Unsatisfactory Scientific Explanations?

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh, so you are saying......
that blue-eyed and brunette 'taxa', could be expected
to produce siblings, ~with differing dominant and/or recessive traits, (green-eyed blonde/red-headed)
that it is 'quite-normal' to have siblings that exceed their parents in height and stature
and to insist (perhaps) that it was due entirely, to the heritable ancestral traits despite: the features of both parents being similar [to each-other]

But the races have been interbreeding, green eyed and blonde/red headed taxa have been mating with blue-eyed and brunette taxa as far back as you can trace them. Are you now claiming that quite often - as we know is fact - that several generations may pass before a recessive gene becomes dominant? So that height - eye color - hair color etc is certainly no hardship to explain. Do you now expect me to believe that the human race has not been interbreeding throughout history on several occasions introducing new genomes into both races (infraspecific taxa)?????

Hitler was going to wipe out the Jews just so they couldn't continue to interbreed and continue to pollute the bloodlines. Right there you had evidence of one infraspecific taxa - brown eyes and brown hair interbreeding with blue eyes and blonde hair infraspecific taxa. Again - I do not need Fairie Dust to explain any of the observations - that is the TOE that requires it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There is no branching in the fork where one becomes two magically.

There are branches where a single population becomes two (e.g. through geographical isolation), and the two populations slowly diverge until they can no longer interbreed, becoming separate species. Speciation isn't sudden, and the species boundaries are not always clear, as ring species show.

Come on - even your E coli experiments showed this to you. After countless generations and countless mutations - they remained exactly as they started - E coli. They will never become anything other than E coli.

Sadly I never got to do any E. coli experiments, but I can only agree that, tautologically, E. coli are indeed E. coli. Bacterial lineages don't behave like eukaryotic species; their genetic isolation occurs on a gene by gene basis which gradually separates the lineages over tens of millions of years.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No it hasn't.

Meh. Watching Speciation Occur.

 

[davedajobauk]

Do you now expect me to believe that the human race has not been interbreeding throughout history
on several occasions introducing new genomes into both races (infraspecific taxa)?????

No, I totally agree, but evidence shows / implies / purports
that those that have had their genome amended by external causes
have passed-on their then altered-genome to their descendants

Case in point... veterans of Vietnam, contaminated by Agent Orange
then conceiving children with their wives/partners
and the dreadful mess, those foetuses became.... (dioxins)

A very understandable and undeniable (provable) process (route) to evolution of taxa
Alas, I would not be able to PROVE it (not personally) < is just me being honest :thumbsup

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Ever found a fossil of a T-Rex that wasn't a T-Rex or even one that was transforming into something different from the oldest fossil to the youngest? I didn't think so. So why are you ignoring the data and pretending they might have become something else????????
.

Seems to me if we did have a T-Rex that was descended from a T-Rex and it was no longer a T-Rex, and it happened to become a fossil, you would not be able to tell it was descended from a T-Rex, or more likely you would simply deny it was descended from a T-Rex.

 

[PsychoSarah]

But the races have been interbreeding, green eyed and blonde/red headed taxa have been mating with blue-eyed and brunette taxa as far back as you can trace them. Are you now claiming that quite often - as we know is fact - that several generations may pass before a recessive gene becomes dominant? So that height - eye color - hair color etc is certainly no hardship to explain. Do you now expect me to believe that the human race has not been interbreeding throughout history on several occasions introducing new genomes into both races (infraspecific taxa)?????

Hitler was going to wipe out the Jews just so they couldn't continue to interbreed and continue to pollute the bloodlines. Right there you had evidence of one infraspecific taxa - brown eyes and brown hair interbreeding with blue eyes and blonde hair infraspecific taxa. Again - I do not need Fairie Dust to explain any of the observations - that is the TOE that requires it.

For one thing, recessive genes do not become dominant; people inherit two copies of the allele and thus end up having the recessive trait.

Thus, while two people with brown eyes could have a blue eyed child if they are both carriers of the recessive allele, a couple with blue eyes is exceedingly unlikely to have a brown eyed child, which would only result from random mutation. Hence why traits tend to run in families, but not always. It isn't that 20 generations have passed with a gene being passed down but not expressed, but rather that the gene mutated in the one individual expressing the trait.

