Lines of Evidence

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Is there a 12 Step Programme for that?

"Ful ofte in game a sooth I have herd saye!"*

I kid you not -- I've been thinking about writing about my journey, but there are already many great reads about similar journeys. i.e. Karl Giberson** and Kenneth Miller.***

( I wonder if Glenn Morton**** (essay link, below) has written a book about his journey?)

NB: I'd like to engage the ideas raised by RickG on page 1: here


Sgt. Pepper

---
* excerpt from The Monk's Tale by Chaucer
The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer: The Monk's Tale

** SAVING DARWIN by Karl Giberson ( book ) - http://www.online-literature.com/chaucer/canterbury/20/
*** FINDING DARWIN'S GOD by Kenneth Miller ( book ) - http://findingdarwinsgod.com/excerpt/index.html

**** WHY I LEFT YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONISM ( essay ) by Glenn Morton - http://www.oldearth.org/whyileft.htm

 

[[serious]]

Yes and if you tried to continue that process of breeding to make that dog (cocker spaniel) into a cat or goat you cant and thats the limitations of one animal becoming another. They have tried with bacteria and after thousands of generations its still bacteria.

You are correct that you can never breed a dog into a goat. Doing so would violate the rules of evolution. Both came from a common ancestor. It's like a family tree. You don't come from your cousin, you both come from your grandfather. Dogs don't turn into cats, cats don't turn into dogs. Early carnivorans split into both cats and dogs. (among other things)

Yeah this is where it gets a bit suspect for me. You say they produce a new species but its still a fly.

Right, it's still a fly because it's ancestor was a fly. That's how evolution works, through splitting. Flies and bees might be new types of insect, but they are both insects because their ancestors were insects. Insects and spiders? both arthropods. Evolution describes all animals as being the product of these evolutionary splits.

They then take that process they say makes the new fly species and say thats the same mechanism that will turn a fly into a lizard or butterfly eventually.

No one says any mechanism turns a fly into a lizard. We've been over that.

What they call a new species to men is still the same type of creature.

Type is not a descriptive term here. I think you are getting at the idea of clades. If that is what you mean, please let us know as it will allow us to address your underlying point more directly.

It may not be able to reproduce but is that the only criteria for new species.

Yup, that's the only requirement.

the dogs are still shaped like dogs even though they will have a lot of variation within those dogs which could make someone think that a Chihuahua was a completely different type of animals to a great Dane if they were dug up as fossils.

We would not consider them completely different types of animals. We would consider them both caniformia, canids, of the genus canis.

I use type as a way of saying its a completely different creature from the original one. So you have one type of animal like a cat and another type like a elephant.

They aren't completely different though. They are both mammals.

 

[stevevw]

OK I said I would attach some support to what I was talking about in my last post but I couldn't connect back in after I found it and then I got busy with something else. So here are some links as to what I was talking about with my questions about Darwin's ToE.
I was saying in my last post that there was a growing amount of evidence that shows that there are other ways for creatures to gain new genetic info beside natural selection. This is through them passing genes sideways rather than from parents down ways to offspring's. So this puts a spanner in the works as far as what is natural selection, what links creatures back to a common ancestor as far as hereditary traits from their direct ancestors. In other words HGT mimics natural selection and common ancestry.
Scientists in the UK have provided the first experimental evidence that shows that evolution is driven most powerfully by interactions between species, rather than adaptation to the environment.
Interactions between species: Powerful driving force behind evolution? -- ScienceDaily

Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution
Tiny molecules called microRNAs are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree.
Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution : Nature News & Comment
MicroRNAs support a turtle + lizard clade. - PubMed - NCBI
Jumping Genes versus Epigenetics: The Real Drivers of Evolution
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]Jumping genes, or other DNA transfers, can take the entire genetic section of a domain and move it, add it or subtract it, changing the entire function of the protein. A similar mechanism is used by microbes to transfer the ability to fight an antibiotic to other cells. For protein re-design and evolution, mobile DNA elements, could be a prime mechanism.
- See more at: http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/jumping-...eal-drivers-of-evolution#sthash.UKNhJHGW.dpuf

Darwin's Tree of Life May Be More Like a Thicket

[FONT=&quot]Besides this "vertical" gene transfer, organisms may also share traits through "horizontal" gene transfer with other species, or even by reproducing with other species to produce genetic hybrids. Horizontal transfer and hybridization would result in a web of life, with species sharing some traits but not others, as the molecular evidence shows.
[/FONT] Darwin's Tree of Life May Be More Like a Thicket [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]



[FONT=&quot]R[/FONT][FONT=&quot]esearchers now recognize that genetic material, once simplified into neat organismal packages, is not limited to individuals or even species. Viruses that pack genetic material into stable infectious particles can incorporate some or all of their genes into their hosts’ genomes, allowing remnants of infection to remain even after the viruses themselves have moved on.
[/FONT]


http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/41702/title/A-Movable-Defense/



BIO-Complexity Paper Shows Many Multi-Mutation Features Unlikely to Evolve in History of the Earth.

