The Smoking Guns of Evo Devo

[JohnR7]

It has been said that Evolution is slight changes over time. Any change is considered evoluion, so to show that evolution is not true, you have to show that no change has taken place.

This is exactly what research is showing us. We are learning that all the individual species have a basic "ground plan" that they do not depart from. We are learning that most organisms have not changed in their basic form in over 650 million years.

If function and form do not change, then what does seem to change is the design or the pattern. Yet this area of change remains a elusive butterfly in terms of science being able to explain it.

We know that when it comes to color or patter each individual cell has it's own color. Like the pixels on the computer screen. They can identify the gene responsable. But that is pretty much the limit to what they know. They do not know how the gene can produce the color or patterns that they do.

Evolution should be defined as a word science uses when they do not know how something works. Because when they figure out how it works, that always seems to falsify their theory. But science always seems to have things they do not understand. So I suppose they will keep right on saying "evolution did it" to explain the things they can not explain.

 

[BVZ]

Ok, now rewrite the whole OP, and everywhere you make a statement, tell us where you got the information from.

 

[dawiyd]

John I will only reply to this post if you supply sources. To all the claims you have made.

 

[JohnR7]

John I will only reply to this post if you supply sources. To all the claims you have made.

I am reading a book by Sean B. Carroll, that so far has to do with his work on Distal-less. (The New Science of Evo Devo)

 

[Grummpy]

JohnR7

I am reading a book by Sean B. Carroll, that so far has to do with his work on Distal-less. (The New Science of Evo Devo)

And this disproves evolution how???

You are aware the evo-devo is just a new mechanism for evolution aren't you??? That gradualism is replaced by puntuated equilibrium or evo-devo just provides further evidence about the mechanism causing evolution, not evidence that evolution did not take place. Your smoking gun is the one that finished off creationism.

Grumpy

 

[LightHorseman]

Again, I throw down the gauntlet to you,

I require a clear example of theistic intervention in a biological setting to believe in creation science. Will you find me one?

Contrarily, what evidence do you require to elieve in evolution? Tell me and I'll find it for you.

 

[LightHorseman]

We are learning that most organisms have not changed in their basic form in over 650 million years.

Utter rot.

the basic form 650 million years ago was bacteria, perhaps a few basic multi cellular protozoans and cyanoacterial chains.

To suggest that the basic form has not changed in the mean time is, I can think of no word other than insane.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Any change is considered evoluion, so to show that evolution is not true, you have to show that no change has taken place.


why was science stillborn in ancient Greece?
part of the answer is armchair theorizing because to actually be involved and do things in the world was below the social position of philosophers. who like all Greeks relied on slaves to do their physical labor for them.
a priori assumptions, thinking about, philosophizing is not science.

this statement is not how science operates. it doesn't have a big idea that it wants to refute and figures out logically how to do it. it looks and searches and learns about what is really out there and what that stuff is trying to tell us. Then reality outside tells mind inside, rather than this philosophizing to impress the mind on the reality outside.

too much of YECism is this type of reasoning and thinking, not so much from big ideas but from the little human ones they say derives from their reading of Scripture.

to understand the world, the way of science works much better.

 

[supersport]

It has been said that Evolution is slight changes over time. Any change is considered evoluion, so to show that evolution is not true, you have to show that no change has taken place.

This is exactly what research is showing us. We are learning that all the individual species have a basic "ground plan" that they do not depart from. We are learning that most organisms have not changed in their basic form in over 650 million years.

If function and form do not change, then what does seem to change is the design or the pattern. Yet this area of change remains a elusive butterfly in terms of science being able to explain it.

We know that when it comes to color or patter each individual cell has it's own color. Like the pixels on the computer screen. They can identify the gene responsable. But that is pretty much the limit to what they know. They do not know how the gene can produce the color or patterns that they do.

Evolution should be defined as a word science uses when they do not know how something works. Because when they figure out how it works, that always seems to falsify their theory. But science always seems to have things they do not understand. So I suppose they will keep right on saying "evolution did it" to explain the things they can not explain.

I don't think the evo devo people know it yet....(and its certainly not their intention)....but their research is going to bring down the neodarwin/evolutionist empire. In fact, they will end up proving Intelligent Design. It's just a matter of time.

 

[LightHorseman]

In fact, they will end up proving Intelligent Design. It's just a matter of time.