Some genes mutate more often then others, which is why some traits seem exclusively to run in families, while others are noted for appearing suddenly thanks to mutation. Hemophilia is a good example of a condition that has a bit of both; it typically runs in families, but there are a decent number that are the result of random mutation.

Also, not all groups of people have been interbreeding forever in part due to isolation; I don't recall any accounts of Native Americans having blue eyes prior to Europeans arriving (unless they were albino). If people were to interbreed without geographical location being a factor, there wouldn't be diseases associated with only certain groups of people. Cystic Fibrosis hits those of European decent far harder than any other group, Tay Sachs is almost exclusive to those of Jewish decent (Hebrew? not quite sure the correct term for that group is when speaking of genetics), and I challenge you to find someone with Sickle-cell anemia that doesn't have a fairly recent ancestor from regions where malaria is common (parts of Africa and Asia).

 

[SkyWriting]

Said evolutionary "claimed facts" and natural selection never once having been observed anywhere in the natural world - but again - only in the minds of believers.

I've watched natural selection in process as turtles
whittled down a flock baby birds in a pond.

"Natural Selection" works in the same manner
as animal husbandry and plant hybridization
except those use human influence to evolve
characteristics rather than environmental selection.

 

[DaisyDay]

Tay Sachs is almost exclusive to those of Jewish decent (Hebrew? not quite sure the correct term for that group is when speaking of genetics)

Ashkenazi.

 

[Michael]

What are some topics for which you have found scientific explanations to be unsatisfactory? What is it about the scientific explanations that you've been given that leaves you wanting a better explanation? Are you still in search of more science to back up these explanations or have you given up and left your curiosity unsatisfied on these topics?

Lambda-CDM (Big bang theory) is a completely and utterly unsatisfactory explanation of our physical universe. I've been in search of more "science" to back up these claims, but alas, all I have ever seen are affirming the consequent fallacies galore related to that topic. In pretty much ever other area of science we find *empirical* validation of various cause/effect claims, but Lambda-CDM relies *exclusively* upon affirming the consequent fallacies with respect to all of it's cause/effect claims.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ashkenazi.

Thank you

 

[PsychoSarah]

Lambda-CDM (Big bang theory) is a completely and utterly unsatisfactory explanation of our physical universe. I've been in search of more "science" to back up these claims, but alas, all I have ever seen are affirming the consequent fallacies galore related to that topic. In pretty much ever other area of science we find *empirical* validation of various cause/effect claims, but Lambda-CDM relies *exclusively* upon affirming the consequent fallacies with respect to all of it's cause/effect claims.

While it may be unsatisfactory to you, the fact remains that the theory with the most evidence in regards to the origin of the universe we reside in is the Big Bang theory. Any other theory to date is not going to be any more satisfactory to you on the basis of evidence.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Lambda-CDM (Big bang theory) is a completely and utterly unsatisfactory explanation of our physical universe. I've been in search of more "science" to back up these claims, but alas, all I have ever seen are affirming the consequent fallacies galore related to that topic. In pretty much ever other area of science we find *empirical* validation of various cause/effect claims, but Lambda-CDM relies *exclusively* upon affirming the consequent fallacies with respect to all of it's cause/effect claims.

Hubble (the astronomer, not the telescope) discovered the universe is expanding. That means in the past the universe was smaller. Go back far enough and that means it is the result of the "big bang". I'm not sure why that is a problem for you. What's wrong with that scenario, in your mind?

 

[Michael]

While it may be unsatisfactory to you, the fact remains that the theory with the most evidence in regards to the origin of the universe we reside in is the Big Bang theory.

I'm afraid that even the concept of "evidence" becomes highly suspect and quite debatable in that case, as does the term "most evidence". "Space expansion" hasn't ever been shown to be a real "cause" of photon redshift, it is simply "assumed" to be a cause of such a phenomenon. Furthermore no exotic long lived particles have been seen at LHC or anywhere else to date.

Any other theory to date is not going to be any more satisfactory to you on the basis of evidence.