<i>BIO-Complexity</i> Paper Shows Many Multi-Mutation Features Unlikely to Evolve in History of the Earth - Evolution News & Views


http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/01/bio-complexity_paper_shows_man042611.html
The research team suggests that this diversity among a single group of Homo erectus means many other fossils may be misidentified as separate species. Early humans identified as Homo habilis or Homo rudolfensis may actually just be variations of Homo erectus.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/01/bio-complexity_paper_shows_man042611.htmlhttp://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/...hange-the-story-of-human-evolution124666.html


http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/...hange-the-story-of-human-evolution124666.html Marsupials and Placentals: a case of front-loaded, pre-programmed, designed evolution?
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/...hange-the-story-of-human-evolution124666.html
Marsupials and Placentals: a case of front-loaded, pre-programmed, designed evolution? | Uncommon Descent

 

[stevevw]

I put this together for a previous thread:

A eukaryote (has a nucleus) might develop a true multicellular colony organism, but it's still a eukaryote.
A multicellular organism might develop bilateral symmetry, but it's a multicellular eukaryote.
A bilaterally symmetrical multicellular eukaryote might develop a hollow nerve cord (vertebrate) but it's still a A bilaterally symmetrical multicellular eukaryote
a vertebrate bilaterally symmetrical multicellular eukaryote might develop a calcified internal skeleton, but it's still, well, you get the picture.
Go through that same thing with:
a jaw
4 limbs
lungs
amniotic eggs
hair
opposable thumbs
bipedal locomotion
etc.

Lizards and flies, if you trace them back, separated with a rather boring (IMO) distinction related to early development. All the subsequent changes happened independently. Flies and lizards do share those preexisting traits that define bilateria (and higher level groups). They both have cells with a nucleus, they are multicellular, they have different tissues and organs, they move around and eat things, they form 3 distinct layers of cells during early development, they have bilateral symmetry, so on and so forth. Then they split and all those other traits each have evolved independently. Insect never turned into anything but other insects. Everything remains part of each group it was ever in.

I like that description. It reminds me of the 12 days of Christmas song or the bones song. The ankle bones connected to the leg bone and the leg bone connected to the knee bone. Theres a song in there somewhere. Except its a bit of a mouthful.

Ok then I can understand what you are saying but how do those parts come about in the first place. What you are saying can also be a case for common design. All creatures can be made up of the same basic genetics and then everything either branches out from that or is a component of that. A bit like cars and motors. You can have lawn mowers, compressors, 2 cylinder motor bikes, 4 to 12 cylinder cars and then all the variations of hybrid motors. But each is based on a similar blue print and some have new and different additions than others that stem out from that.

But how do lungs, hearts, brains, sexual reproductions systems for male and female and all the other complex systems come about in the first place. At one stage there wouldn't have been the genetics available to produce these things. I know that scientists have caused bacteria to get some new ability in the lab like the nylon eating ability. But from what I understand that is something that occurred by a recombination or deletion of existing genetics. I am not sure they have ever shown they can create new info/abilities from existing genes. Take for example the skeletal system which is going to be the same for the other systems in the body. How does that even form from an accidental process that doesn't know it needs a skeleton in the first place. Does the entire skeleton form in one go over night. Does it start with one leg or 1/2 a leg or just the hips. Just because they find an animal with no jaw doesn't mean that this is a sign that the skeleton must have formed from nothing.

You have to remember that its not just the skeleton we are talking about. At the same time there are all the connections for ligaments and muscles as well as all the nervous systems to the brain and other parts of the body. Do they all form at the same time or bits at a time. They would need to form together as they are dependent on each other. Yet each is a separate system that would need separate genetic info to be created.

That also doesn't take into consideration the bigger steps for the evolution of single cell to more complex multi cell life. There are big steps along the way that require a combination of things for them to occur. I am not sure its as simple as some sort of building blocks that allows a step by step as you go process. There are too many complicated factors involved. Well thats what I am reading anyway. Like with the brain evolution they are find connections in the millions that have complex roles and are interconnected to many areas at once. They are saying its far to complex to have come by an accident.

 

[[serious]]

You just posted 11 links. Don't try to gish gallop all over the debate. Tell you what. Let's tallk about the first one, THEN you can bring up the next again and we can move on from there.

OK I said I would attach some support to what I was talking about in my last post but I couldn't connect back in after I found it and then I got busy with something else. So here are some links as to what I was talking about with my questions about Darwin's ToE.
I was saying in my last post that there was a growing amount of evidence that shows that there are other ways for creatures to gain new genetic info beside natural selection. This is through them passing genes sideways rather than from parents down ways to offspring's. So this puts a spanner in the works as far as what is natural selection, what links creatures back to a common ancestor as far as hereditary traits from their direct ancestors. In other words HGT mimics natural selection and common ancestry.
Scientists in the UK have provided the first experimental evidence that shows that evolution is driven most powerfully by interactions between species, rather than adaptation to the environment.
Interactions between species: Powerful driving force behind evolution? -- ScienceDaily

Ok, this article says:

Scientists in the UK have provided the first experimental evidence that shows that evolution is driven most powerfully by interactions between species, rather than adaptation to the environment.​

I do not argue with that, in fact, I'm surprised that it's considered new. In fact, I'm so surprised that it's being called new, I was skeptical that the original article even called it new. Looking at their sources, i see they are not citing the paper itself, but rather a press release from the researchers. My initial thought was "Oh great, another ENCODE style vast overstatement of the novelty of otherwise fine research." I was pleasantly surprised to find only run of the mill overstatement common in press releases.

