5 of 11
5
Evolution Disproven?
Posted: 05 August 2007 04:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28

Lets make more reviews of your own words and apply your requirements in your own statements as well.

narwhol - 04 August 2007 12:51 PM

I don’t think it’s unreasonable for me to ask you to be more specific in your statement since the link you made to evolution and “association” seems somewhat unreasonable at present and “elements decay faster…” is meaningless without mechanism and conditions. (Emphasis mine)

First, I showed you above that when no energy like the found in a supernnova is present the elements will decay “faster” because there is not such recharging on them. You need energy to recharge things. Without the necesary energy things will decay.

You should get that from your basic studies in physics, otherwise you better claim for your money back.

There are more factors for decay as contact of iron with humidity, it will corrode faster than if iron is located in a dry place, right?. Because the collision of elements which will cause the decay and not its preservation or transformation into a more heavy element or a more corrosion resistant metal.

Decay of elements is what you see in the physical world, unless an energy or collision transtorns its status. Otherwise the decay will happen because the motion or vibration of elements will decrease, no exceptions.

There is not such a thing in the universe that has perpetual motion, so don’t expect to anyone to believe that in the beguining of the universe the elements were simpler and are becoming more complex today, no; the process is the contrary, from heavier elements to simpler elements.

You want the mechanisms otherwise there is not such theory or idea as valid, right? Well, to make these discussion shorter and going to specifics, please write here

1)- the mechanisms which made an ape like creature to become a human like creature.

2)- Your mechanisms must be able to be tested by the requirements of the scientific method.

3)- Accumulation of fossils and interpretations of their order won’t validate your position, only a valid mechanism.

4)- If the theory of evolution lacks of the required mechanism, this theory still invalid.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2007 05:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  672
Joined  2007-06-17

No, you’re quite wrong on that.  A supernova doesn’t recharge heavy elements.  Late nuclear fusion processes in stars, does however produce heavy nuclei that then gon on to decay at the normal rate.  But no, you can’t recharge them.  They’re not like cells or batteries of cells - they decay to lighter elements and that’s the process finished as soon as they reach a Z/N value that is not that of something that will spontaneously decay.  Supernova’s don’t speed up the process of radioactive decay.  I think you’re getting confused because it said rapid decay in one of those pages.  Also, it’s a physical process, not a chemical one - it does not involve collisions - the nuclei decay on their own.  Their is no way in which two nuclei could ever actually collide in these things anyway since once they are ejected, they reassociate with electrons from the plasma and no two nuclie can then ever get anywhere near each other.  And, it is not temperature dependent either.

In answer to your questions, I am not a biologist and can not remember specifics about it, but do know and have seen the mechainsms of failed meiosis somewhere (ages ago) of speciation. There are various types depending on geographical isolation or lack thereof.  There are plenty of examples in which it has been shown to occur. Since I don’t intend becoming a biologist, I’m not going to go out and buy a text book on this and tell you from that, but since you are intent on doing something biological (disproving evolution), I recommend you look it up yourself and read it very carefully (both the theory of evolution itself and speciation).  There are bound to be a lot of references to it.

 Signature 

http://web.mac.com/normsherman/iWeb/Site/Podcast/833F918B-485B-42F4-B18C-4AB1436D9B87.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2007 05:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15354
Joined  2006-02-14

The mechanism for evolution is blindingly simple: natural selection. More things are born than can survive. (This was Malthus’s point, that Darwin took very much to heart). There is competition between organisms for the limited supply of food and mating opportunities. Those organisms best fit to their environment have a slightly higher chance of surviving long enough to reproduce, and of actually reproducing. The genotypic differences that made them phenotypically more appropriate for their environment then survive into the next generation in higher proportion to the genotypes of their less able competitors.

Prior to Darwin many people (including Darwin’s grandfather and the french philosophe Diderot) had already assumed evolution to be true. Darwin’s genius was to elucidate its mechanism. This is why it’s termed “Darwinian” natural selection.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2007 05:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4071
Joined  2006-11-28

1)- the mechanisms which made an ape like creature to become a human like creature.

