gremlins that power your car.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 26, 2009 5:51:38 GMT
*grins* OK, now that everyone has that off their chests, can we please get back to how or whether random natural mutations can suddenly kick off rapid alterations in biological specimens?
There's a separate thread about Evolution & ID isn't there?
Or if you'd prefer, we could discuss the similarities between the Theory of Evolution & the Theory of Plant Food... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 26, 2009 6:04:01 GMT
. Of course they can belong to different subspecies , previously called races before the term became taboo it rely on identifiable characteristics transmitted in a group The term isn't taboo - it's more like the use of the term for a particular one is taboo. ;D Although it still seems OK to call us Whitey, whitebread & the like. Maybe it's only the terms for non-whites that is taboo? There is ample evidence that people from all origins can successfully interbreed , so we are of the same species there is no doubt the pure strain of people can identify they group so there is human subspecies Actually, & I'm trying to recall where I heard/read it, there is developing evidence of increased infertility among human sub-groups. IVF is a boom business because of it. If I find it I will post here. it would make us Homo genocidus Should that be MORE homo genocidus? Evolution is not a theory it's a well established fact However the mechanics are not understood , Darwinian theory postulate the survival of the fittest , the fittest is described as the ones who survive in short " the survival of the survivors " not really helpful ! it assume infinitesimal incremental changes It doesn't explain anything IE why did the Coelacanth survive , they are as fit as as a 1890 steam car on the freeways . Random evolution is absurd , it's like arguing that modern economic evolved from winning the lottery one million time in a row two theories contended around 1810 one by Cuvier , the supreme paleontologist , who at a lecture chipped a block of gypsum, revealing a bone , he described a marsupial tree climber , chipped the rest of the block and was right . He held that evolution happened by a succession of catastrophes new opportunities create the space for new specialization his opponent , Lamarck held that behavior was the guiding force , it would promote the body changes needed to fit with the behavior , those changes would happen during the life of an individual ( not too much problem there ) and be transmitted to its offspring That bit get geneticist frothing at the mouth Both theories were largely ignored or discredited in favor of Darwin's , both have now been given a new lease in the Darwinian views Lamarck has new evidence as well in the research they've been doing into the Grandmother issues - environment even several generations back can influence the actual expression of genes in later generations. I think it some combination of both - I just don't know if some kind of Lamarckian process is fast enough to bring about the sudden & extreme changes in numbers of & types of animals extant after something like an ELE. It's a problem with consensus being allowed to dictate who gets funding - everyone thought Lamarck was a nutter so there's been little or no research available to continue that line - now we find evidence from biology & we have to start from scratch. agw is the same thing - although newer. With all non-agw funding cut off, when we finally decide maybe plant food isn't the full cause, we will be running from the back marker - & may very well have ice breathing down our necks. (whew! mixed metaphors or what? ;D )
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Jan 26, 2009 18:03:09 GMT
Funny poits. I think the big three might be willing to consider the gremlin idea right about now.
One note from a previous post, horses and donkeys are not the same species.
Horses: Genus: Equus Species: E. caballus
Donkey: Genus: Equus Subgenus: Asinus Species: E. asinus
Mule: The term "mule" (Latin mulus) was formerly applied to the infertile offspring of any two creatures of different species.
Regarding your other diatribe and pity for me, as an engineer, I look at the body and am amazed by the intricacies of its systems, the redundance, the symmetry, and how each part serves its function and am amazed that others cannot see the inherant design. Like I said, where are all the partial organs and systems that have not had the other "chance mutations" that have allowed them to form into something useful.
The notion that one mutation would result in the complexities of something like sexual reprodution is really astonishing. The partial systems would need enumorous mutations before finally getting it right, and then it would have to do that with two of the same species, in close proximity. And they would need to know that they need to get together and get jiggy.
I don't know about you, but to believe that all of this wonder is the result of random chance is difficult to fathom. It takes every bit as much faith to believe in as does believing in a creator.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 26, 2009 20:20:42 GMT
I think I'd like to see species revisited in the light of genetic knowledge. It's a human classification system & was set up before modern scientific knowledge even knew about genes etc. The ongoing sequencing work needs to be extended so at least we have a genuine path of descent (if such exists) on which to base our classifications.
It may be, for example that in the variety of animals we see within a genus, we ARE seeing the process of natural selection, or equally it may be we find all cats (for example) come from common anscestors rather than being directly related.
But the persistence of the creation/evolution argument would seem to prove the title of this thread - the theory of agw & the theory of evolution are both consensus views, held without sufficient evidence yet defended against all comers.
Personally I wonder what effect Sheldrake's Morphogenetic Fields might have on evolution. Whatever it is he is tracking would seem to be something new to the mix & could easily help explain the things we see in the record.
I kind of see Sheldrake a bit like Svensmark - both have come up with distinct possibilities, using straight science, that could go a long way to answering questions fundamental to understanding the larger processes we've been arguing over.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jan 27, 2009 9:00:39 GMT
Funny poits. I think the big three might be willing to consider the gremlin idea right about now. Regarding your other diatribe and pity for me, as an engineer, I look at the body and am amazed by the intricacies of its systems, the redundance, the symmetry, and how each part serves its function and am amazed that others cannot see the inherant design. Like I said, where are all the partial organs and systems that have not had the other "chance mutations" that have allowed them to form into something useful. And as an engineer you have a sort of an inverted view of how things go together relative to evolution and the biochemistry involved in the growth and development of organisms. Certain types of programmers would probably have a far better mindset for getting it...specifically ones involved in procedural generation of scenery for virtual worlds and ones that write small, obfuscated code. A blueprint of a plane is NOT remotely similar to genetic code. Genetic code is more like the knowledge base necessary to build the plane and everything that goes into it. At one point the stirrup was a big technological development and for hundreds of years horses were the primary means of transportation, but eventually other developments allowed a superior technology to displace the horse and stirrup. The knowledge of the stirrup remains but many old technologies have been forgotten...lost because they served no purpose for too long and were therefore forgotten. This is an incorrect assessment. Single mutations DO NOT result in entirely new organs or massive lifestyle changes. A single mutation usually results in a change to a single protein fragment (which is often used in numerous other proteins). Such changes may do something systemic like change the rate of an equilibrium shift that leads to the lengthening of appendages. It may cause changes in the density of muscle fibers. It MIGHT make the organism an inhospitable environment for parasites ...like sickle cell anemia, which affects the solubility of hemoglobin. About the only time a whole organ gets made is when it's essentially a copy of another organ. Having backups of important organs isn't at all unusual and is potentially beneficial. A further mutation could however make one of those organs tend to be slightly different...and if that difference were useful it might potentially evolve into another organ. The millions of mutations are random chance. The fact that the beneficial ones tend to be favored is absurdly obvious. Many of our technological innovations are derived from "accidents". These "accidents" are then recreated on purpose because they were useful...and incorporated into future developments. Surely you, as an engineer, are aware of many examples of this.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 27, 2009 10:13:59 GMT
So you guys aren't going to leave the whole Creation versus Evolution argument behind you?
That's sad. Makes this thread a bit of a waste of time.
As for mutations generating protein fragments, it doesn't seemed to have helped much - of the (I think it's) 64 possible proteins, the human organism uses about 20. And that hasn't change dsince as early as we've been able to measure proteins.
I've tried a number of times here, and on other forums to get some reasonable discussion going on the subject of whether random mutaion can account for the things WE KNOW have happened - each time it devolves into Creationists & Absolute Evolutionists arguing about whose invisible friend is better.
It is sad that, with all the human race has come through, with all the knowledge of this realm we have found, we cannot get intelligent people to put aside their personal gods to talk rationally about what may or may not lead to new truths.
I could list the great men of science as a list of those who would be ashamed to know us. They put discovery of knowledge before personal belief & found us new worlds. We piss on their new worlds & follow dogma.
For shame.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jan 27, 2009 12:13:31 GMT
So you guys aren't going to leave the whole Creation versus Evolution argument behind you? That's sad. Makes this thread a bit of a waste of time. As for mutations generating protein fragments, it doesn't seemed to have helped much - of the (I think it's) 64 possible proteins, the human organism uses about 20. And that hasn't change dsince as early as we've been able to measure proteins. Ummm...no, there are essentially limitless numbers of potential proteins. Here's the wikipedia definition... Proteins are organic compounds made of amino acids arranged in a linear chain and joined together by peptide bonds between the carboxyl and amino groups of adjacent amino acid residues. A god has nothing to do with the process of evolution. Evolution is an inevitable consequence of life functioning the way it does...making imperfect copies of its self. Even when someone tries to sort of inject a god's influence into "evolution" (even in reasonable ways) it really comes back down to "Evolution works, oh and maybe god jumpstarted things and meddles occasionally too." One very big difference between the evidence for the "theory" of AGW (it's really at most a hypothesis) and the "theory" of evolution is that evolution is sort of self-documenting. Due to the methods life uses to come up with new structures, many of the old structures are still formed during development. Why the heck do humans have gills? Why do we still form a notochord? We can see evolutionary splits that must have taken place in embryos of different species as they develop. We share enormous amounts of our DNA even with species that would have had to split off hundreds of millions of years ago. See...self documenting. As I have pointed out many times over the years (and this video points it out as well) the ONLY reason for this to be the case is if (A) the species evolved from an EXTREMELY LIMITED number (like probably ONE when you're talking about animals) of common ancestors or (B) something is trying to trick us into believing that's the case. youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNucIndeed, even a lot of the people that believe in evolution are following a sort of dogma but again there's a huge difference. Creationism is PURE dogma that's completely unsupported anywhere (except in religious texts which happen to be contradicted by many other religious texts).
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Jan 27, 2009 17:57:41 GMT
Poits, you're rambling now.
You're best quote:
This is an incorrect assessment. Single mutations DO NOT result in entirely new organs or massive lifestyle changes. A single mutation usually results in a change to a single protein fragment (which is often used in numerous other proteins). Such changes may do something systemic like change the rate of an equilibrium shift that leads to the lengthening of appendages. It may cause changes in the density of muscle fibers. It MIGHT make the organism an inhospitable environment for parasites ...like sickle cell anemia, which affects the solubility of hemoglobin.
Exactly my point! So, since it takes numerous mutations to generate one organ, why don't we have numerous organ-fragments/incomplete systems that haven't made it to full organ status?
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 27, 2009 19:13:01 GMT
Ummm...no, there are essentially limitless numbers of potential proteins. Here's the wikipedia definition... Proteins are organic compounds made of amino acids arranged in a linear chain and joined together by peptide bonds between the carboxyl and amino groups of adjacent amino acid residues. *shrugs* I meant amino acids - it was late, I'd been out for a couple of drinks & tbh I couldn't be bothered looking it up. None of what you're saying addresses the issue of what causes the things you talk about. I'm smoke - it's boring in here.
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Jan 27, 2009 21:03:01 GMT
Were we through our knowledge of genetics etc, able to create a new
species would that be an example of evolution or an act of creation?
|
|