The study shows, for the first time, that the American evolutionary biologist Leigh Van Valen was correct in his 'Red Queen Hypothesis'. The theory, first put forward in the 1970s, was named after a passage in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass in which the Red Queen tells Alice, 'It takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place'. This suggested that species were in a constant race for survival and have to continue to evolve new ways of defending themselves throughout time.​

So yeah, idea is coming up on half a century old, but the difficulties of directly quantifying it were troublesome. Running an experiment with 2 organisms would certainly be more challenging than just one.

Now, I'm not sure what larger point you are trying to make here. Why is it relevant to the discussion whether evolution is driven by the abiotic environment, or by interaction with other organisms as is widely understood? Either way, evolution is happening and observable so either way it would seem to argue against your central point.

 

[[serious]]

I like that description. It reminds me of the 12 days of Christmas song or the bones song. The ankle bones connected to the leg bone and the leg bone connected to the knee bone. Theres a song in there somewhere. Except its a bit of a mouthful.

Ok then I can understand what you are saying but how do those parts come about in the first place. What you are saying can also be a case for common design. All creatures can be made up of the same basic genetics and then everything either branches out from that or is a component of that. A bit like cars and motors. You can have lawn mowers, compressors, 2 cylinder motor bikes, 4 to 12 cylinder cars and then all the variations of hybrid motors. But each is based on a similar blue print and some have new and different additions than others that stem out from that.

But how do lungs, hearts, brains, sexual reproductions systems for male and female and all the other complex systems come about in the first place. At one stage there wouldn't have been the genetics available to produce these things.

Actually, all of those structures are built on existing structures and genetics. Each organ is going to have a seperate evolutionary origin, and each one could be a discussion in itself. So rather than try to list off all the origins, lets do these 1 at a time here as well. We'll start with the first, lungs.

In some fish, and most notably the group of fish from which land animals are descended, there is a swim bladder. Gas is stored in this bladder to control the buoyancy of the fish and help them stay at the desired depth without much work. In some varieties of fish, this gas is obtained by gulping air from the surface. So we have a structure in an ancestral population that is an internal sac filled with gas via the mouth. This structure was adapted for use as an oxygen absorbing structure. If you have any more questions about it, please feel free to ask.

I know that scientists have caused bacteria to get some new ability in the lab like the nylon eating ability. But from what I understand that is something that occurred by a recombination or deletion of existing genetics. I am not sure they have ever shown they can create new info/abilities from existing genes.

Now the information argument is an interesting one. If you think about it, it relies on leaving the term "information" undefined. How would we recognize new information? how would we recognize loss of information? To sidestep these problems, i came up with a interesting thought experiment. demonstrating that for no single definition of information is creation of information both necessary for evolution, and unable to be created.

1. An organism duplicates a hemoglobin gene
2. The new copy gets altered so that it has a different binding affinity
3. the altered gene gets deleted.

Now, if any of these steps removed info, then info must have been added in another step (after all, we ended with the same sequence). If information didn't change, then evolution is incapable of changing the amount of information in either direction since we've covered all fundamental types of mutation here. As such, information is irrelevant to evolution.

Take for example the skeletal system which is going to be the same for the other systems in the body. How does that even form from an accidental process that doesn't know it needs a skeleton in the first place. Does the entire skeleton form in one go over night. Does it start with one leg or 1/2 a leg or just the hips. Just because they find an animal with no jaw doesn't mean that this is a sign that the skeleton must have formed from nothing.

You have to remember that its not just the skeleton we are talking about. At the same time there are all the connections for ligaments and muscles as well as all the nervous systems to the brain and other parts of the body. Do they all form at the same time or bits at a time. They would need to form together as they are dependent on each other. Yet each is a separate system that would need separate genetic info to be created.

They don't need to form at the same time, though some of them can. For example, the skeleton was already well established in bony fish well before the lungs developed. The heart and nervous system predate the skeleton. Of course, just because they exist doesn't mean they don't continue to evolve. each one continues to be refined by evolution in each species going forward.

That also doesn't take into consideration the bigger steps for the evolution of single cell to more complex multi cell life. There are big steps along the way that require a combination of things for them to occur. I am not sure its as simple as some sort of building blocks that allows a step by step as you go process. There are too many complicated factors involved. Well thats what I am reading anyway. Like with the brain evolution they are find connections in the millions that have complex roles and are interconnected to many areas at once. They are saying its far to complex to have come by an accident.

The origins of multicellular life are pretty interesting. We actually see organisms functioning under various levels of multicellularity. Take, for example, a slime mold. It spends much of it's life as a unicellular organism, but after mating, they grow into a large structure that supports the development of dedicated spore producing bodies to disperse its offspring.

But how did it get to there? well, let's look at more decidedly unicellular organisms that work together. many bacteria produce biofilms. They stick together to cover some food bearing surface to hold them selves collectively to the yummy bits. But there isn't any sense in trying to produce a biofilm of one, so they wait until they sense enough of their compatriots near by before making the stuff to start biofilming it up. The process by which they figure out who is around them is called quorum sensing, and is a pretty interesting topic if you want to look it up.

 

[stevevw]

You just posted 11 links. Don't try to gish gallop all over the debate. Tell you what. Let's tallk about the first one, THEN you can bring up the next again and we can move on from there.