2)- Your mechanisms must be able to be tested by the requirements of the scientific method.

3)- Accumulation of fossils and interpretations of their order won’t validate your position, only a valid mechanism.

4)- If the theory of evolution lacks of the required mechanism, this theory still invalid.

Well, I am a biologist, and I can say that the questions are virtually meaningless, and they don’t lead anywhere near the conclusion you reach.

1) I don’t know what you mean by “human like” and “apelike.” The specific genetic differences are very easy to identify, and since the human genome project is complete, and there are people working on other ape genomes, soon it will be possible to give a precise set of differences at the genetic level.

2) The mechanisms for how these genetic differences arrive are well understood, and include various kinds of deletion and translocation and insertion errors in DNA transcription, by insertion of viral or bacterial genes into germ cell DNA, by mutagenic forces such as alkylating agents, UV radiation, etc, and probably lots of others I forgot to mention. The phenotypic differences coded for by the genotypic differences are understood in some cases (the specific differences in, say, insulin amino acid sequence, for example) and less well-understood in other cases (e.g. the basis for specific differences in brain and subsequent behavioral characteristics). But depending on what differences you mean between humans and non-human primates, the mechanisms by which they arose are not only testable by scientific methods but have, in some cases, been tested and proven correct. And, as Doug pointed out, the process of natural; selection then increases or decreases the frequency of particular genes or gene combinations in populations in response to differential reproductive sucess, thus leading to population-level changes in phenotype.

If you refuse to accept the validity of evolution without having every single step leading from say A. afarensis to modern H. sapiens sapiens elucidtaed precisely at the molecular level in the exact order they occurred and then replicating each of them in a lab with real organisms, well then you’re understanding of what constitutes proof in the scientific method is bizarre and ridiculous.

3&4) Fossils prove that it happened. They do not illustrate the mechanism at the genetic or biochemical level, but if they show the process of evolution as actually occuring, they are sufficient to validate that it does so. The mechanisms are of interest, and there is lots of evidence for what those might be (though you misunderstand and refuse to accept as valid many of them, such as the process as illustrated in bacteria discussed above), but evolution is not somehow invalid as an explanatgion for change in species over time just because we don’t understand every single little detail. You just don’t seem to get how science works in terms of evaluating truth claims.  And I agree with Narwhol that your understanding of basic biology and genetics doesn’t seem very accurate, so your challenges to evolution might make more sense (or disappear entirely?) if you took the trouble to teach yourself a bit more basic biology.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2007 05:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
narwhol - 05 August 2007 05:01 PM

No, you’re quite wrong on that.  A supernova doesn’t recharge heavy elements.  Late nuclear fusion processes in stars, does however produce heavy nuclei that then gon on to decay at the normal rate.  But no, you can’t recharge them.  They’re not like cells or batteries of cells - they decay to lighter elements and that’s the process finished as soon as they reach a Z/N value that is not that of something that will spontaneously decay.  Supernova’s don’t speed up the process of radioactive decay.  I think you’re getting confused because it said rapid decay in one of those pages.  Also, it’s a physical process, not a chemical one - it does not involve collisions - the nuclei decay on their own.  Their is no way in which two nuclei could ever actually collide in these things anyway since once they are ejected, they reassociate with electrons from the plasma and no two nuclie can then ever get anywhere near each other.  And, it is not temperature dependent either.

In answer to your questions, I am not a biologist and can not remember specifics about it, but do know and have seen the mechainsms of failed meiosis somewhere (ages ago) of speciation. There are various types depending on geographical isolation or lack thereof.  There are plenty of examples in which it has been shown to occur. Since I don’t intend becoming a biologist, I’m not going to go out and buy a text book on this and tell you from that, but since you are intent on doing something biological (disproving evolution), I recommend you look it up yourself and read it very carefully (both the theory of evolution itself and speciation).  There are bound to be a lot of references to it.

I posted before that supernova can produce heavy elements while the stars and planets can recycle them only. I even marked bold the same words produce and recycle in my former message.

In my message above I made clear that elements decay only when no other action causes the contrary or delay their decay. After every supernova there are less and less heavy elements because there is no more production of them.

