TheOutsider
Pope Iason Ouabache the Obscure
I thought that everyone knew it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Get with the program, mate.
May you be touched by his noodly appendage.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What are the Weaknesses of Evolution?
- Thread starter Loudmouth
- Start date
- Status
May you be touched by his noodly appendage.
Gracchus
Senior Veteran
- Dec 21, 2002
- 7,199
- 821
- Faith
- Pantheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Perhaps you are not expressing yourself clearly.
Inan3 said:
If lots of people are telling you that your pants are on fire, you might be wise to check your butt.
Inan3 said:
Yes. They disagree with you, and your precious pearly beliefs are too fragile to stand scrutiny by anything even as smart as a pig.
Inan3 said:
I think what you are trying to say is that they make you feel stupid. In fact, that is what you are saying.
Inan3 said:
So, because you cannot refute them, they must be satanic? How nice is that?
So you don't understand them, but you will cut and paste them anyway? How do you know they are valid or pertinent?
Inan3 said:
What have you learned on the evolution side? I know you are busy, but it shouldn't take long to tell us.
Inan3 said:
Or you could at least post the links.
Inan3 said:
So you are trying to sell a bill of goods, and you don't have the inventory to back it up.
Inan3 said:
Could you show us your arithmetic?
Inan3 said:
That you are convinced, I have little doubt. But your presentation so far causes many of us to lend little credence to your conviction.
Inan3 said:
Did some one say it came from nothing while I was out getting coffee? I smell straw. Has that pesky scarecrow been around trying to steal some brains? I think he got bran by mistake. At least he's regular.
Upvote
0
sfs
Senior Member
- Jun 30, 2003
- 10,834
- 7,858
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
If I understand your confusing sentence correctly, it is wrong. The evolutionary theory of origins (that is, the theory of the origins of biological diversity) has been very fruitful. Whether you understood that after months of reading I don't know, but it remains a fact regardless.
?? Zoolology and herpetology are branches of biology. Why would you contrast something studied by zoologists and herpetologists with being "purely a biological theory"?
Some physicists do; most don't. What does that have to do with physics and evolution, though?
Evolution hasn't been discarded because it hasn't been shown to be wrong; on the contrary, it has been an immensely successful theory. Specific hypotheses within the broad range of evolutionary theory have been discarded or modified as evidence against them has appeared. The overall theory, however, is in excellent shape.
Upvote
0
BigDug
Active Member
well if you are going to cry about all of these misconceptions you have about me insulting you Im not going to be able to reply to anything you are saying, your just too sensitive for me. I honestly have no idea what your talking about as these "general insults", if you could be a little more specific I'd address it, but as it is Im not on the same page with you. What are you talking about?
Otherwise(IM not addressing TomK here for fear of accidently insulting him)
@all
the presence of pseudogenes does not mean there is a faulty creation, on the contrary, the deterioration of the genome points to ancestors which had no such deterioration in their gene pool, meaning a perfect gene pool. For example Adam had the perfect set of genes, they deteriorated after the fall of man into their present state. Ummm. Why is this hard to understand?
Of course the genome has deteriorated from the idea that it was in the beginning.
The last time I checked deterioration was not actually evolution but rather it would be de-volution. The FACT that the genome is in a state of deterioration is a fact which shows why evolution is absolutely impossible. You cannot evolve when you are busy deteriorating. Does that make sense?
I think its easy to throw out fancy scientific names and urls which explain "everything". Im much more interested in what people actually know about the genome in their own words, with terms everyone can understand since there will be people who know very little who also want to learn here.
So therefore instead of throwing out big words like twin-nested hierarchy's try to explain things in basic terms, or at least try to provide some type of basic framework for understanding so that other people can pick up on the conversation also.
Upvote
0
NailsII
Life-long student of biological science
I must have misunderstood here.
The topic is :Creation & Evolution > What are the Weaknesses of Evolution? and I have outlined the theory of evolution by natural selection for you. If you want to lump in a theory of everthing just for good measure, then you could at least explain so more precisely. i can see no references in your posts to other theories, only an attempt to state that said theory involves more than just biology.
It doesn't, but supporting evidence can be found elsewhere, but not in the babble.
I think you'll find 'evidence' and 'knowledge' much more accurate descriptions.
Can anyone else support BigDungs view on muddle in my posts? Please don't be shy of you agree with him.
Upvote
0
BigDug
Active Member
Oh right, so this is such a forum that is free from insults and personal attacks right? What a bunch of hypocrites. Here I am getting lectured about these alleged insults that I have no clue about because I guess I'm not so supersensitive and this guy comes out with a statement such as this, a blatantly adolescent personal attack, I guess thats ok right?
