Intelligent Design stomps all others.

[Ibanez]

My appendix isn't necessary. Our teeth have evolved. Our bodies, hair and skin have evolved. Why?












Aliens AND evolution.




But mostly aliens

[grizzaholic]

But which aliens?

[JMU DJ]

[JohnStOnge]

And you may have gotten me on that one, but what I'm trying to say is that we can't scientifically postulate anything that we can't prove wrong.

Sure you can. For instance: I wrote about the part of evolutionary theory holding that populations of multicellular organisms arose from populations of single celled organisms. It could never be conclusively proven that did not or can not occur. But it might be possible to prove that it can occur. Someone, someday, may design an experiment in which that happens. They may say, "I predict that under these conditions this population of single celled organisms will give rise to a population of multicellular organisms." And if they create the conditions and what they predicted happens they will have succeeded. Maybe it might take an experiment that spans generations. But it might happen.

What you're basically describing is the philosophy of falsifiability being necessary. And I don't think it is. I completely disagree with that outlook. Science, I think, is about inferring and supporting the affirmative. And if you don't achieve that you just say that the affirmative hasn't been shown.

I once saw an illustration of the falisiability doctorine in which a person wrote about a theory that there were little green men on the dark side of the moon but every time we tried to find them they hid. The author said that since it was impossible to prove that there were no little green men on the dark side of the moon...to falsify the theory...that it couldn't be a theory.

But, to me, that's not how science works. In science, it would be up to the person who thinks there are little green men on the other side of the moon to show that they are indeed there. And if he can't show that they are indeed there then we do not proceed as though they are there.

On the other hand, if some day he DOES show that they are there, how can we say what he's shown is not valid just because it wasn ot possible to show that they were NOT there.

When you really think about it, the philosophy holding that "falsifiability" is a requirement makes no sense at all.

[SeattleGriz]

SeaGriz... denies evolution, embraces birthers...

dude... I've got some great bargains from my friends at Amway you really need to take advantage of...

SeaGee - this is almost as embarrassing to watch as JoltinJoe get kicked around the place. Give it up.

If you have been following what I have been saying, this paper reinforces that. It is the beginning of the end for evolution as we know it - not enough empirical data to support it. Not saying it will be gone, but as it stands now, it is not sufficient.

Been saying that all along in this thread. While I may be wrong on the Intelligent Design portion, I am right in that evolution is not "beefy" enough.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Abstract

We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes. We go on to discuss two conceptual issues: whether natural selection can be the “creative factor” in a new, more general framework for evolutionary theorizing; and whether in such a framework organisms must be conceived as self-organizing systems embedded in self-organizing ecological systems.

[youngterrier]

SeaGee - this is almost as embarrassing to watch as JoltinJoe get kicked around the place. Give it up.

If you have been following what I have been saying, this paper reinforces that. It is the beginning of the end for evolution as we know it - not enough empirical data to support it. Not saying it will be gone, but as it stands now, it is not sufficient.

Been saying that all along in this thread. While I may be wrong on the Intelligent Design portion, I am right in that evolution is not "beefy" enough.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Abstract

We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes. We go on to discuss two conceptual issues: whether natural selection can be the “creative factor” in a new, more general framework for evolutionary theorizing; and whether in such a framework organisms must be conceived as self-organizing systems embedded in self-organizing ecological systems.

<facepalm>

[citdog]

SO WHY HAVEN'T MONKEYS CONTINUED TO MAGICALLY TURN INTO HUMAN BEINGS AGAIN?

[Vidav]

[SeattleGriz]

If you have been following what I have been saying, this paper reinforces that. It is the beginning of the end for evolution as we know it - not enough empirical data to support it. Not saying it will be gone, but as it stands now, it is not sufficient.

Been saying that all along in this thread. While I may be wrong on the Intelligent Design portion, I am right in that evolution is not "beefy" enough.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

<facepalm>

It is what I have been saying all along in this thread. As our science of the cell gets stronger, evolution cannot hold up and will need to be changed or modified to something better.

[SeattleGriz]

Care to add to the discussion as to why my belief evolution doesn't have the firepower as is, to explain how we got from single celled organisms to the complex and diverse world we are today?

[Vidav]

Care to add to the discussion as to why my belief evolution doesn't have the firepower as is, to explain how we got from single celled organisms to the complex and diverse world we are today?

No, I have been drinking so couldn't argue my points well at all. I just posted that in response to YT's post.