About Evolution: sorry by isolation or geaographical status won’t validate anything for the theory of evolution. I can state that the interpretations of the evolutionists about fossils are no more than educated guesses, and there is no way you can deny that I am right with this. Interpretation of events are assumptions unless you show the “mechanism” which is present, or it causes and participates in the changes. (I am starting to love the word “mechanism”))

I have showed you in a former message that a person having some variations in his chromosomes can become an ape-like creature, this is to say, he will show the characteristics found in an ape, like physical, mental and the average of age.

You can use this factual observation in humans as a consequences of a mechanism which causes a human to have ape like characteristics. What causes the extra-tails in chromosomes or similar? Well, from exposure to chemicals to several other causes can be considered, but you can observe factualmente the transition.

On the other hand, the theory of Evolution has not any valid mechanism proving that ape like creatures can become more human like creatures.

Then, without the proper mechanism, the theory of Evolution is found false.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2007 05:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
dougsmith - 05 August 2007 05:12 PM

The mechanism for evolution is blindingly simple: natural selection. More things are born than can survive. (This was Malthus’s point, that Darwin took very much to heart). There is competition between organisms for the limited supply of food and mating opportunities. Those organisms best fit to their environment have a slightly higher chance of surviving long enough to reproduce, and of actually reproducing. The genotypic differences that made them phenotypically more appropriate for their environment then survive into the next generation in higher proportion to the genotypes of their less able competitors.

Prior to Darwin many people (including Darwin’s grandfather and the french philosophe Diderot) had already assumed evolution to be true. Darwin’s genius was to elucidate its mechanism. This is why it’s termed “Darwinian” natural selection.

No, no, no, come on, please, be serious.

Saying natural selection alone is to usewrongly a doctrine of the theory as a method or mechanism. What you just wrote is a no no.

Mechanism is the process itself, you must show it in the lab, you must observe it in the specimen, do you understand?

Everything you just wrote right above is nothing but the repetition of the doctrines of the theory of evolution, and we are far away from that, we are not discussing the doctrines but the facts. And, you have said a lot but you have not showed a single fact.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2007 05:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  672
Joined  2007-06-17

Now, I’m going to get quite cross now.  Stars can produce heavier elements in their later stages of fusion.  Really heavy stars become supernovae. And, you have not shown any link between this and how animal species behave.  And, you haven’t gone out and read up on the mechanisms of speciation and looked at the diagrams and evidence and examples in which this has actually happened.  And you didn’t show me in a different post how a human can show ape-like behaviour (aside of the apelike ignorance you have displayed.

What surprises me about all this is: I went out to visit my great uncle today.  When I was there, he was talking about his cousin whose funeral he had gone to in the week.  He talked about her leukemia being of the same type that kiled another family member and discussed in detail the way it worked.  He talked about phagocytes and platelets and was very erudite on the subject- even told me a few things I didn’t know.  Now, this man is coming up to a hundred years of age in a couple of years.  He comes from a rural backwater of Ireland and is a retired catholic priest!  And what amazes me is the fact that he can talk about scientific stuff in a much more reasoned manner than you can.  Don’t you find that a bit odd too?

 Signature 

http://web.mac.com/normsherman/iWeb/Site/Podcast/833F918B-485B-42F4-B18C-4AB1436D9B87.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2007 05:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15354
Joined  2006-02-14
conquer - 05 August 2007 05:33 PM

No, no, no, come on, please, be serious.

Saying natural selection alone is to usewrongly a doctrine of the theory as a method or mechanism. What you just wrote is a no no.

Mechanism is the process itself, you must show it in the lab, you must observe it in the specimen, do you understand?

Everything you just wrote right above is nothing but the repetition of the doctrines of the theory of evolution, and we are far away from that, we are not discussing the doctrines but the facts. And, you have said a lot but you have not showed a single fact.

Sorry, natural selection has been observed, both in the lab and out. It is the mechanism of evolution. To deny this, or say it’s a “no no” is simply to display ignorance.

Frankly it seems like you should start by reading some introductory information on evolution. For example, start HERE.

More evidence HERE.