How do you figure?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I don't think the evo devo people know it yet....(and its certainly not their intention)....but their research is going to bring down the neodarwin/evolutionist empire. In fact, they will end up proving Intelligent Design. It's just a matter of time.

that kind of big issue is well above my pay grade and as a matter of fact my natural abilities, so i guess i will just have to continue to wallow in the shallow end of the trenches and try to understand the little issues like hox genes, embryonic development and concentration gradients. you guys go ahead and argue those big issues about empires and the rise and fall of major theories, i know when i am out classed.

but please continue to tell us how it will all work out. i'd like to know when the great evolutionary scientific evil empire is about to fall. that will make a great picture. thanks.

 

[JohnR7]

And this disproves evolution how???

The point is that anything science does not have the answer for, they call evolution. When they find the answer then they call it something else, they do not have to call it evolution anymore.

They can tell you what controls the pixels on a computer screen, but they can not tell you what controls the colors of each individual hair on a animal to give them the pattern they have. All they can say is it evolved that way (if that will answer everything).

The best they can do is to shut down a gene. When they shut it off then they can see what that gene does. But they have no idea how it does what it does nor do they even know why it does what it does. How nature mimics nature is still just as much a mystory as ever. It is more then color and pattern, sometimes it goes into form and design. A bug that looks like a branch on a tree has the form of a branch. A bug that looks like bird poop has the form of bird poop. Then you have the pretenders. The ones that pretend they are something, to fool or trick the preditors.

 

[JohnR7]

little issues like hox genes, embryonic development

I have a friend who is doing research on embryonic development of the lungs. So I study up on hox genes so I can have a conversation with him about it. I figure who knows, maybe I will run across something that will help him in what he is doing.

 

[Elduran]

I don't think the evo devo people know it yet....(and its certainly not their intention)....but their research is going to bring down the neodarwin/evolutionist empire. In fact, they will end up proving Intelligent Design. It's just a matter of time.

Yeah, sure, whatever.

Keep on dreaming about the collapse of the best supported scientific theory in history...

 

[Biologist]

When they shut it off then they can see what that gene does. But they have no idea how it does what it does.

Yes we do, stop making assertions.

I recommend you take a few Biology courses or look up t-RNA ribosomes, r-RNA, and m-RNA.

We know what they do, how they do it, and we can predict what amino acids a sequence of DNA will code for. To put it simply(because you lack the knowledge of even the most basic Biology), it's all just complex chemical reactions.

 

[Split Rock]

This is exactly what research is showing us. We are learning that all the individual species have a basic "ground plan" that they do not depart from. We are learning that most organisms have not changed in their basic form in over 650 million years.

What do you mean by "Ground Plan" in this context?

 

[Grummpy]

JohnR7

The point is that anything science does not have the answer for, they call evolution. When they find the answer then they call it something else, they do not have to call it evolution anymore.

No john, what scientists call evolution is the facts presented by the fossil record and modern genetic studies. They show the change of organisms over time.

What we call theories of evolution are the explanations of the causes of the above fact. These change as our understanding and evidence changes or improves. Evo-Devo fits into the second catagory very well and does not in any way show that the fact that evolution has occured throughout the history of life on Earth has been disproven.

I have a friend who is doing research on embryonic development of the lungs. So I study up on hox genes so I can have a conversation with him about it. I figure who knows, maybe I will run across something that will help him in what he is doing.

A more likely scenario is he will be able to lighten the load of ignorance you carry, at least we can hope.

Grumpy

 

[AngryWomble]

We are learning that most organisms have not changed in their basic form in over 650 million years.

To elaborate on this as such 650 million years ago takes us back to before the Cambrian Period, into the Era known as the Pre-Cambrian strangly enough. If we hang on for a 'mear' 70 million years we get to 590 million years ago and hit the Cambrian Period in the Palaeozoic Era. The Palaeozoic is also known in Geological circles and as meaning Ancient Life. So John is saying that 650 million years ago, 70 million years before the Cambrian explosion that life resembled present day life....

Hmmm......you'll have to excuse me whilst i chinny recon that. Oh and for clarity, for those that might not know it, it's was a mear triffling of 65 million years between us and the event that whiped out the dinos. Oh and as an aside i know someone that's been to an exposure of the KT boundary here in the UK and we've been talking about having a little jolly down there.....*drools*.....

 

[JohnR7]

but please continue to tell us how it will all work out.

I can tell you how it works. Someone comes out with a new theory that is a lot better then the old theory. So the old one is soon forgotten. Every now and then someone comes along that has actually done the research needed to write a book. Which is a lot more work then the average person is willing to do, for what they will get paid.

But events like this are few and far inbetween.

 

[JohnR7]

So John is saying that 650 million years ago, 70 million years before the Cambrian explosion that life resembled present day life....

That was the beginning of DNA. Are you suggesting that something new and better than DNA has come along to make all of that obsolute?