[SeattleGriz]

Care to add to the discussion as to why my belief evolution doesn't have the firepower as is, to explain how we got from single celled organisms to the complex and diverse world we are today?

No, I have been drinking so couldn't argue my points well at all. I just posted that in response to YT's post.

Hell, drinking never stops me from stumbling through a response! The best ones are when you wake up and realize just how bad the reply was. Keep up the drinking good man.

[youngterrier]

And you may have gotten me on that one, but what I'm trying to say is that we can't scientifically postulate anything that we can't prove wrong.

Sure you can. For instance: I wrote about the part of evolutionary theory holding that populations of multicellular organisms arose from populations of single celled organisms. It could never be conclusively proven that did not or can not occur. But it might be possible to prove that it can occur. Someone, someday, may design an experiment in which that happens. They may say, "I predict that under these conditions this population of single celled organisms will give rise to a population of multicellular organisms." And if they create the conditions and what they predicted happens they will have succeeded. Maybe it might take an experiment that spans generations. But it might happen.

What you're basically describing is the philosophy of falsifiability being necessary. And I don't think it is. I completely disagree with that outlook. Science, I think, is about inferring and supporting the affirmative. And if you don't achieve that you just say that the affirmative hasn't been shown.

I once saw an illustration of the falisiability doctorine in which a person wrote about a theory that there were little green men on the dark side of the moon but every time we tried to find them they hid. The author said that since it was impossible to prove that there were no little green men on the dark side of the moon...to falsify the theory...that it couldn't be a theory.

But, to me, that's not how science works. In science, it would be up to the person who thinks there are little green men on the other side of the moon to show that they are indeed there. And if he can't show that they are indeed there then we do not proceed as though they are there.

On the other hand, if some day he DOES show that they are there, how can we say what he's shown is not valid just because it wasn ot possible to show that they were NOT there.

When you really think about it, the philosophy holding that "falsifiability" is a requirement makes no sense at all.

What we have here is an epistemology issue. Science doesn't deal in absolute truths, rather proven truths, and applying those truths in the real world to solve problems. For instance, microevolution is a fact because of it's use in the medical field with virus's etc is extremely accurate. As our knowledge grows we adjust our scientific knowledge accordingly. For instance, I can establish the fact that the earth revolves around the sun using astronomy and calculus, but I can't say why scientifically without expanded our understanding of the universe by using other experimentation.

For your example, scientifically, we can't say that there are LGM on the moon because there is no evidence to support the claim. If one can show evidence, it is accepted, but that evidence must be falsifiable. What's the evidence between falsifiable evidence and not-falsifiable evidence? If his evidence was that they were there, but whenever you look at it from a camera, with your eyes, or made any attempt to verify their existence they disappeared, that wouldn't be falsifiable because there's absolutely no way at which we could establish their existence outside of the perspective of one person. We can only establish something's existence using our senses and scientific equipment because all of those who have access to them can come to the same conclusions. A falsifiable claim would be saying "I can see them"and that could be verified using multiple methods. If one cannot "see them" then one could falsify the claim (assuming they aren't blind of course)

And to Griz's comment, yes we have seen new "kinds" of species. What you're postulating is that new species will look completely different from their ancestor. A Man is a new species of ape. It's not a new "kind" of ape, it's still an ape, and a subset of apes. We've shown evolution with flies and bacteria, and yes it may be a new species of fly or E Coli, but it's still a fly and E Coli, with no ability to reproduce with the cousins or ancestor. You keep saying that there is no evidence for evolution, but it's mounting. It's a no brainer why it's accepted as fact, not to sound like a dick, but you clearly just don't understand it, and you have to be trolling or just blindly misunderstading to be that ignorant. There's why PhDs aren't debating issues with what you're arguing, because they aren't issues, you just don't understand it. I think the main problem with evolution is that people misunderstand it, not that there's a flaw.

[SeattleGriz]

SO WHY HAVEN'T MONKEYS CONTINUED TO MAGICALLY TURN INTO HUMAN BEINGS AGAIN?

Because we supposed "split" from chimpanzees 6 million years ago and chimps continue to be chimps and we continue to be humans after that point. On a similar note though, they just mapped the genes of apes and it shows some real trouble with how they believe the lineage has progressed in relation to man, chimps and apes. Won't get into it here, because I discussed a different portion of the study earlier in the thread.