More reasoning HERE. HERE is a list of observed speciation events. HERE are some more.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2007 06:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
mckenzievmd - 05 August 2007 05:19 PM

1)- the mechanisms which made an ape like creature to become a human like creature.

2)- Your mechanisms must be able to be tested by the requirements of the scientific method.

3)- Accumulation of fossils and interpretations of their order won’t validate your position, only a valid mechanism.

4)- If the theory of evolution lacks of the required mechanism, this theory still invalid.

Well, I am a biologist, and I can say that the questions are virtually meaningless, and they don’t lead anywhere near the conclusion you reach.

1) I don’t know what you mean by “human like” and “apelike.” The specific genetic differences are very easy to identify, and since the human genome project is complete, and there are people working on other ape genomes, soon it will be possible to give a precise set of differences at the genetic level.

What I mean is for you my dear biologist to show the naked evidence that a creature having ape characteristics can become a creature having human like characteristics.

I said before that the amount of genetic sharing is not a single evidence that humans and apes are related as members of the same family, that is the way “you” have catalogued, not me, because I don’t see by any means the familiar relationship.

So, as we disagree in the way “you” have catalogued humans and apes as members of the same family, lets go now to facts. According to Evolution, in the past we, humans, were ape-like creatures, you see the pictures of apes catalogued as “former humans”. Then, you must show the mechanism of how that happen. What was the vehicle? It is right now any evidence that such transformation can be possible?  Of course no.

Then, without the proper evidence, the theory of Evolution still invalid. Do you understand? In order to validate the theory of evolution in the paret wi=hich corresponds to humans and apes, you must have the evidencial mechanism.

2) The mechanisms for how these genetic differences arrive are well understood, and include various kinds of deletion and translocation and insertion errors in DNA transcription, by insertion of viral or bacterial genes into germ cell DNA, by mutagenic forces such as alkylating agents, UV radiation, etc, and probably lots of others I forgot to mention.

Sheesss! you write as much as I do but you say nothing about the specific evidence about this case.

Let me show the difference between your words and evidence.

A crime happened, you came and say “to commit a crime it is required the knife of this size and the motive for this and that, and such and such.” Then, you must prove if your “factual statements” are the ones that happened in this particular crime. Well, it was found that no knife was used and no motive was found but the mistake of the attacker who confused the other person as a bear.

See? All you have said is worthless to be used as a mechanism in this case. Let me tell you how a valid mechanism can be obtained so the theory of Evolution can be validated: find an ape, do all the deletions, insertions and translocations in the DNA so the ape’s offsprings will become a more human like creature, physically, mentally and average of age.

Only then, you have finally a solid mechanism which can demonstrate that the theory of Evolution is valid. So far, in this particular case you just have bubbling a lot but you have not showed any valid point in your favor.

The phenotypic differences coded for by the genotypic differences are understood in some cases (the specific differences in, say, insulin amino acid sequence, for example) and less well-understood in other cases (e.g. the basis for specific differences in brain and subsequent behavioral characteristics). But depending on what differences you mean between humans and non-human primates, the mechanisms by which they arose are not only testable by scientific methods but have, in some cases, been tested and proven correct. And, as Doug pointed out, the process of natural; selection then increases or decreases the frequency of particular genes or gene combinations in populations in response to differential reproductive sucess, thus leading to population-level changes in phenotype.

Sheeesss! Another one repeating and repeating the doctrines of the theory of Evolution, what is Evolution for you…a religion? Why are you repeating the doctrines as your back up when the question is directed to facts and not to doctrines?

If you refuse to accept the validity of evolution without having every single step leading from say A. afarensis to modern H. sapiens sapiens elucidtaed precisely at the molecular level in the exact order they occurred and then replicating each of them in a lab with real organisms, well then you’re understanding of what constitutes proof in the scientific method is bizarre and ridiculous.

This ape can be the result of a tail in the chromosomes of a human and causes him to have ape like characteristics. What about that? So far, I can prove that by many chromosomes abnormalities -besides the Down Syndrome- humans can show ape like characteristics.