Ok, this article says:

Scientists in the UK have provided the first experimental evidence that shows that evolution is driven most powerfully by interactions between species, rather than adaptation to the environment.​

I do not argue with that, in fact, I'm surprised that it's considered new. In fact, I'm so surprised that it's being called new, I was skeptical that the original article even called it new. Looking at their sources, i see they are not citing the paper itself, but rather a press release from the researchers. My initial thought was "Oh great, another ENCODE style vast overstatement of the novelty of otherwise fine research." I was pleasantly surprised to find only run of the mill overstatement common in press releases.

The study shows, for the first time, that the American evolutionary biologist Leigh Van Valen was correct in his 'Red Queen Hypothesis'. The theory, first put forward in the 1970s, was named after a passage in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass in which the Red Queen tells Alice, 'It takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place'. This suggested that species were in a constant race for survival and have to continue to evolve new ways of defending themselves throughout time.​

So yeah, idea is coming up on half a century old, but the difficulties of directly quantifying it were troublesome. Running an experiment with 2 organisms would certainly be more challenging than just one.

Now, I'm not sure what larger point you are trying to make here. Why is it relevant to the discussion whether evolution is driven by the abiotic environment, or by interaction with other organisms as is widely understood? Either way, evolution is happening and observable so either way it would seem to argue against your central point.

Ok I may have misunderstood this first one. I am thinking its more to do with the interaction of organisms passing genes back and forth like with HGT. I guess there are a few factors that can cause creatures to have more variety and change. But no one is saying that some level of natural selection is at work whether from the surrounding environment or between creatures. Its whether that can create new info and creatures or just allows a greater variety and utilization of genetic ability/potential already there. Or whether that is the true driving force behind any change. Maybe its a combination of a few things.

Once again I am not a geneticist so I am also learning but from my basic understanding and what I have read there is a difference between tapping into existing genetics and creating new ones that are not a combination of the ones all ready there. Isn't this needed to make some of the new features and abilities that these creatures will become.

 

[[serious]]

Ok I may have misunderstood this first one. I am thinking its more to do with the interaction of organisms passing genes back and forth like with HGT. I guess there are a few factors that can cause creatures to have more variety and change.

No worries, we all misunderstand something we read now and then.

But no one is saying that some level of natural selection is at work whether from the surrounding environment or between creatures. Its whether that can create new info and creatures or just allows a greater variety and utilization of genetic ability/potential already there.

first off, as to the information argument, please see my treatment of that in my previous post (guessing you are reading that as I type). Now, as to the building on what 8th already there, that is the main way evolution works. Major changes like that which let to nylon as can happen, but they are a rarity. It's mostly duplication, alteration, deletion.

Once again I am not a geneticist so I am also learning but from my basic understanding and what I have read there is a difference between tapping into existing genetics and creating new ones that are not a combination of the ones all ready there. Isn't this needed to make some of the new features and abilities that these creatures will become.

virtually any feature you could name is just an earlier structure that was adapted. Bird wing? Modified forlimb. Boar tusks? Modified teeth. Even lungs, which I previously addressed are a modified swim bladder.

 

[Gracchus]

Even lungs, which I previously addressed are a modified swim bladder.

Just to pick a nit, it would seem to be the other way around.

"Scientists believe that the swim bladder of modern fish evolved from a lung that early bony fish possessed. Probably these fish lived in shallow tropical waters that had a low oxygen content, and which even have dried up in the summer, or dryer season. The possession of a lung allowed the fish to gain essential O2 from the air. When the environment these fish lived in changed so that they no longer needed the lung to breath nature slowly adapted it for its new role as a buoyancy organ."


The Earth Life Web, Fish Swim Bladder Page

 

[stevevw]

Now, as to the building on what 8th already there, that is the main way evolution works. Major changes like that which let to nylon as can happen, but they are a rarity. It's mostly duplication, alteration, deletion. virtually any feature you could name is just an earlier structure that was adapted. Bird wing? Modified forlimb. Boar tusks? Modified teeth. Even lungs, which I previously addressed are a modified swim bladder.

Ok so I can understand the duplication, deletion and maybe the alteration. The alteration possibly being a recombination of existing genes. But I can't see how any of that can produce something that requires new info. Like you say its an extension of existing features and abilities or maybe an addition but that is something like with the nylon eating bacteria. But I understand this was not an addition of any new info but a change in the shape of an existing enzyme that allowed it to eat bacteria. The genes of nylon-eating bacteria show that they have been degraded through mutation to allow them to eat nylon. But none of this shows any ability to create new cellular structures, new cells, and new organisms out of existing genetics.

 

[stevevw]

Just to pick a nit, it would seem to be the other way around.

"Scientists believe that the swim bladder of modern fish evolved from a lung that early bony fish possessed. Probably these fish lived in shallow tropical waters that had a low oxygen content, and which even have dried up in the summer, or dryer season. The possession of a lung allowed the fish to gain essential O2 from the air. When the environment these fish lived in changed so that they no longer needed the lung to breath nature slowly adapted it for its new role as a buoyancy organ."


The Earth Life Web, Fish Swim Bladder Page

I have read this to. But somehow I can't imagine if we as humans were forced to live in water a lot and were subjected to swallowing a lot of water time and time again that we would eventually develop gills. I just think we would eventually drown.

 

[Gracchus]

But I can't see how any of that can produce something that requires new info.