[youngterrier]

<facepalm>

It is what I have been saying all along in this thread. As our science of the cell gets stronger, evolution cannot hold up and will need to be changed or modified to something better.

It will hold up. And it will modify, but the theory itself and what is established as fact will not change because it's been observed and verified and put into application with positive results. Our understanding of the cell actually fortifies what is postulated already and if anything will expand our understanding of the evolutionary process.

[youngterrier]

SO WHY HAVEN'T MONKEYS CONTINUED TO MAGICALLY TURN INTO HUMAN BEINGS AGAIN?

Because we supposed "split" from chimpanzees 6 million years ago and chimps continue to be chimps and we continue to be humans after that point. On a similar note though, they just mapped the genes of apes and it shows some real trouble with how they believe the lineage has progressed in relation to man, chimps and apes. Won't get into it here, because I discussed a different portion of the study earlier in the thread.

no it doesn't

[youngterrier]

Care to add to the discussion as to why my belief evolution doesn't have the firepower as is, to explain how we got from single celled organisms to the complex and diverse world we are today?

my money is on mutation, but again I'm not an expert. Even so, my lack of answers does not refute evolution on the microscopic scale or on the macro scale. Even if it's not mutation, we'll find out one day, and the method of which that occurs will be added to the theory of evolution.

[youngterrier]

SO WHY HAVEN'T MONKEYS CONTINUED TO MAGICALLY TURN INTO HUMAN BEINGS AGAIN?

The same reason you see Crocoducks all the time!

[SeattleGriz]

And to Griz's comment, yes we have seen new "kinds" of species. What you're postulating is that new species will look completely different from their ancestor. A Man is a new species of ape. It's not a new "kind" of ape, it's still an ape, and a subset of apes. We've shown evolution with flies and bacteria, and yes it may be a new species of fly or E Coli, but it's still a fly and E Coli, with no ability to reproduce with the cousins or ancestor. You keep saying that there is no evidence for evolution, but it's mounting. It's a no brainer why it's accepted as fact, not to sound like a dick, but you clearly just don't understand it, and you have to be trolling or just blindly misunderstading to be that ignorant. There's why PhDs aren't debating issues with what you're arguing, because they aren't issues, you just don't understand it. I think the main problem with evolution is that people misunderstand it, not that there's a flaw.

I think I know where we have our disagreement. I have been trying to say that we have never seen with our eyes or in the lab, the creation of a new species and you keep bringing up examples of either a different version (breed) of the same animal, or something that we have not verified in real life (Apes to Chimps and Humans).

In particular, I look at Dr Richard Lenski who has been growing E Coli in his lab for 20 years and 50,000 generations and has never created a new species that would not be classified as E Coli. Believe me, if he had created a new species, the world would have heard about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lo ... experiment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Notice in the article that only 10-20 beneficial mutations have occurred in each strain over 50,000 generations. Even then, those beneficial mutations were dependent on environment.

[youngterrier]

And to Griz's comment, yes we have seen new "kinds" of species. What you're postulating is that new species will look completely different from their ancestor. A Man is a new species of ape. It's not a new "kind" of ape, it's still an ape, and a subset of apes. We've shown evolution with flies and bacteria, and yes it may be a new species of fly or E Coli, but it's still a fly and E Coli, with no ability to reproduce with the cousins or ancestor. You keep saying that there is no evidence for evolution, but it's mounting. It's a no brainer why it's accepted as fact, not to sound like a dick, but you clearly just don't understand it, and you have to be trolling or just blindly misunderstading to be that ignorant. There's why PhDs aren't debating issues with what you're arguing, because they aren't issues, you just don't understand it. I think the main problem with evolution is that people misunderstand it, not that there's a flaw.

I think I know where we have our disagreement. I have been trying to say that we have never seen with our eyes or in the lab, the creation of a new species and you keep bringing up examples of either a different version (breed) of the same animal, or something that we have not verified in real life (Apes to Chimps and Humans).

In particular, I look at Dr Richard Lenski who has been growing E Coli in his lab for 20 years and 50,000 generations and has never created a new species that would not be classified as E Coli. Believe me, if he had created a new species, the world would have heard about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lo ... experiment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Notice in the article that only 10-20 beneficial mutations have occurred in each strain over 50,000 generations. Even then, those beneficial mutations were dependent on environment.