You are not showing me the same, you must be wrong with your statements because I have the factual back up for my statements and you don’t.

3&4) Fossils prove that it happened. They do not illustrate the mechanism at the genetic or biochemical level, but if they show the process of evolution as actually occuring, they are sufficient to validate that it does so. The mechanisms are of interest, and there is lots of evidence for what those might be (though you misunderstand and refuse to accept as valid many of them, such as the process as illustrated in bacteria discussed above), but evolution is not somehow invalid as an explanatgion for change in species over time just because we don’t understand every single little detail. You just don’t seem to get how science works in terms of evaluating truth claims.  And I agree with Narwhol that your understanding of basic biology and genetics doesn’t seem very accurate, so your challenges to evolution might make more sense (or disappear entirely?) if you took the trouble to teach yourself a bit more basic biology.

See? I asked specifically for the mechanism that causes an ape like creature to become a human like creature and you still “preaching” the doctrines of evolution”. Please, don’t do that.

Better for you is to say that you don’t have such mechanism at hand. Honesty will show that you are mature enough to recognize that Evolution lacks of the mechanism.

Now, I guess that years from now somebody will fake…hmmm…coff cofff cofff…somebody will find more evidence proving that the ape like creatures like the aferensis can become a human like creature by some changes in their chromosomes or whatever.

Until then, the current case about humans and apes is a dead topic for Evolution because this theiory has lots of assumptions but zero facts to prove that such transition can be possible.

Of course, in an unverified theory everything might be possible, but reality still denying to Evolution the recognition to become a valid theory.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2007 06:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  672
Joined  2007-06-17

I dispute the claim that you have evidence to back up your theory.  You haven’t presented any whatsoever.  Look at the links Doug found - I didn’t read them all, but the last one has plenty of detail about speciation.  The mechanism in which two diploid gametes form a polyploid gamete is actually shown in one of the references.

 Signature 

http://web.mac.com/normsherman/iWeb/Site/Podcast/833F918B-485B-42F4-B18C-4AB1436D9B87.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2007 07:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
narwhol - 05 August 2007 05:43 PM

Now, I’m going to get quite cross now.  Stars can produce heavier elements in their later stages of fusion.  Really heavy stars become supernovae. And, you have not shown any link between this and how animal species behave.  And, you haven’t gone out and read up on the mechanisms of speciation and looked at the diagrams and evidence and examples in which this has actually happened.  And you didn’t show me in a different post how a human can show ape-like behaviour (aside of the apelike ignorance you have displayed.

Lol, I love your sense of humor, it reminds me my dog. Before going to your diagrams and charts made in base of assumptions, lets go to the specifics which can be proved by factual observation. Remember that everytime a species is adapted to a new environment will gain and lose characteristics. There is no exception for this “rule of nature”.

You still don’t get it even when you yourself have got the basic point that supernovas indeed produce new heavy elements and that these heavy elements can be recycled only by new stars and planets. Never better more complex or superior, always worst, more simpler anbd inferior.

Lets go for the relationship of the supernovas event with life, because both belong to the physical universe.

The cosmos is showing that the process is a direction pointing to decay, we don’t see it improving alone, there is always a gain and lose of characteristics without exception.

We have the same with living creatures, the first formed creatures will enjoy greater strenght or capacity of survival than the offsprings, unless strong factors do the opposite, but, so far, there is no a single evidence that such factor happened, at least with the species on earth.

Lets see the example with the whale.  The whale had legs and such legs were strong enough to carry her weight while the whale was surviving on land. Who knows what happened in the environment but the whale’s place of living changed, now the whale lives in the water, and the whale has no legs anymore.

“That is evolution” claimed the ignorant, “because the whale has adapted very well in the water, and now has new characteristics like the sonar to check things around, plus her diet is verey good, full of proteins!

“That is an adaptation only” claimed the wise, “because the whale cannot go back to land and survive without legs to transport such a body, plus the whale’s sonar won’t work in dry land”.

So, the change in the whale were caused by the agents of the new environment, not so by the whale itself. Then, the whale has not adapted because it was the whale’s will, but the whale has been adapted by the new environment, this is to say, this is not an action made by the whale but an action made by the environment.