Perhaps the problem is how you define "new info". What do you think information is? In "Information Theory" it has a precise definition that is not quite the same as the rather fuzzy concept in common speech.

I have read this to. But somehow I can't imagine if we as humans were forced to live in water a lot and were subjected to swallowing a lot of water time and time again that we would eventually develop gills. I just think we would eventually drown.

That's right. The human race would go extinct, just like 99% of the species that have ever lived. Evolution is not a mechanism for developing needed novelties. It is about selecting for variations that already exist. Chondrichthyes, sharks and rays, have no swim bladder. Bony fish in warm ponds where oxygen levels are low, gulp air, and absorb oxygen through the membranes of the digestive tract. Any that have an outpouching of the tract have more surface area to absorb oxygen from the air, have an advantage, and so they survive better and leave more offspring. If they then return to cooler water with higher oxygen content, that primitive lung can be used to regulate buoyancy by gas exchange with the blood. Fish that swim constantly fast, like the tuna, store oil in their tissues, as a source of energy, and this provides positive buoyancy, as long as they keep swimming, and so, not surprisingly, they are able to survive without swim bladders.

Species do not evolve to meet challenges. Selection, which is to say, survival, works on the basis of variations that already exist.

 

[Kylie]

I have read this to. But somehow I can't imagine if we as humans were forced to live in water a lot and were subjected to swallowing a lot of water time and time again that we would eventually develop gills. I just think we would eventually drown.

No one is saying that we would.

Please don't create strawmen.

 

[stevevw]

Weak offspring are selected out. They do not "weaken" the species. What evidence can you cite for this somewhat dubious claim?

I never said they weaken the species. I merely said that primarily the mutations weaken the creature. They are mostly detrimental to it and rarely positive. The more that scientists played around with the fruit flies and make changes to their original genetics by adding in the mutations the weaker it made the flies. After many generations and teats they could only produce very minor micro changes that could be regarded as remotely beneficial. The flies were mostly weakened and died.

Mutations do not happen to species. Mutations happen to individual organisms. Organisms with deleterious mutations have less chance to breed, and so are selected out. That leaves only those organisms with neutral mutations, and those with favorable mutations. A favorable mutation will give an organism an advantage in successful breeding over an organism without it. Thus, favorable mutations will spread through the succeeding generations. You seem to have some trouble comprehending that. It is very simple. Here it is again: Organisms with unfavorable mutations have less chance to reproduce than those without that mutation. So that unfavorable mutation tends to vanish from the gene pool. Organisms with favorable mutations have more chance to successfully breed than those without the favorable mutation and so that favorable mutation will tend to spread through the gene pool in following generations. It is very simple.

Yes thats right and I havnt denied this. What I have said is this is very rare. Mutations are mostly neutral or damaging. But 1) for the amount of change that evolution claims to have happened it seems there have been an awful lot of those positive mutations. Some scientists say there is not enough evidence for there being so many beneficial mutations to make all the species that have ever walked the earth and all that are on it today. If you consider that each animal would have to have a lot of positive mutations to make all the changes needed. In many cases they are drastic changes from one shape form to another completely different one. This may take 100s of positive mutations just for one animal for all the external and internal changes needed. When you consider all the species and all those changes there would have to be millions of positive mutations. When you consider that for every positive mutation which is rare there would have to be then billions and billions of other mutations that are negative that would have to be weeded out of the groups this will also take time. 2) But all this is assuming that a positive mutation can add new info that can create new cellular structures, new cells, and new organisms. It may all just be micro evolution where creatures are adapting to the environment through changes in the genetics they already have.3) How do you know that a lot of the claimed changes in a creature havnt come from things like HGT and not natural selection through mutations. There is good evidence that HGT plays a big part in the driving force for evolution.
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2012.4

Who have done what experiments? You appeal, as support for your position, to unknown scientists doing unknown experiments, with unknown protocols. You might as well cite what the leprechauns told you. In other words, if the evidence contradicts your opinion, you will "ad hoc" it away, you will move the goalposts, you will, as you have repeatedly demonstrated, just ignore it.

Umm this is where some evolutionists start to attack. What starts out as a debate becomes personal. Attack the person instead of debating the issues. The experiments are well known such as the ones done with the bacteria and fruit flies.
Experimental evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, such explanations, when well supported by evidence and reasoning are called "theories". If the explanation, the theory, doesn't make sense, if it doesn't correspond to observations of the real world it must be corrected or rejected. Actually, science evolves to fit the facts just as animals evolve to fit the environment. New facts lead to new and better theories, just as new environmental conditions lead to new adjustments in the fitness of populations.

I agree.

If the term is used at all it means variation within a species.

Yes I agree.

This has been explained to you before. They are not "whole new creatures". You are still a monkey, albeit you are a monkey who can use a keyboard.
Information theory concerns itself with signal degradation. A degraded signal produces more uncertainty or less accuracy. Sometimes you know there is a signal there but there is no way to know what it means. Your posts are kind of like that. There is some sort of intelligence there, but it can't seem to communicate anything sensible. Moreover, it doesn't seem to respond to communication directed to it, except with almost meaningless noise.

No wonder people give up debating with people like you. You shouldn't assume everyone is the same as you. People are different and have different understanding and knowledge levels. You may have a certain level of knowledge but you cant assume everyone should know the same as you. And if they dont you shouldn't then put them down for it like they should know what you know.