Of course it wouldn't! This is really not as hard as you were making it. It's multiple different strains of E Coli=in a way a new species (E Coli is asexual if I'm not mistaken thus it can't reproduce with other E coli, so it's hard to prove if they are technically another species in the same context of sexual reproductive animals).

Take the ape for example, we are apes, we have common ancestors with monkeys in a certain primate, which is also an ape. Let's call this primate, the original ape. Say the ape has a child and that child's descendants become modern monkeys, while that original ape has another child, and that child's descendants become homo sapiens. They differentiate into a different species, but they are still apes!

In the same way, this E Coli is a different species. It's genetically different, it's still called E Coli, but it's a different strand/species. Humans and monkeys are a different strand/species of apes, but they are still apes! Your problem is purely semantics. What else would the E Coli evolve into? What would you have liked it to have evolved into to say it was evolution? E Coli is the classification of the germ, however there are different strand/species of the E Coli bacteria in the same way there are different species of apes.

To put it in another simplistic metaphor, My Father's last name is, let's say Anderson, his first name is James, and he has 2 sons. but they both have a different first name from him in John and Joe. Each individual in this metaphor represents a species. You're saying because the last name of the sons do not change to Joe Swanson and John Doe or something of the like, that the sons are still the same as their father, at least in their name. The creation of another person and another first name is a new species metaphorically. The last name won't change from the ancestor

So in this case, the original E Coli strain is the father, while the 12 different populations after 50,000 generations are the sons. They are still technically E Coli, but the strand is completely different genetically, minus a few things. Like we're 98% the same DNA as chimps (I think that's the right cousin? help me out DJ), if we were 100% we'd be the same species, but what's in the 2% is what makes us different. Our descendants are going to be different as are the chimps. The similarities between our descendants and the chimps' descendants are going to decrease as we continue to differentiate until eventually one of our descendants is going to have as much in common with the chimps' descendants as cats do with iguanas.

I've heard of experiments like this (but not to the extent of E Coli in terms of generations) have been done on flies, and it created a new species as they were unable to breed with each other. Technically, the flies were still flies and had physical similarities in appearance, but the two descendants were genetically different from each other and the original ancestor as they could not reproduce. You could say "They are still flies! That's not evolution!" but it is! Given a couple more generations of differentiation and eliminate all memory of the common ancestor and the layman (uneducated on evolution of course) would think they were 2 unrelated species of fly!

And stop saying that speciation hasn't been observed because that's just not true. In fact, they have 4 different classifications of speciation based off of observation alone ( allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

please oh please tell me you're trolling! Your last sentence fortifies evolution through natural selection for goodness sake! it's natural selection and mutation that is the driving force of evolution. Mutations don't just happen out of nowhere all the time. Environmental factors trigger mutations. Cellular biology is just complex chemistry and it's not like it just pops up and happens, there's reason and physical cause of why it does. You keep saying that cellular biology will refute evolution, but it does nothing of the sort and in fact the complete opposite, if anything it makes evolution more explainable on the cellular level by explaining the interaction of the DNA and the genome with the surrounding environmental factors such as reactions with chemicals, sunlight, oxygen, substance, etc.

[JMU DJ]

SeaGee - this is almost as embarrassing to watch as JoltinJoe get kicked around the place. Give it up.

If you have been following what I have been saying, this paper reinforces that. It is the beginning of the end for evolution as we know it - not enough empirical data to support it. Not saying it will be gone, but as it stands now, it is not sufficient.

Been saying that all along in this thread. While I may be wrong on the Intelligent Design portion, I am right in that evolution is not "beefy" enough.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Abstract

We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes. We go on to discuss two conceptual issues: whether natural selection can be the “creative factor” in a new, more general framework for evolutionary theorizing; and whether in such a framework organisms must be conceived as self-organizing systems embedded in self-organizing ecological systems.

This paper supports evolution, just suggest that Darwin's theory may not stand. You seem to be functioning in a world of concrete ideas that never change and I hope you do realize that in the scientific community, people challenge theories and ideas. There was a good commercial a year or so ago that stated "what if we just settled for the first thing that came along?" We'd be stuck with DC power and Phonographs.

I did enjoy the thoughts on Junk DNA however.

Care to add to the discussion as to why my belief evolution doesn't have the firepower as is, to explain how we got from single celled organisms to the complex and diverse world we are today?