Is anything where you want to disagree about this? If you do, please be specific with your disagreement.

 

What surprises me about all this is: I went out to visit my great uncle today.  When I was there, he was talking about his cousin whose funeral he had gone to in the week.  He talked about her leukemia being of the same type that kiled another family member and discussed in detail the way it worked.  He talked about phagocytes and platelets and was very erudite on the subject- even told me a few things I didn’t know.  Now, this man is coming up to a hundred years of age in a couple of years.  He comes from a rural backwater of Ireland and is a retired catholic priest!  And what amazes me is the fact that he can talk about scientific stuff in a much more reasoned manner than you can.  Don’t you find that a bit odd too?

Yes, I do. So far he is proving my point that offsprings are weaker after each generation…he is so smart and you don’t…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2007 07:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  672
Joined  2007-06-17

You’re actually not reading my replies at all.  I said that stars do indeed produce heavier elements I didn’t say anything about recycling, that was you.  I don’t get what you are saying about “improving” (by what measure?) or “gain and loss of characteristics” (define what characterstics you are using to characterise the universe) .  As to the first formed creatures being stronger - what the devil are you talking about?  What? They’re able to lift heavier weights? Define please.  There is plenty of evidence that the environment has changed significantly on pretty much every landmass on earth strong factors have altered habitats enormously.  The whale had variation in the species from animals that were very well adapted to surviving on land to animals that were less well adapted.  These latter individuals fared better when the environment changed and the land adapted animals were less well adapted and fared worse.  Gradually, the mutations that produced the individuals better adapted to marine living increased by multiple beneficial adaptations being passed on.  They didn’t suddenly appear when the whale’s environment changed; these adaptations were there in the land living creatures too.  And the individuals that passed on their genes were less well adapted to living on land, just as the land adapted ones were less well adapted to living in the sea (and such “weak” (if you want to put it in those terms) individuals died off).  Given that the land adapted whales from the original population died off I’d hardly say they were stronger.  As to the whale being able to walk on land again, it may happen one day in the future, who knows.  But if it does, it will take millions of years of very gradual change before it happens just as the marine adaptation did.  Also, the whale population has adapted itself to the environment because there were no individuals that were as adapted to the marine environment as the whales we know today.  Some individuals within the populations had one or two of these adaptations and they interbred with others who had one or two others of the adaptations that we see in whales today and eventually, we got individuals who had the full gamut of useful adaptations through this process recurring.  But, those adaptations were there all along albeit less equally distributed in the original population. 

And as to me not being smart, I think my publication record and my PhD speak for themselves on that one.  What are your qualifications?  And if they ewre obtained in a baptist seminary (as I currently suspect), be sure to flush them after you finished using them.

 Signature 

http://web.mac.com/normsherman/iWeb/Site/Podcast/833F918B-485B-42F4-B18C-4AB1436D9B87.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2007 08:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 73 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4071
Joined  2006-11-28

Conquer,

Congratulations, you have conquered. You are immune to evidence and argument, you clamor for facts but believe none and offer none, and in short your claims about evolution and your purported logic are gibberish. The only dogmatist here is you, unwilling to make any effort to understand an idea you have clearly rejected a priori. I know a hopeless case when I see one, so I leave the field to you.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2007 11:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 74 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
mckenzievmd - 04 August 2007 01:20 PM

I have to concur with Narwhol that a lot of what you are saying makes no sense. Evolution is the process of species gradually changing over time. You are the one who insists on the notion of “progress.” The mechanism of evolution is natural variation and natural selection leading to differential reproduction based on environmental conditions. It really isn’t complicated.

Tell me truth, what do you understand for “evolution” in a general term. like a layman language? And, what do you understand about the same word “evolution” as a technical world which belongs to Biology?

This is not about semantics but this is about speaking properly the English language. After we check the “different” meanings of the word “evolution” (the layman term and the Biological term) we will continue with your point that this “is not complicated”. I can tell you that yes indeed, this is more complicated to what you believe is at this moment.