And there it is. You think evolution is god-like. Anything you don't understand is god-like. But it not like your god, because evolution won't tell you to punish your children for the sins of their parents, or forgive an offender by punishing an innocent, a scapegoat. Evolution doesn't do that, so it must be a false god?

I think it is you who is going way off the track here. Rather than put people down why dont you just debate the topic. At least with serious I can have a decent conversation. Thats because he is tolerant and understanding of people and their different backgrounds.

I have a good basic understanding of evolution. But I dont accept everything it says. I believe it hasn't shown proof for everything it claims. I also believe that some evolutionists can make claims about evolution based on faith as well. I dont think my views are rare and I dont think they are unreasonable. The only problem that starts is when someone starts to get personal ans attack the other one for what they believe. Everyone has the right to have their opinions without being put down. It seems that you want everyone to agree with you and if someone has a different opinion you put them down. This is the idea of a debate to have different opinions even if you think they are stupid.

You are not honest. Perhaps the dishonesty begins with your self: You lie to yourself and deceive yourself because you are afraid not to. It's a pity. But what can you expect from a monkey at a keyboard?

So not only do you ridicule you now tell me how I think and call me a liar. Umm I'm wondering if this is just a debate about a topic on evolution or something more personal. You seem to be taking it to places beyond a debate.

stevevw -- Pity 9/10, Respect 1/10

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I'm just fine and never been better, its you I am worried about.

 

[stevevw]

No one is saying that we would.

Please don't create strawmen.

You just dont have any imagination or a sense of humor.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

The bottom line is that if evolution were false we would find fossils of whales and horses in layers of geologic strata.

'....Generally left out of the resulting “debates” is the simple fact that creationists lack any independently supported geological evidence to support their views. The late Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould described a global flood as “the only specific and testable theory the creationists have offered,” noting that “the claim that creationism is a science rests above all on the plausibility of the biblical flood” (Gould, 1982, p. 12, 10). And yet, the geological case for a global flood that creationists offer as an alternative to evolution was discredited before Darwin set foot aboard The Beagle.....'

excerpt: GSA Today - The evolution of creationism

 

[stevevw]

Perhaps the problem is how you define "new info". What do you think information is? In "Information Theory" it has a precise definition that is not quite the same as the rather fuzzy concept in common speech.

Maybe thats because no one ever is specific about what it is. I just think its to do with making something new that wasn't there. Isn't it about copying the existing genes and a mutation is a mistake in the process. The mutations can either be neutral or deleterious. Sometimes it can produce a mutation that gets through and it can make a change that can be used as a benefit. But this is just a recombination of the existing genes isn't it. There are no new cellular structures, new cells, and new organisms.

That's right. The human race would go extinct, just like 99% of the species that have ever lived. Evolution is not a mechanism for developing needed novelties. It is about selecting for variations that already exist. Chondrichthyes, sharks and rays, have no swim bladder. Bony fish in warm ponds where oxygen levels are low, gulp air, and absorb oxygen through the membranes of the digestive tract. Any that have an outpouching of the tract have more surface area to absorb oxygen from the air, have an advantage, and so they survive better and leave more offspring. If they then return to cooler water with higher oxygen content, that primitive lung can be used to regulate buoyancy by gas exchange with the blood. Fish that swim constantly fast, like the tuna, store oil in their tissues, as a source of energy, and this provides positive buoyancy, as long as they keep swimming, and so, not surprisingly, they are able to survive without swim bladders.

I can go along with most of that. I think most people agree that evolution is at work in some form. But then its when some take those smaller changes and then extend that to make big changes in creatures. Like the fish that may live in shallow water may have some limited capacity to take in some air but it doesn't mean that it then grew lungs and went onto the land. Its not as simple as just pointing out that a creature had a single capacity do something like breath air from gills. That is deceptive and sounds logical and simple but there is a lot more to it than that.

There are many other features that have to go along with breathing for example like their circulation systems have to be changed at the same time, its heart, it has to change from a cold blooded animal to a warm blooded one. But some make it sound so simple like that connection to change from one type of creature to another is just one or two steps like gills to lungs. But there are many other changes that have to go with that at the same time to make it all work. I just cant see them all happening at the same time and supporting each other so that the creature is evolving with all the right things in place for it to happen.

It cant get lungs without it changing its blood and circulation system at the same time. It cant change its circulation system without changing the heart at the same time. It can't change its heart and all those things without changing the nervous system at the same time and that cant be changed without changes to its brain ect ect. It all goes hand in hand. I dont think I have ever heard or read anyone explain all those processes or show any evidence for that this can happen all at the same time. They can focus on one little aspect because thats simple and achievable on its own. But its not as simple as that.

Species do not evolve to meet challenges. Selection, which is to say, survival, works on the basis of variations that already exist.

Yes I can see and agree with that. But when a creature say needs to get a sonar ability that has to come from something that doesnt exist. When the first creature had to get a brain that had to come from something that didnt exist. The same for hearts, livers, and male and female sexual organs ect ect. I just think there is a limit. I think most people agree with the basic idea of evolution. But its how far you take it. Is it built on the existing genetics and then allows for variations to allow creatures to adapt or can it add new genetic info that can build things the creature never had like hearts, brains, and then wings, lungs and complete body shapes to the point where a dog like creature that walked on land can become a aquatic creature 50 times its size.