This paper examined how single cell algae can form multicellular groups (up to 50,000) where the cells then developed into specific cell lineages, such as germ cell lines.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/ ... 6.abstract" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You may not be able to link to that, but here's a write up in the NYT about how single cellular yeast can form multicellular groups:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/scien ... -body.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Here's another about social communication between a single cellular parasite that results in multicelluar colonies. This one is open access, so you should have no problem checking out the sweet videos in the supporting information section that show how these single cells cooperate with each other.
http://www.plospathogens.org/article/in ... at.1000739" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Lawyered.

[youngterrier]

If you have been following what I have been saying, this paper reinforces that. It is the beginning of the end for evolution as we know it - not enough empirical data to support it. Not saying it will be gone, but as it stands now, it is not sufficient.

Been saying that all along in this thread. While I may be wrong on the Intelligent Design portion, I am right in that evolution is not "beefy" enough.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This paper supports evolution, just suggest that Darwin's theory may not stand. You seem to be functioning in a world of concrete ideas that never change and I hope you do realize that in the scientific community, people challenge theories and ideas. There was a good commercial a year or so ago that stated "what if we just settled for the first thing that came along?" We'd be stuck with DC power and Phonographs.

I did enjoy the thoughts on Junk DNA however.

Care to add to the discussion as to why my belief evolution doesn't have the firepower as is, to explain how we got from single celled organisms to the complex and diverse world we are today?

This paper examined how single cell algae can form multicellular groups (up to 50,000) where the cells then developed into specific cell lineages, such as germ cell lines.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/ ... 6.abstract" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You may not be able to link to that, but here's a write up in the NYT about how single cellular yeast can form multicellular groups:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/scien ... -body.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Here's another about social communication between a single cellular parasite that results in multicelluar colonies. This one is open access, so you should have no problem checking out the sweet videos in the supporting information section that show how these single cells cooperate with each other.
http://www.plospathogens.org/article/in ... at.1000739" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Lawyered.

at the picture

this thread screams:
[youtube][/youtube]

[youngterrier]

by the way, for a semi-bump, I'll address the "junk DNA," that was brought up earlier, but only because I read something about it earlier today.

95% of our DNA is meaningless, but only in the sense that, if it mutates, it does nothing abnormal genetically. For example, it's like this word is the DNA, and this word is the mutation. The "message" sent, is still "word" and the fact that it's written differently does not take away from the message. In a sense, it absolutely doesn't matter if 95% of your DNA mutate, because it will not change everything. That's why it is "junk DNA," as you call it. It's not useless as much as it is insignificant in heredity. If anything, that's kind of counter-intuitive to a intelligent design if you ask me.

[SeattleGriz]

by the way, for a semi-bump, I'll address the "junk DNA," that was brought up earlier, but only because I read something about it earlier today.

95% of our DNA is meaningless, but only in the sense that, if it mutates, it does nothing abnormal genetically. For example, it's like this word is the DNA, and this word is the mutation. The "message" sent, is still "word" and the fact that it's written differently does not take away from the message. In a sense, it absolutely doesn't matter if 95% of your DNA mutate, because it will not change everything. That's why it is "junk DNA," as you call it. It's not useless as much as it is insignificant in heredity. If anything, that's kind of counter-intuitive to a intelligent design if you ask me.

Yeah, sorry for no reply. The wife and kids had the computer all day and I was trying to read through JUMDJ's links and figure them out, to see if I had any rebuttal.

As to your claim, I don't think I can fully agree that the portions of our DNA that don't code (junk) for a protein, can withstand a change in their makeup and still work effectively. I say I don't think, because that for sure would take some serious science work to verify whether the statement is true or not.

That junk DNA's job is to make sure the nonjunk DNA is expressed properly, when it should be expressed, and turned off when needed.

To put it another way. Let's say you make a change to the junk DNA and that junk DNA's job is to make sure your tumor suppressor gene(s) are expressed properly. Well, if that junk DNA cannot do it's job, your tumor suppressor genes can't do what they need to do and you run a much higher risk of getting cancer.

I have no idea whether that is the case in my example, but just trying to give you an idea of what the junk is supposed to be doing.

What is absolutely fascinating about our DNA and RNA is the fact that each different amino acid has a different charge and it folds upon itself like a bunch of multi-charged magnets would do. The shape it makes is paramount to it's effectiveness. Change one amino acid and it might not look exactly the same and then won't be able to bind to DNA and do what it needs to do.

Good article from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 66_pf.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Cap'n Cat]

SeaGee. You're out of your league.