“Complexity in the process of information not int he organisms?” I have no idea what that means. “Complex” is a fairly straightforward word, meaning more parts and a greater number of relationships between parts and relationships between parts that are more intricate. Denying that eukaryotes are more complex than prokaryotes is, again, just refusal to accept the obvious when it contradicts your preconceptions.

To do the same work with or without a nucleus won’t make you more complex, on the contrary, it can make you more complicated by the fact to carry more intermediated parts to do the same job.

You dismiss the fossil record, but you are wrong to do so. The evidence from fossils and molecular genetics and carbon dating all agree, so you’re just being stubborn by pretending it doesn’t actually make a solid case.

To say general phrases won’t give you the reason, take your time and lets go to specifics, I can tell you from now that you are another victim of the illusions of others. Lets see with your examples if no errors are found in the method used, if you are correct you can show the next point. I really want to check one by one every example of yours. You can see that I reply with more and more information to back up my point to every question made by others, I do not evade questions, I do indeed try to answer the best I can to support my point with factual evidence. Mostly, the information given by me is not in base of any theory but in the observations themselves. So, it will be very healthy if you avoid the links full of theorical bubbling about Evolution and go straight to the tests and observations. If the tests are made by an impartial party…the better.

The mechanisms by which microorganisms change in response to environmental pressures, such as an tibiotics or host resistance, are well-understood. They were predicted by evolutionary theory and, when elucidated, fit it perfectly. Your cague and confusing statements about this and rabbit coat color changes don’t really say anything to explain this away.

Yes, I explained the mechanism which is a losing of information caused by the effects of the drugs that makes the bacterium to have a change in her structure, not so because the bacterium does the change in purpose to protect itself from the drug’s effects.

You claim birth defects are the same as inheritance of acquired characteristics. Completely wrong.

Sigh* Look at this woman who was born with the defect of lose fingers. Check as well her offsprings who were born with the same birth defect. Compare this family with the T-Rex atrophied arms and losing of fingers. What now?

100_1394.jpg

The trouble with breeding CHihuahuas and Great Danes has nothing to do with living in different environments. Put simply, the relevant parts don’t fit together. This is because selection for different body types by humans has gradually led to changes in structure, encoded by genes and transmitted to offspring.

How humans are mixed here with the Chihuahuas?  I just responded to the assumption that some dogs of different class cannot interbreed because evolution says this and that, and I said “Peanuts! because lions and tigers can interbreed without problems.

Classic example of evultion except with an artificial selection pressure. Your comments about horses are also ill-informed and irrelevant. Currently horses are domesticated, and yes their ability to survive in a wild environment is as doubtful as that of the Chihuahua. But the species existed, survived, and evolved from ancestral forms long before domestication, so it is a perfect example despite your insistence on misunderstanding it.

See? Now you are comparing horses with Chihuahuas…are you Mexican? Look, horses have the limited capability to assimilate 25% of their digested food. If you have a famine and you have a cow and a horse, the chances are that the cow will survive better because the cow assimilates 75% of the digested food.  After the horse die because there is not enough food to keep it alive, you and the Chihuahua will eat it having a BBQ. Check our history, since millenniums back we have domesticated the horses and we have kept hem alive by taking care of their food, otherwise the famines should put to extinction to the horse long ago. I still thinking that because this poor capability of assimilation of the horse, this species went extincted in America while the buffalo survived.

All of this amounts to say that we cannot even debate the merits of evolutionary theory because you make vague assertions which ignore well-demonstrated scientific facts and then claim you’ve somehow invalidated evcolutionary theory.

A well demonstrate scientific fact will be the mechanism which make an ape to become a human like creature, and you lack of this essential scientific evidence. The rest of the asumed evidence collected by evolutionists can explain anything but a real evolutionary process.

It sure seems like you have a pre-conception about how the idea must be wrong, and you interpret whatever you hear in a way to confirm this bias.

Lets use these same words of yours on you. See? you can be found also by having pre-conceptions because you believe different to what I believe. So, in order to find out who is supporting a more accurate statement or theory, lets go to specifics and check about it.

I don’t know what your educational background is, but as a professional biologist I can say you haven’t shown a very accurate understanding of actual scientific facts in the field of biology in your posts.