Upvote
0
monkeypsycho62
Senior Member
- Jul 1, 2007
- 893
- 26
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Upvote
0
Gracchus
Senior Veteran
- Dec 21, 2002
- 7,199
- 821
- Faith
- Pantheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Consider that Inan3, who was complaining of personal attacks, posted this:
Inan3 said:
According to Inan3, scientists and atheists are liars and minions of Satan. Now you're complaining I hit him back first?
In any event he used the "casting pearls to swine" argument in another thread to get out of backing up his posts.
Jesus called hypocrites "whited sepulchers", all nicely white washed outside and full of stench and corruption within. I strive for a little originality.
Upvote
0
NailsII
Life-long student of biological science
Actually, evolution means change - it doesn't point to any ability to increase complexity or become more human-like. It explains the trend whereby animals struggle for survival in order to reproduce; those that are best suited to a particular environment ('the fittest') will pass on their genes to the next generation and so on. There are numerous examples of 'downward' trends if you like, in bacteria, virus, even in mice their is a particular mutation which produces sterile offspring. Interestingly, it also manages to occupy around 90% of the carrier's sperm or eggs so it can quickly render a small population into extinction.
If you require detailed. examples, please ask.
Just a side issue - if god's design really was perfect, why do we release so many sperm? One, maybe two should be enough, but millions? something not quite right there.
Ok, Adam's genes were perfect, and all imperfections are negative effects from that point.
Unfortunatley, all evidence points to the contrary. If you have any supporting evidence (I will except biblical references) then please share this with us.
If it is merely your point of view then I am afraid you are mistaken.
But if you're right:
Why did Adam have multiple and redundant haemoglobin genes then?
He must have done, because we all do and because other mammals have.
why was his chromosome 2 two chimp chromosomes lumped together like ours are?
Why was his his genome littered with viral insertions (strands of DNA that code for viral proteins, inserted as the virus attacks a host in order for it to reproduce) - homologous to those found in chimpanzees, our closest living primate relative?
Why did perfect Adam have a non-functioning Vitamin C synthesis gene, as all primates have?
These are questions that evolution answers, but religion does not I'm afraid.
I understand it is quite difficult for a layman to understand technical terms, so I wil be more considerate.
All my posts so far have been expressions of my knowledge and understanding of the subject, when you asked for proof, I took it as you didn't have any faith that I was telling the truth.
A misunderstanding, nothing more. I will post my thoughts and if you require hard evidence, please ask an d I will try my best to post links.
but unfortunately you are not going to learn much about evolution unless you study it yourself, although I guess your mind is already made up.
Just in case, I recommend 'Almost Like A Whale' by Professor Steve Jones - a very good read in laymans terms.
Blind Watchmaker is also a good one, that's by Professor Richard Dawkins - I guess you've heard of him.
Upvote
0
How is the above not trying to insult?you said:
Implying that I am presumptuous, which is again insulting.you said:
Or in another post directed at me:
Not only arrogant, but also incorrect. Just because I say God is not an explanation, doesn't mean I do not know what an explanation is. You don't have to make remarks about my basic english either.
I am not easily offended, I couldn't care less whether you want to offend me or not. But I do not think that an offensive tone is getting anyone anywhere. I know words can come across harder than they should, especially on a forum. I have had the same problem from my side with Inan and apologized to him, even though at first I did not see my posts as insulting. If you didn't mean to insult, I'm glad. But if it is all the same to you, I do not think that the "if you haven't seen it now I am not going to explain it"-attitude is very helpfull and that we could do without it.
I didn't state it did.
Because the deterioration of the pseudogenes falls into a nested hierarchy that would suggest that humans and chimps have the same common ancestry. The deterioration happens on the same places, in the same gene at the same location. While a guinea pig, which is much further distantly related, does not show these same changes. How can that be if the gene is just deteriorating due to random chance?
Evidence of this would be?
This is incorrect. Evolution just means change, it doesn't mean that things get 'better'. Deterioration and build up both happen in evolution. Things are kept as long as they work, and discarded when they do not anymore.
Nope, it doesn't. The problem here is that the claim of deterioration you make is not true. It is inherent in evolution that something that isn't selected for will deteriorate, because there is nothing to stop this deterioration. Sometimes in a new environment, a structure previously beneficial may even be selected against, so the deterioration of that structure will speed up.