Any theory that limits itself to pure empirical physics is bound to be "better" IMO.

 

[Michael]

Hubble (the astronomer, not the telescope) discovered the universe is expanding. That means in the past the universe was smaller. Go back far enough and that means it is the result of the "big bang". I'm not sure why that is a problem for you. What's wrong with that scenario, in your mind?

Well, for starters, Hubble himself actually preferred a static universe theory and "tired light" as his preferred "cause" of photon redshift, not "space expansion", or even object movement.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'm afraid that even the concept of "evidence" becomes highly suspect and quite debatable in that case, as does the term "most evidence". "Space expansion" hasn't ever been shown to be a real "cause" of photon redshift, it is simply "assumed" to be a cause of such a phenomenon. Furthermore no exotic long lived particles have been seen at LHC or anywhere else to date.



Any theory that limits itself to pure empirical physics is bound to be "better" IMO.

Being that physics is not my specialty, as you know, I still have to ask "why limit oneself to only empirical physics, when some solutions may only be derived through other means or combinations of them?"

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Well, for starters, Hubble himself actually preferred a static universe theory and "tired light" as his preferred "cause" of photon redshift, not "space expansion", or even object movement.

Well I'm not asking for Hubble's opinion, I'm asking for yours. But the idea of "tired light" violates conservation of energy. In addition, tired light would not explain the apparant time delay that accompanies the red shift. Tired light would be expected to show events unfolding in exactly the same speed, only with redder light. Doppler shifting shows things somewhat slowed because the more recent images were sent to us from further away than the earlier images, making the time between the arrival of the images somewhat larger. Guess which scenario is supported by the arriving light.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Being that physics is not my specialty, as you know, I still have to ask "why limit oneself to only empirical physics, when some solutions may only be derived through other means or combinations of them?"

The question makes no sense. Empirical physics, by definition, is physics done according to what works. So if you are trying to find a solution to a physics question, you are by definition doing empirical physics. So the answer to "why limit oneself to only empirical physics" would be . . . because there is no other kind of physics.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The question makes no sense. Empirical physics, by definition, is physics done according to what works. So if you are trying to find a solution to a physics question, you are by definition doing empirical physics. So the answer to "why limit oneself to only empirical physics" would be . . . because there is no other kind of physics.

Then his suggestion that the big bang theory uses something else is also off.

 

[Gracchus]

the only problem is, it's been noted as late as 1980 by eldridge that the fossil record show that there are very few, some would say no, examples of "gradual shading".

Evolution works on existing variations.

Look around. You will literally see different “shading”. Some are dark, some are light. Some are tall some are short. Some are portly some are lank. Some are hairy, some are smooth. And in between the extremes you will see (At least if you aren't blind!) all sorts of "gradual shading". That is the natural variation due to genetic differences arising from recombination and mutation.

kimura and others has shown natural selection has no effect on the vast number of organisms, and is not the dominate force of evolution.

I have read some of Kimura's work, certainly not all, but I don't remember him making such an assertion. Could you provide a citation?

Would you like me to explain how differential selection pressure functions?

 

[whois]

Evolution works on existing variations.

Look around. You will literally see different “shading”. Some are dark, some are light. Some are tall some are short. Some are portly some are lank. Some are hairy, some are smooth. And in between the extremes you will see (At least if you aren't blind!) all sorts of "gradual shading". That is the natural variation due to genetic differences arising from recombination and mutation.

i understand that.
the question is, are the accumulation of these variations over time responsible for the diversity of life we see.
eldridge would make no such assertion if the fossil record showed this.
these gaps in the record are the most likely reasons PE and HGT were introduced, and accepted.

I have read some of Kimura's work, certainly not all, but I don't remember him making such an assertion. Could you provide a citation?

Would you like me to explain how differential selection pressure functions?

The concept of natural selection as the foundation of evolutionary change has been largely superseded, mostly through the work of Motoo Kimura, Tomoko Ohta, and others, who have shown both theoretically and empirically that natural selection has little or no effect on the vast majority of the genomes of most living organisms.
evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/11/modern-synthesis-is-dead-long-live.html

there are other sources too, some may be found on google perhaps.