I have discussed with professionals physicists asking for the factual evidence of the physical existence of time so we can be sure that time flows and dilates. What a waste! No one of them showed up with the scientific evidence. Who is daddy now?

So, regardless of your degrees here or there, what it counts in a debate is what statement is more accurate and goes closer to what is reality.  I’m not interested at all about who you are and how many dregrees you have reached, if you don’t support your statements with factual evidence, you are found incorrect and your statements are considered as false. Simple as that.

I’m happy to have a debate about evolution, but you need to make clear statements that are coherent and consistent with the facts you claim to care about before we can, and that hasn’t happened yet.

I do also, and I see that as a biologists your work is very poor, you seem to show great knowledge about the Evolution theory but your statements fail when the required scientific evidence to prove the mechanisms are asked to you.

[ Edited: 05 August 2007 11:28 PM by conquer ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 August 2007 12:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 75 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
narwhol - 05 August 2007 06:33 PM

I dispute the claim that you have evidence to back up your theory.  You haven’t presented any whatsoever.  Look at the links Doug found - I didn’t read them all, but the last one has plenty of detail about speciation.  The mechanism in which two diploid gametes form a polyploid gamete is actually shown in one of the references.

Yes I did it. First he gave as a link to Wikipedia, well…no comments.

Oh yes, lets do a comment about his first links. Check this part, the article try to show that evolution mostly mean more additions, greater size and a little lose. Read it:

Increase in size (from 0.4 m to 1.5 m);
Lengthening of limbs and feet;
Reduction of lateral digits;
Increase in length and thickness of the third digit;
Increase in width of incisors;
Replacement of premolars by molars; and
Increases in tooth length, crown height of molars.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution)

Uuuuhhh (I scare myself)

What a great fantasy! No doubt that this degradation of what is true is a natural event in humans and our natural degeneration. Yes indeed, we are more weaker than our former generations.

Lets see,

1)- Increase in size. There is nothing evolutionary in this, we have small horses as well, so this idea is void.

2)- Lenghtened of limbs and feet. Hmmm, you have half of one in your favor, the monodaxctyl horse has a big toe almost taking space of the whole foot, and in proportions it can be said that the horse enjoy of a greater sole toe, not of a greater foot.

3)- Reduction of lateral digits. Reduction? Come one, the other digits are gone!  Do you understand? the other digits are “absent”. I take the advantage.

4)- Increase in length and thickness of the third digit; Hmmm Damn! lets give you the credit because it can be interpreted that way as well.

5)- Increase in width of incisors; Lol… Lets see. the hipparion had “larger incisors”, plus the canines were present in both sexes while the canines are absent in today’s female horses.

6)-Replacement of premolars by molars; Lets accept it because we must be fair with our review.

7)- Increases in tooth length, crown height of molars.  Lol, this is an unnecessary repetition, the author of this article is confused about size as evolution.

So far, more losing than gain.

So, there is more, the former horses had functional digits plus prominent ectostylids on the lower permanent cheeck teeth.

If you compare the former horse with the current one you clearly can check that by complexity (or what you understand for this word), the former horse was more complex and the current one is more simple.

Why the changes? Evolution? Come on! Be real. The former horse didn’t live in the planes as the current horses do. The environment changed and forced the changes in the horse. The horse adquired few characteristics and lose other ones. This is known as “adaptation” but it is wrongly called as “evolution”.

Now well, it is clear that the intentions of the author of the article in Wikipedia is trying hard to sell the theory of Evolution, but, sorry, reality is different to what his intentions are, because degeneration of the species is not a synonymous of evolutionary steps.

Only dreams like X-men or similar imaginations can reach the idea that evolution indeed happens, because in those fantasies those men adquire new characteristics without losing other ones.

If we made a new film with X-Men based in reality, this is to say, based in how nature works in reality, we should see the mutants as capable to fly but having as well atrophied hands and tiny legs.

This is how nature works and there is not any evolution involved in it.

[ Edited: 06 August 2007 12:45 AM by conquer ]
Profile
 
 
   
5 of 11
5