 

[Gracchus]

“Information theory is a branch of applied mathematics, electrical engineering, and computer science involving the quantification of information. Information theory was developed by Claude E. Shannon to find fundamental limits on signal processing operations such as compressing data and on reliably storing and communicating data. Since its inception it has broadened to find applications in many other areas, including statistical inference, natural language processing, cryptography, neurobiology, the evolution[ and function of molecular codes, model selection in ecology, thermal physics, quantum computing, linguistics, plagiarism detection, pattern recognition, anomaly detection and other forms of data analysis.

A key measure of information is entropy, which is usually expressed by the average number of bits needed to store or communicate one symbol in a message. Entropy quantifies the uncertainty involved in predicting the value of a random variable. For example, specifying the outcome of a fair coin flip (two equally likely outcomes) provides less information (lower entropy) than specifying the outcome from a roll of a die (six equally likely outcomes).”


Information theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Information, in information theory, is about accuracy in signal transmission, any signal, and it is not about content. It can be quantified by the number of bits necessary to generate the signal. (Bits are used for simplicity although in principle you could use decimal digits or octals, etc.) In human communication the symbol is associated with memories, and we call the meaning derived from those associated memories, “information”, but it isn't really quantifiable.


If a genome has more than one copy of a gene and one copy is changed or deleted, would you consider that “new information”? If one copy is changed, it may code for a new protein. If it is deleted this may cause a missing protein that will change the chemistry of the cell, interrupting some reactions and perhaps causing others. Would you consider that “new information”?


You write of “big changes”. What is the qualitative difference between one big change and lots of smaller incremental changes? In fact, the smaller incremental changes over extended periods of time is what we observe in the evolutionary process. Rhodopsin and cholorphyll change their physical conformation when they intercept a photon. This causes the chemistry of the cell to change. This can cause new reactions or even change the chemistry of neighboring cells. Such changes are the basis of both sight and photosynthesis. An organism with such chemicals can react to light. If the cells containing such reactants become localized, because some cells lose that photosensitive chemical, the organism may now have the benefits of phototropic responses that will enable sensitivity to the direction of the light. This is seen in some flatworms. If the sensitive areas of cells buckle inward or outward the ability of the organism to sense the direction of the light is improved. As the buckling grows greater the ability to form images is generated. It is small steps, small improvements, that we find in various organisms where it has stopped without making the next step, that give us understanding and justification for the evolutionary development of complex structures.

But when a creature say needs to get a sonar ability that has to come from something that doesnt exist.

When a creature that has no sonar ability needs sonar ability it dies. The ability doesn't have “to come from something”. Evolution doesn't magically discover what you need and give it to you. It is not a fairy godmother. If you need it and have it, you survive and have a chance to reproduce. If you need it and don't have it you die and don't reproduce.

I think most people agree with the basic idea of evolution. But its how far you take it.

Biologists don't take it anywhere. They merely observe how far it takes them.

No wonder people give up debating with people like you. You shouldn't assume everyone is the same as you. People are different and have different understanding and knowledge levels. You may have a certain level of knowledge but you cant assume everyone should know the same as you. And if they dont you shouldn't then put them down for it like they should know what you know.

I do not assume that you are the same as I. If you have less knowledge than your teacher, (And believe it not I am trying to teach you something!) you should consider what your teacher is trying to tell you before you dismiss it as unpleasant or just because it conflicts with your own opinion.


I have been studying biology on and off for nearly sixty years, since when I first read an article by the biochemist and writer, Isaac Asimov, titled “The Sea Urchin and We”. (I was ten, or thereabouts.) In this article he presented biochemical evidence that chordates (ancestral to vertebrates) are more recently related to echinoderms, (star-fish and sea urchins,) than to annelids (segmented worms). I have taken a few courses in biology since then, several at the college level, and read a great many books and articles. So maybe, just maybe, others know a bit more about the subject than you do, and maybe you ought not disregard what more learned people have to say.


Now you go on to say, that everyone has a right to an opinion. I'll go further: Everyone even has a right to voice an opinion, at least in some situations and environments. But if someone disagrees with your opinion they also have a right to challenge it. If it is patently ridiculous they have the right to ridicule. That reaction might be rude, but it also might be justified. If your error is based on ignorance they may try to inform you. If you cannot accept the new information, if you reject it, for no reason you can defend, then they may dismiss you as stupid, insane, or perverse. Of course all those qualities are relative. And there is nothing wrong with being stupid. We all have intellectual limits. I'm still trying to get my head around general relativity. I know that you are not, by far, the most stupid person I have ever dealt with. You should be able to understand the subject. If you would only listen and consider!


To debate those who have studied and understood a subject that you have not studied so deeply or understood so well, to dismiss argument or evidence because it does not fit into your world view is likely to give the impression of perversity. Most people find perceived perversity annoying. Perhaps you might not even recognize your own perversity. Maybe it has never been called to your attention. We often overlook our own faults, so busy we are focusing on the faults of others.


Sometimes, when you want to learn, you have to unlearn previous erroneous education. Sometimes the truth is very unpleasant, but it is still more useful to know the truth than to believe untruth, or be totally ignorant.