So, understand the above? Do you now understand that parts of the genome do deteriorate when they are not selected? Do you understand that changing selection pressures will mean that different structures will be selected? Do you understand that the pattern of damages to pseudogenes indicate common ancestry?
Very well. Given your own remarks I was presuming that you would understand the terminology. I generally try to aim my posts at those I am directly responding to. I was presuming earlier on that Inan also understood what the twin-nested hierarchy entailed, I am pretty sure I gave a short explanation in this or another thread with him. I generally rely on people to tell me when I am going too fast.
So for all: the twin-nested hierarchy:
A nested hierarchy is a pattern of groups within groups. All ducks belong to the group birds. All birds belong to the group animals. All animals belong to the group eukaryotes (meaning they have cells with a core). Similarly, all dogs belong to the group canines, which belongs to the group of mammals, which belongs to the group of animals, which belongs to the group of eukaryotes.
Because descent with modification (which means that the offspring of an organism differs slightly from it's parents) happens within species, new species will arise because the old species splits into two. Because of this, you get a pattern of groups within groups within groups, a nested hierarchy.
Now, Linneaus already showed this pattern, the classification of species is derived from his work. Only later was it realized that descent with modification was the only process which could really explain this pattern, because of what I described above. First this was only seen in morphology, the comparison of visible traits of animals, hence it was a nested hierarchy. The prediction was however, that the genetic material should show the same pattern. In the 1970's we could start to check this pattern due to the advances in genomic analysis. The nested hierarchy in our genes was found to mirror the nested hierarchy found in morpholgy. Hence, the twin-nested hierarchy. Lately, with the analysis of endogenous retrovirusses which also show this same pattern (pieces of DNA from viruses that have become stuck and deactivated in our genomes), some have said that we could actually say there is a triple-nested hierarchy.
Upvote
0
NailsII
Life-long student of biological science
Very well put Tom.
I would like to point out hoever that pure morphology is a limited tool for studying descent, genomic analysis is much more precise.
Convergant evolution (where two un-related species evolve the same or very similar traits such as patterns, behaviour or morphology) can mislead - canines of mammilian descent and their antipodean counterparts of non-placental 'cousins' ae strikingly similar in bone structure...
I would like to point out hoever that pure morphology is a limited tool for studying descent, genomic analysis is much more precise.
Convergant evolution (where two un-related species evolve the same or very similar traits such as patterns, behaviour or morphology) can mislead - canines of mammilian descent and their antipodean counterparts of non-placental 'cousins' ae strikingly similar in bone structure...
Upvote
0
As a whale is a really great book, although when reading it I did sometimes wonder how well this book would be understood by a lay public.
I myself would recommend "Patterns in evolution" by Roger Lewin. It really gives a good idea of the development of the theory of evolution since genetic evidence has become so important.
I myself would recommend "Patterns in evolution" by Roger Lewin. It really gives a good idea of the development of the theory of evolution since genetic evidence has become so important.
Upvote
0
True. Similarly, with morphology there are often problems when looking at closely related species. For example, before genetics the ancestral relationships between gorillas, chimpanzees and humans were always under debate. Orangutans were always considered the outgroup here (the species furthest related from all others), but the morphological differences between humans, chimps and gorillas was always to small to given an objective argument for their specific relations. Only with the advent of genetics did it become clear that gorillas split of first from a common ancestor and that afterwards humans and chimpanzees went their seperate ways.
Upvote
0
BigDug
Active Member
@Tom
We are all mutants, we probably acquire over 1000 mutations per individual.
Kondrashov estimated 100-300 nucleotide substitutions per person in 2002
This would not include mutational hotspots such as microsatellites which throw another 100-300 in.
It is also estimated that another 4-12% (4 to 12 out of every 100) are deletions plus insertions.
Its unknown how many inversions/translocations and conversions must occur. Crude estimates place the human genome at over 1000 mutations per individual.
Its also generally accepted and well known throughout the biological community for years, especially among population geneticists such as Kimura who created charts which show various mutation rates vs. potency.
The important thing to remember is that natural selection can only act upon an single organism, it would never be able to ascertain if a single gene or 100's of genes were malfunctional other than through its own unique survivability.
@Nails
The psalmist said:
"My cup runneth over" Why would the cup need to run over, wouldnt it be enough just to fill it?
Or the miracles of Christ always showing that as provider He always gives more and leaves plenty left over. Its in illustration after illustration in the Bible.
The 'things" your talking about are organisms, natural selection works on the organism level, NOT the nucleotide level. Therefore it is entirely possible, (and not just possible but regular), that organisms don't get selected out in spite of the fact that much of their genome has mutated.
We are all mutants, we probably acquire over 1000 mutations per individual.
Plenty of evidence. Kondrashov, many others, very few creationists. Do you want the actual science publications where the original research has been published?
Kondrashov estimated 100-300 nucleotide substitutions per person in 2002
This would not include mutational hotspots such as microsatellites which throw another 100-300 in.
It is also estimated that another 4-12% (4 to 12 out of every 100) are deletions plus insertions.
Its unknown how many inversions/translocations and conversions must occur. Crude estimates place the human genome at over 1000 mutations per individual.
Its also generally accepted and well known throughout the biological community for years, especially among population geneticists such as Kimura who created charts which show various mutation rates vs. potency.
The important thing to remember is that natural selection can only act upon an single organism, it would never be able to ascertain if a single gene or 100's of genes were malfunctional other than through its own unique survivability.
I understand what it means, You must have misunderstood when I said it would be beneficial for 'others' on the forum to have things broken down into simpler form. Im also really interested in what you know, contrary to what you might think about me insulting you, I am actually very interested to see the extent of what you might know.
It would be nice if you could give a specific example of this phenomena, perhaps the nested heirarchy of a gecko lizard. Can you show the morphological differences in the gecko lizard compared to its ancestors as well as explain how the dna would match its morphology? I think everyone would benefit from further clarity. I know I would. Your explanation seemed a little unclear to me.
@Nails
No actually the over abundant, exceedingly amounts of living things follow the Biblically recorded nature of God perfectly. God is always recorded as excessive. A student of the Bible would know about the huge amount of Biblical references to God's over abundance.
The psalmist said:
"My cup runneth over" Why would the cup need to run over, wouldnt it be enough just to fill it?
Or the miracles of Christ always showing that as provider He always gives more and leaves plenty left over. Its in illustration after illustration in the Bible.
Here is where I get slightly irritated because your statement is in fact a lie or a huge misconception. There are indeed answers to the questions you asked, but you dont agree with them, which you are entitled to do, but it doesnt change the fact that the answers exist.
Upvote
0
Sure, but you seem to miss the point. You said that deterioration is not in accordance with the theory of evolution, but it is. The main point I was trying to make was that evolution just means change, whether for good or bad.
I'll go one step further and say that 'devolution' is an oxymoron. Evolution has no set direction. The prefix "de" is usually meant to denote the opposite of the word used. But since evolution has no set direction, "devolution" can have no set direction either and hence means exactly the same.
This is not entirely correct. While it is true that selection happens on the organism level, if you look at the level of the population you will see that an organism with certain traits is more likely to survive then an organism with certain other traits. In a cave without light, while the organisms are selected, a fish that has good fins will have a higher chance of survival than a fish without eyes. Over the population these differences will be exagerated, so that fish without eyes will slowly disappear from the population while fish with good fins will stay. Since these traits are based in the genome, this will also be seen on a genome level. Venturing a little further out to sea, there are also some theories on group selection, where selection does not act on single organisms but on higher groups. The arguments for this level of selection are mostly mathematical and the theory is not widely accepted, although I think it may have some things going for it. But even in this case, selection would happen on traits that one group has and another group does not have. Eventually, this would again be seen in the genome.
Current research in human evolution is interesting for that reason. We can measure whether there has been a strong selection pressure on a certain triat by comparing the mutation rate in that trait with the background mutation rate (ie, the mutation rate of neutral mutations). If the mutation rate in a region is higher than background, this is an indication for a strong selection pressure. If you look at current genetic research, we can see that in human evolution there has been a very strong selection on genes relating to the brain when compared to other regions of the genome.
I know all that. What I was asking for was evidence for your assertion that "the genome has deteriorated from the idea it was in the beginning", in the beginning referrring to "the perfect set of genes". What I was asking you to support that the genome now is worse than it was when it was created, that the genome in the beginning was perfect. You assert a perfect genome, my question was for evidence of this. Perhaps this was not entirely clear from the cut-off I made.
Of course. But depending of the survivability of the organisms, we would see a shift in the genome for the regions associated with a certain morphology.
Sure, but that would take me some time. Not all lineages are well documented, it all depends on the research that has been done in the meantime. I have started a thread on this long ago, but stopped it due to time constraints. I'll see whether I can dig up and condense some of those old posts and add a little genetics to them.
Upvote
0
Nothing much. Little skirmishes topsHoney .... I'm home .... Did you miss me??? .... Did I miss anything?.....
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
