Has evolution done stopped?

[bagfullofsnakes]

This isn't cartoon evolution. This is reality, and the biggest stumbling block to evolutionists. You claim we came from apes.

No. You don't understand evolution at all.

Evolution does NOT claim that humans came from apes. Creationists do. It's a silly, ignorant, straw-man argument.

I did not come from my cousin, nor did I come from my cousin's parents. But, I AM related to my cousin, via my uncles parents ie, my grandparents.

Likewise, we did not "come from" apes. Rather, we are cousins to apes

It's not that hard.

The proof is in the pudding.

Unquestionably.​

Science is all about facts you say. Ok. Where are they?

The fact that virtually all life shares DNA as the recipie for protien production is a smoking gun if there ever was one. Fossil's are another clue. Actually witnessing evoution in a lab is another way.

No theory, and I mean NO theory, is allowed to be presented today without reproducible results. You try posting a theory in the Medical Journal without being able to produce tangible, consistently reproducible results. You can't. You get laughed out of the profession.

What makes you immune?

Nothing. What you ask of evolution has already been done.

http://bex.nsstc.uah.edu/RbS/CLONE/VGS/spetner_evol1.html
In 1982 Barry Hall reported on an experiment in which he prepared a strain of E. coli bacteria lacking the beta-galactosidase gene lacZ, which normally hydrolyzes lactose. When these bacteria grew and multiplied on another nutrient, but in the presence of lactose, they gained the ability to metabolize lactose, an ability that proved to be heritable. The gained ability was found to be due to the presence of a new gene. The new gene encodes a new enzyme that can perform the function of the beta-galactosidase, enabling the mutant bacteria to metabolize lactose.

Essentially, bacteria had been modified so that the gene which normally metabolizes (eats) lactose was physically removed. It wasn't simply turned off, it was removed.

So, one would think that this new bacteria wouldn't be able to eat lactose, and or the most part, one would be correct.

But some bacteria were able to metabolize lactose!

How? Evolution.

Human intervention won't work.

You're wrong, it will, and it does.​

What makes you think Natural Selection will?

Because we've seen it happen first hand. The experiment is completely reproduceable.​

 

[sfs]

This isn't cartoon evolution. This is reality, and the biggest stumbling block to evolutionists. You claim we came from apes. You claim amoebas evolved into fish and birds and whatever else. You've had plenty of opportunity, but you can't reprodruce your own theories in the lab. You can accuse me of and call me whatever you want. The proof is in the pudding. Science is all about facts you say. Ok. Where are they? No theory, and I mean NO theory, is allowed to be presented today without reproducible results. You try posting a theory in the Medical Journal without being able to produce tangible, consistently reproducible results. You can't. You get laughed out of the profession.

What makes you immune?

Science is about observations, but it is not always about experiments. Astronomers have concluded that the sun is a big ball mostly made of hydrogen that's heated by fusion. Do you think their conclusion is unscientific because they've never reproduced a star in the lab? Evolutionary biologists test parts of evolution in the lab that can be tested in the lab. Parts that can't they test by comparing predictions to observations in nature -- observations of organisms, of ecosystems, of genes, of fossils. Parts that they can't test at all remain speculation. That's how science works. All of the important parts have been tested again and again and again, and now form the framework for all of biology. Evolution isn't immune from the requirements of science -- there are shelves upon shelves of journal articles on different aspects of evolution.

I say that humans evolved from apes because that is the only explanation that fits all of the data, including the data I work with every day. For some reason I have yet to see any creationist even attempt to understand the data, much less come up with alternative explanation.

 

[bagfullofsnakes]

I say that humans evolved from apes because that is the only explanation that fits all of the data, including the data I work with every day. For some reason I have yet to see any creationist even attempt to understand the data, much less come up with alternative explanation.

I think it's more appropriate to say the "humans and apes share a common ancestor", than "humans came from apes", which isn't factually true.

 

[sfs]

I think it's more appropriate to say the "humans and apes share a common ancestor", than "humans came from apes", which isn't factually true.

Biologically it's not false, it's just not well defined: "ape" isn't a technical term in biology. "Humans came from apes" can mean either "humans are descended from chimps or gorillas or gibbons . . " or "humans and modern apes share a common ancestor that would be called an ape if it were alive today". The first meaning is false, the second true.

 

[bagfullofsnakes]

Biologically it's not false, it's just not well defined: "ape" isn't a technical term in biology. "Humans came from apes" can mean either "humans are descended from chimps or gorillas or gibbons . . " or "humans and modern apes share a common ancestor that would be called an ape if it were alive today". The first meaning is false, the second true.

I like version #2. Do you mind if I make it my own?

 

[SirKenin]

Because we've seen it happen first hand. The experiment is completely reproduceable.

What is reproduceable? An amoeba evolving into a fish? Or a fish into a lizard? No it isn't. Not even under the most perfect conditions in the lab can they get an amoeba to evolve. At least not that I've heard of.

If they can't make it happen in the most ideal of conditions, what do you rate the chances of Natural Selection making it happen? I give it one chance in five billion.

Then we take the whole theory of Natural Selection. You argue that Racoons living in the city have brains 30% larger than those in the country. Fair enough. Where are the urban racoons in with the smaller brains? Am I expected to believe it started out with the racoons with the bigger brains? Or did the others die off, because they weren't ideally suited for their environment (which fits with Darwin's definition of Natural Selection)?

Of course, we've yet to agree with Darwin on his definition, by the looks of things, so we can't go much further.

 

[sfs]

I like version #2. Do you mind if I make it my own?

I'm sure it wasn't mine to start with, so feel free. Just as long as I'm allowed to borrow it back from time to time.

 

[Arikay]

And now you are throwing Strawmen on the fire.

Why have you not started a new thread about that debate that you complained about for so long.

Are you sure you are not the one that just wants to argue?

 

[Philostratus]

Hey! noone has commented on my analogy comparing language evolution and biological evolution. I think they demonstrate similar processes.

 

[lucaspa]

Hey! noone has commented on my analogy comparing language evolution and biological evolution. I think they demonstrate similar processes.

They do. Pennock's Tower of Babel devotes a whole chapter to the topic.

 

[lucaspa]

I have begun to realize that debating with an Evolutionist is pointless.

Once you've developed your strategy, their team runs off to play in the adjacent field.

That's because we are not debating. We are searching for truth. Debate is a sport with rules where you decide who the best debator is.

In this case, you are trying a debating ploy of making Darwin be evolution. If you can find a detail Darwin was wrong on, then you declare evolution to be wrong.

But searches for truth don't work that way. Statements and claims have to be examined. Darwin's included. If Darwin made a statement or claim that later turned out to be false, then we ask the question, does the new data falsify the essential statements of evolution? If it doesn't, we move on.

 

[lucaspa]

I still don't understand.

I've followed along with you so far, and I appreciate the references to "Origin of Species", but I'm not there yet.

If I've neglected descent with modification, I'm not sure how I've done it. I believe I *understand* it fairly well for a layman, so I am honestly asking, "What have I left out?"

Of natural selection? You haven't left anything out. Just that if natural selection, for some reason, were not true, you would still have descent with modification. Descent with modification doesn't depend on natural selection being true.

Environments are NOT static. That is, they DO change

Not always. If they don't you have purifying or stabilizing selection. You forget that natural selection comes in 3 forms:
1. Directional -- which is the one you are using and is the common understanding.
2. Stabilizing or purifying selection. In a stable environment, natural selection will prevent changes in organisms.
3. Disruptive selection. This happens when a population has different selection pressure over its geographical range. Different demes face different selection pressures and there is a tug of war, with selection pulling the species apart and gene flow keeping it together.

MY Conclusion: Evolution is the unavoidable consequence.

DESIGN is the inevitable consequence. But reproductive isolation -- cladogenesis -- is not the inevitable consequence. As you described it, whole species would transform but we would never get diversification.

Given the premises (which are observably true), evolution, i.e, descent with modification, is simply unavoidable.[/QUUOTE]

As you are using "descent with modification", you are correct. The population will transform and redesign under natural selection. But you haven't addressed reproductive isolation. There is nothing in your description to do that.

So, as I said, you gave a great description of natural (directional) selection, but not of evolution.

Also, in regards to Byrd's study:


http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gary_posner/godccu.html
The most striking flaw in this study's methodology is one forthrightly acknowledged by Byrd. "It was assumed that some of the patients in both groups would be prayed for by people not associated with the study; this was not controlled for. . . . Therefore, 'pure' groups were not attained in this study." In other words, the focus of the study - prayer - was "not controlled for," except that three to seven intercessors were assigned to pray daily for each patient in the IP group, and none was assigned to the controls. Thus, although unlikely, it is nevertheless theoretically possible that the control group received as many prayers as did the IP group, if not more.

This is what happens when emotion controls how experiments are analyzed. In this case, an atheist emotional bias.

THINK about it. What is having a background of prayer going to do? It is going to cover up a possible effect of intercessory prayer. It emphatically will NOT make an effect appear if there isn't one. Instead, the additional prayer of 7 intercessors will not add enough effect to be detected.

IF the results had shown no effect, then this would be a reason to use. But it doesn't hold to get rid of an observed effect.

Also, let's take this "criticism" and apply it to other studies of medicine. Morphine for pain relief? Can't trust the studies because we have internal levels of endorphins and these levels were present in the controls and experimentals! Synvisc for relief of pain in arthritic knees? Synvisc is hyaluronic acid, and what is the lubricant in synovial fluid? You guessed it! Hyaluronic acid. So there are background levels of HA in all patients. Throw out all the data!

Epinephrine for heart attacks. Hey! The adrenals produce epinephrine and the amount goes up during stress -- like heart attacks. So the amount of endogenous epinephrine is uncontrolled! Throw the studies out!

I can give dozens more examples, but you can find them yourself with a little PubMed search. The criticism isn't valid.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally Posted By: lucaspa

Well, there are more than two causes for speciation. And we have shown that the statement "the old species dies off" is not true. Species do go extinct, but that is not linked to speciation.

No, you have merely shown that you can dance around in circles and hit a base hit while taking my Knight.

And you have shown a great ability for denial. Please, walk me through in detail how the data and arguments were flawed.

But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection." [Origin, p 127 6th ed.]

Natural selection is the process responsible for the designs in biological organisms.


I don't want to have to reitirate my previous post to you, but the statements in it hold true. You just worded it in a little more detail, serving only to confuse the issue, so I isolated the important part.

Natural Selection is the process or principle (the latter being Darwins own words) of "self preservation" (according to the wording in your latest post) when a catalyst is present. [edit: The catalyst must be present, else] (Otherwise), there is no need to for an organism to feel the need to preserve itself.

You left out several important parts in your shortened version.

1. Organisms do not "feel the need to preserve itself". Darwin was talking about preservations of variations. Each variation is a design. The good designs, the ones that aided the organism in the Struggle for Existence are the ones that are preserved by inheritance.

2. I don't see a need for "catalyst" like you are using the term, and you are using it in a non-standard way as something needed to kick the process off. However, in your terms I would say there are two "catalysts".

1. Each organism is different. As Darwin put it "organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organization, and I think this cannot be disputed"
2. Organisms produce at such a rate that the environment will not support all of them.

The combination of these produces a competition for the scarce resources in the environment -- the Struggle for Existence. Each variation/design is pitted against all the other variations/designs to see which does better in the competition. The variations/designs that get more or sufficiency of the restricted resources will survive and reproduce. Since the variations are heritable, the variations/designs that worked will be preserved by inheritance and be present in the population for further variation/design modifications and competition.

 

[lucaspa]

Not that it really matters, but I'm sure we'll get back around to it sooner rather than later if we talk about this long enough. We'll probably do a few cycles past the vegetarian flies, too, while we're at it.

Please tell me how, using natural selection, G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos got not only reproductive isolation but a 2-fold greater separation in genes than exist between humans and chimps is irrelevant?

You wanted speciation. You got it. Ever since you got the data, you have been distracting the discussion so you can avoid the data.

You've introduced two concepts: the need for a catalyst and a barrier to genetic change. We've asked you repeatedly for data on both and you haven't responded.

Will you?

 

[SirKenin]

Please tell me how, using natural selection, G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos got not only reproductive isolation but a 2-fold greater separation in genes than exist between humans and chimps is irrelevant?

You wanted speciation. You got it. Ever since you got the data, you have been distracting the discussion so you can avoid the data.

You've introduced two concepts: the need for a catalyst and a barrier to genetic change. We've asked you repeatedly for data on both and you haven't responded.

Will you?

I'm trying to establish what I felt were the ground rules. We don't seem to have any. We bounce from theory to theory, and apparently reword other theories or label them as erroneous as is convenient. I get led around in circles.

I grant that speciation exists to a point. I believe it's there for a reason. I just get sick of hearing about the same old plant experiments.

Yes, I've slipped up and introduced some of my arguments early.

However, I don't feel settled on the basic rules of the game, or even what game we are playing. I'm dodging nothing, rather attempting to avoid (without slipping up TOO many times) any further discussion until I make sure we are playing the same game. Hence my sports references. I have a basic strategy, and part of it involves attempting to prevent Team Evolution from running off with the net.

 

[lucaspa]

Oh, I see how this works lucaspa... I can't play a game of soccer with you, because you keep moving the goal posts and swapping the balls.

You are the one who moved the goalposts. You said species, and then instead wanted Class.

"a new discipline called, for short "evo-devo"..."

I'm not talking about new disciplines... When you've made up your mind what game you want to play, perhaps we can discuss this again.

A good distraction. You ignored the data converting scales to feathers. Projection is not going to work here.

 

[lucaspa]

I'm trying to establish what I felt were the ground rules. We don't seem to have any.

The ground rules are simple: Search for truth.

1. Present each sides' position honestly.
2. Provide data to support claims and statements.
3. Acknowledge when data refute or falsify claims and statements.
4. Apply the hypothetico-deductive method whenever possible.

I grant that speciation exists to a point. I believe it's there for a reason. I just get sick of hearing about the same old plant experiments.

Data doesn't go away because you get sick of it. If the data falsifies your claims, beliefs, or statements, then that's too bad. Admit the falsification, change your beliefs, and move on.

Yes, I've slipped up and introduced some of my arguments early.

How can that be a slip-up? This isn't a game with a referee to come in and declare a winner.

However, I don't feel settled on the basic rules of the game, or even what game we are playing. I'm dodging nothing, rather attempting to avoid (without slipping up TOO many times) any further discussion until I make sure we are playing the same game.

We are not playing a game. We are looking for truth about the physical universe. How did the diversity of life get to be what it is we see today?

I have a basic strategy, and part of it involves attempting to prevent Team Evolution from running off with the net.

Forget strategy. Truth is not determined by a game.

You asked species. You got species. As soon as you got species, you demanded "bird", which is not a species.

So I pointed out that the only biological reality is species. All "bird" is is a general name for a group of species. Once you have species, you eventually have "bird" or "fish" or "ape" or whatever group of species you want by the simple process of multiple speciation events spread over time.

If you want to know, "Team Special Creation" "lost" 144 years ago. Actually, longer, since Special Creation was in trouble long before Darwin published Origin of the Species. You aren't going to change the outcome by misquoting Darwin or refusing to accept speciation in plants or moving the goalposts to want Class when you say species.

Now, I will discuss with you what evolution is all about, how it works, the data supporting it, the data falsifying Special Creation, etc.

Also, if you are playing "Team Theist" and hope to score a victory by defeating "Team Evolution", you definitely are playing the wrong game. This is not atheism vs theism here. Evolution is not atheism, and I don't accept god-of-the-gaps theology.

 

[SirKenin]

I'm not interested in debating Creationism or Theism. Not my angle. I have something on my mind.

 

[Arikay]

then what is it you want to debate, so you can start a thread on it and we can debate it, instead of just talking about debating it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'm not interested in debating Creationism or Theism. Not my angle. I have something on my mind.

Well don't keep it to yourself, Doc. What do you want?