 

[Gracchus]

“Information theory is a branch of applied mathematics, electrical engineering, and computer science involving the quantification of information. Information theory was developed by Claude E. Shannon to find fundamental limits on signal processing operations such as compressing data and on reliably storing and communicating data. Since its inception it has broadened to find applications in many other areas, including statistical inference, natural language processing, cryptography, neurobiology, the evolution[ and function of molecular codes, model selection in ecology, thermal physics, quantum computing, linguistics, plagiarism detection, pattern recognition, anomaly detection and other forms of data analysis.

A key measure of information is entropy, which is usually expressed by the average number of bits needed to store or communicate one symbol in a message. Entropy quantifies the uncertainty involved in predicting the value of a random variable. For example, specifying the outcome of a fair coin flip (two equally likely outcomes) provides less information (lower entropy) than specifying the outcome from a roll of a die (six equally likely outcomes).”


Information theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Information, in information theory, is about accuracy in signal transmission, any signal, and it is not about content. It can be quantified by the number of bits necessary to generate the signal. (Bits are used for simplicity although in principle you could use decimal digits or octals, etc.) In human communication the symbol is associated with memories, and we call the meaning derived from those associated memories, “information”, but it isn't really quantifiable.


If a genome has more than one copy of a gene and one copy is changed or deleted, would you consider that “new information”? If one copy is changed, it may code for a new protein. If it is deleted this may cause a missing protein that will change the chemistry of the cell, interrupting some reactions and perhaps causing others. Would you consider that “new information”?


You write of “big changes”. What is the qualitative difference between one big change and lots of smaller incremental changes? In fact, the smaller incremental changes over extended periods of time is what we observe in the evolutionary process. Rhodopsin and cholorphyll change their physical conformation when they intercept a photon. This causes the chemistry of the cell to change. This can cause new reactions or even change the chemistry of neighboring cells. Such changes are the basis of both sight and photosynthesis. An organism with such chemicals can react to light. If the cells containing such reactants become localized, because some cells lose that photosensitive chemical, the organism may now have the benefits of phototropic responses that will enable sensitivity to the direction of the light. This is seen in some flatworms. If the sensitive areas of cells buckle inward or outward the ability of the organism to sense the direction of the light is improved. As the buckling grows greater the ability to form images is generated. It is small steps, small improvements, that we find in various organisms where it has stopped without making the next step, that give us understanding and justification for the evolutionary development of complex structures.

But when a creature say needs to get a sonar ability that has to come from something that doesnt exist.

When a creature that has no sonar ability needs sonar ability it dies. The ability doesn't have “to come from something”. Evolution doesn't magically discover what you need and give it to you. It is not a fairy godmother. If you need it and have it, you survive and have a chance to reproduce. If you need it and don't have it you die and don't reproduce.

I think most people agree with the basic idea of evolution. But its how far you take it.

Biologists don't take it anywhere. They merely observe how far it takes them.

No wonder people give up debating with people like you. You shouldn't assume everyone is the same as you. People are different and have different understanding and knowledge levels. You may have a certain level of knowledge but you cant assume everyone should know the same as you. And if they dont you shouldn't then put them down for it like they should know what you know.

I do not assume that you are the same as I. If you have less knowledge than your teacher, (And believe it or not, I am trying to teach you something!) you should consider what your teacher is trying to tell you before you dismiss it as unpleasant or just because it conflicts with your own opinion.


I have been studying biology on and off for nearly sixty years, since when I first read an article by the biochemist and writer, Isaac Asimov, titled “The Sea Urchin and We”. (I was ten, or thereabouts.) In this article he presented biochemical evidence that chordates (ancestral to vertebrates) are more recently related to echinoderms, (star-fish and sea urchins,) than to annelids (segmented worms). I have taken a few courses in biology since then, several at the college level, and read a great many books and articles. So maybe, just maybe, others know a bit more about the subject than you do, and maybe you ought not disregard what more learned people have to say.


Now you go on to say, that everyone has a right to an opinion. I'll go further: Everyone even has a right to voice an opinion, at least in some situations and environments. But if someone disagrees with your opinion they also have a right to challenge it. If it is patently ridiculous they have the right to ridicule. That reaction might be rude, but it also might be justified. If your error is based on ignorance they may try to inform you. If you cannot accept the new information, if you reject it, for no reason you can defend, then they may dismiss you as stupid, insane, or perverse. Of course all those qualities are relative. And there is nothing wrong with being stupid. We all have intellectual limits. I'm still trying to get my head around general relativity. I know that you are not, by far, the most stupid person I have ever dealt with. You should be able to understand the subject. If you would only listen and consider!


To debate those who have studied and understood a subject that you have not studied so deeply or understood so well, to dismiss argument or evidence because it does not fit into your world view is likely to give the impression of perversity. Most people find perceived perversity annoying. Perhaps you might not even recognize your own perversity. Maybe it has never been called to your attention. We often overlook our own faults, so busy we are focusing on the faults of others.


Sometimes, when you want to learn, you have to unlearn previous erroneous education. Sometimes the truth is very unpleasant, but it is still more useful to know the truth than to believe untruth, or be totally ignorant.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Yes I can see and agree with that. But when a creature say needs to get a sonar ability that has to come from something that doesnt exist.

On the contrary, it has to come from something that already exists. Then that ability can be gradually improved through evolution, but before that happens the creature will have to work with what is already there.

Speaking of echolocation (sonar), you are aware that humans have this ability too, right? Human echolocation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia