Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 3,288 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,877,436
Pageviews Today: 2,713,995Threads Today: 793Posts Today: 15,476
08:15 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

"100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID!"

 
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
12/10/2012 10:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID!"
It's a good question. But don't expect to ever get a good answer.

Think about it, for every beneficial mutation becoming fixated in the population and progressing towards a new body plan, you had the rest of that population diverging into another evolutionary direction.

Where are all the fossils of dead-end designs that didn't work out?
How about a failed reproductive system that started out good but led to major detriments?

There is nothing like that. All we find are the same perfect designs. Extinctions always being due to some catastrophic event. Random Mutation and SuperNatural Selection somehow knew the right avenues to take every time.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


Show me a living trilobite.



Okay...maybe you didn't mean "successful organisms" but there again is where your error lies.

How does a species get into the fossil record? By dying in large numbers; large enough so one or two will be preserved, AND will be recovered by scientists. Those are pretty long odds. It is actually a surprise just how many hominid fossils we've managed to turn up, for instance.

So any mutation or series of mutations that led to an extremely sickly, poorly-breeding, or otherwise grossly unfit offshoot of a viable species would lead to...natural selection editing that experiment out before it got numerous enough to be part of the fossil record.

That said, there are plenty of examples of less-than-wonderful adaptations. Ones that were either neutral enough to be kept, or that were too tightly tied to necessary adaptations to allow them to be separated out and dropped.



Oh, and you mischaracterize extinction events. A meteorite doesn't come down and individually bonk each dinosaur on the head. Instead it changes the environment enough so some species thrive...and others do not.
Spittin'Cesium

User ID: 14589973
United Kingdom
12/10/2012 11:10 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID!"
It's a good question. But don't expect to ever get a good answer.

Think about it, for every beneficial mutation becoming fixated in the population and progressing towards a new body plan, you had the rest of that population diverging into another evolutionary direction.

Where are all the fossils of dead-end designs that didn't work out?
How about a failed reproductive system that started out good but led to major detriments?

There is nothing like that. All we find are the same perfect designs. Extinctions always being due to some catastrophic event. Random Mutation and SuperNatural Selection somehow knew the right avenues to take every time.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


Show me a living trilobite.



Okay...maybe you didn't mean "successful organisms" but there again is where your error lies.

How does a species get into the fossil record? By dying in large numbers; large enough so one or two will be preserved, AND will be recovered by scientists. Those are pretty long odds. It is actually a surprise just how many hominid fossils we've managed to turn up, for instance.

So any mutation or series of mutations that led to an extremely sickly, poorly-breeding, or otherwise grossly unfit offshoot of a viable species would lead to...natural selection editing that experiment out before it got numerous enough to be part of the fossil record.

That said, there are plenty of examples of less-than-wonderful adaptations. Ones that were either neutral enough to be kept, or that were too tightly tied to necessary adaptations to allow them to be separated out and dropped.



Oh, and you mischaracterize extinction events. A meteorite doesn't come down and individually bonk each dinosaur on the head. Instead it changes the environment enough so some species thrive...and others do not.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


Hello nomuse,here,have a Slug [link to blogs.ngm.com]

'Now University of South Florida biologist Sidney Pierce and colleagues report that the Atlantic-dwelling E. chlorotica filches enough plant genetics that it can churn out its own chlorophyll, the pigment that chloroplasts exhaust during photosynthesis. That means the green slug can use the sun to refuel without ever eating again.

Pierce says it’s an intriguing evolutionary shortcut: “Movement of genes between species can make big and rapid changes. Evolution doesn’t always need to wait for a mutation.” —Jennifer S. Holland' [link to blogs.ngm.com]

Now ain't that friggin' awesome!?
The thing that hath been,
is That which shall be;
and that which is done is that which shall be done:and there is no new thing under the Sun.
Ecclesiastes 9:1
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
12/11/2012 12:59 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID!"
Yah. The evolutionary tree is cross-linked -- especially near the roots.

Bacteria are promiscuous. Many plants are able to share genetic material. We ourselves have benefited from ERVs.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 18622835
United States
12/11/2012 01:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID!"
1 reason this thread is STUPID! "Christianity"
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29330683


Anti-Christian TARD.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 23223519
United States
12/11/2012 08:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID!"
yep this was precisely the point :) where are all those fossils of dead end designs?
you know what is funny? i started from 10 years old with chemistry, trying to understand how the universe works, and i invested almost 20 years in perfecting the rational mind.

and it is so funny/sad to see people parading as rational and just parroting 'truths' obtained via authority figures and blindly accepted.

if they were capable of using simple logic without being emotionally attached to 'truths' they already believe (in a religious/dogmatic way),

they would see for example the implication of the concept of random mutations, and with basic math they would see that out of 1 billion possibilities of functional body mutations only very few would be fit in the way all our evolutionary organisms are fit.

and this leads to practically zero probability of stumbling in a random way exactly upon those changes.

and the only logical conclusion is that the evolutionary process is teleologic, it has a purpose, it is driven.
the human being is a mirror of how the universe works, we are a combination of purposes that aspire us towards the future and of inertia/needs that keep us in the past.
 Quoting: andreidita


You would probably enjoy this video. It shows how if certain existing animals had gone extinct long in the past, and their fossils were found, Evos would declare that they formed part of an evolutionary transition because of their overall similarity with small variations. It's a great example of how flawed that type of thinking can be.


[link to www.youtube.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 29621183
12/11/2012 08:17 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID!"
Kent Hovind is just a con man, plain and simple.

He starts by telling truth's and little lies and then just keeps saying bigger lies, eventually the listener get brainwashed into accepting it all as truths.

Old trick used countless times before.

hfhfhf
SC
User ID: 14589973
United Kingdom
12/11/2012 08:21 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID!"
It's a good question. But don't expect to ever get a good answer.

Think about it, for every beneficial mutation becoming fixated in the population and progressing towards a new body plan, you had the rest of that population diverging into another evolutionary direction.

Where are all the fossils of dead-end designs that didn't work out?
How about a failed reproductive system that started out good but led to major detriments?

There is nothing like that. All we find are the same perfect designs. Extinctions always being due to some catastrophic event. Random Mutation and SuperNatural Selection somehow knew the right avenues to take every time.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


Show me a living trilobite.



Okay...maybe you didn't mean "successful organisms" but there again is where your error lies.

How does a species get into the fossil record? By dying in large numbers; large enough so one or two will be preserved, AND will be recovered by scientists. Those are pretty long odds. It is actually a surprise just how many hominid fossils we've managed to turn up, for instance.

So any mutation or series of mutations that led to an extremely sickly, poorly-breeding, or otherwise grossly unfit offshoot of a viable species would lead to...natural selection editing that experiment out before it got numerous enough to be part of the fossil record.

That said, there are plenty of examples of less-than-wonderful adaptations. Ones that were either neutral enough to be kept, or that were too tightly tied to necessary adaptations to allow them to be separated out and dropped.



Oh, and you mischaracterize extinction events. A meteorite doesn't come down and individually bonk each dinosaur on the head. Instead it changes the environment enough so some species thrive...and others do not.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


Hello nomuse,here,have a Slug [link to blogs.ngm.com]

'Now University of South Florida biologist Sidney Pierce and colleagues report that the Atlantic-dwelling E. chlorotica filches enough plant genetics that it can churn out its own chlorophyll, the pigment that chloroplasts exhaust during photosynthesis. That means the green slug can use the sun to refuel without ever eating again.

Pierce says it’s an intriguing evolutionary shortcut: “Movement of genes between species can make big and rapid changes. Evolution doesn’t always need to wait for a mutation.” —Jennifer S. Holland' [link to blogs.ngm.com]

Now ain't that friggin' awesome!?
 Quoting: Spittin'Cesium


Yah. The evolutionary tree is cross-linked -- especially near the roots.

Bacteria are promiscuous. Many plants are able to share genetic material. We ourselves have benefited from ERVs.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


Pretty incredible that this Slug is actively 'stealing' Genetic Code for Chloroplasts from Algae without any symbiosis at all.

If a Slug can do that,well...wow.
ST In BG
User ID: 29371505
United States
12/11/2012 08:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID!"
Greetings:

Sigh .... Try "Interventionism" ... Rather Then "Evolution" ... Rather Then "Creationism" !!

Yes !! ... It Was US/WE ... Those That Are Not From/Of Terra/Earth ... Who Originally Seeded It ... Gave It Life On The Surface !!

It Was US/WE ... Who Like A Gardener ... Who Tilled The Soil ... Planted The "Crops" ... Weeded/Removed The Ones Which Didn't Fare Well/Adapt ... Planted New/Altered Ones !!

It Was US/WE ... That Did These Things !! ... And Of This ... Of Our Creations ... Our Genetic Adapations ... Of Species Taken From Other Worlds ... Changed For The Environments Of Terra/Earth ... We Did All These Things !! ... And Over "Time" ... The Species Took Hold ... They Themselves Adapted/Changed ... To Meet & Blend ... With Changing Plantary Conditions ... Of This Then ... Of Their Own Changing ... (A Factor Encoded In Their Genes) ... That You Refer To As "Evolution" !!

As To "Creationism" ... There Was No "God" ... No "Religious Fictional "Miracle" ... That Created/Seeded Life On Terra/Earth !! ... It Was Of US/WE ... Beings Not From Your World !! ... Beings Who Have The Knowledge Of Highly Advanced Sciences ... Of Ones That Understand The Processes Of Life !! ... Ones That Have Seeded ... That Have Brought Life To Many Planets ... Many Bodies In Space !! ... Many Worlds ... Many Galaxies ... Many Many Universes !!

Ones That Understand The Formation Of Worlds ... Of Planetary Systems ... & How To Go About Creating These !! ... & From These ... Multi Systems ... Each & To Each Other ... Unique & Different ... Yet All Part Of The Whole & Connected !!

It Is US/WE ... Who Are Your Makers ... Your Creator Beings ... Your "Creators" !! ... Not Some Invention/"Belief" That You Have Made ... To Make You Feel Comfortable ... Or To Passify Your Own Fears ... Or Comfort Your Lonelyness Of Being !!

Your Sciences & Scientists On Terra/Earth ... Are Yet Of An Infant & Infantile State ... Professing They Know ... They Understand ... The Meanings Of The Universes !! ... They Know Little To Nothing ... Of How Things Are ... Of How They Function !! ... They Do Not Even Understand Very Basic Thought ... Such As The Planet That They Reside On ... Is A Living & Thinking Entity !! ... A Living Organism !! ... It Is These "Scientists" On Terra/Earth ... You Go To For Your Answers !!

One Day Though ... You Will "Grow Up" ... Beyond That Of Your Temporary Terrestrial Shells/Bodies ... Beyond That Of Being "Human" ... Then You Will Learn ... As You Will Be With US/WE ... & You Will Be Taught ... Of How Things Actually Are !! ... Until Then ... !!

Farewell For Now !!

ST In BG
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 23223519
United States
12/11/2012 10:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID!"
Nonsense. Gravity is testable, measurable, and repeatable. It is utter foolishness to compare observable phenomena to a historical claim of animals mutating into other animals over millions of years of culled genetic accidents.

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


Nope. It is easy to propose alternates to universal gravitation. For instance; Intelligent Falling. Let us propose that googillians of invisible tiny angels are at work racing to every individual object on Earth, and dragging it downwards with all the power of their tiny undetectable wings.

Prove that isn't so. You can't.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183



Stupid. For this comparison, the causal agent (design or nature) is irrelevant in both gravity and biodiversity. The point is that the observed phenomena of what we call Gravity can be measured, tested, and repeated.


Less facetiously, we don't entirely understand gravity. The current theory revolves around the Higgs Field, but the Higgs itself is only a couple sigmas in to being reliably detected. There is PLENTY of margin for error in our current understanding of the nature of mass and gravitational attraction.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183




When did I say our understanding of gravity was perfect? We could be way off. That's not the point. What we do know can be measured, tested, and repeated.


There is also margin of error in every other scientific field. We may be wrong about the photometric effect, we may be wrong about the nature of pressure in a gas. What we have, in all cases, is a statistical likelihood. And evolutionary biology is no different.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183



No, in physics we have measurable, testable, and repeatable phenomena. We have this in Biology as well, but certainly nothing that amounts to an evolutionary explanation for biodiversity.

And if you want to get down to the nuts and bolts, it will be revealed over and over again that Evolution is based on a mountain of historical claims and assumptions and not empirical evidence. When we get into the lab, we see no evidence of an evolutionary mechanism that explains the advent of body plans.



Perhaps the idea of common descent is a little less demonstrated and a little less tested than the wave/particle nature of light. But even if you were to argue that, it is a far, far, far, far, far way from that to stating that we are blindly guessing about the former.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


Perhaps? A little less? Uh no. It's night and day, nomuse, and you know it.

And now we're talking about Common Descent, which can be totally separated from the belief in Random Mutation+Natural Selection. (the central dogma of Evolution)

Some Design theories are based around Common Descent. Other evolutionists have proposed Natural Genetic Engineering to compensate for the obvious shortcomings of RM-NS to produce novel complexity.

Common Descent via Darwinian Evolution on the other hand? Total speculation.


The fossil record shows consistent gaps between major body plans. Every major biological structure appears suddenly, from insects to feathers to feet to vertabrates to reproduction, circulatory, nervous systems, to eyeballs, brains, etc. etc. everything.

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


There are major gaps in your reading.

There are elements of development we are less sure about. They are not grouped in any consistent way. They don't cluster in some convenient point of development or at some convenient era.

And most of your examples are wrong. We've charted the formation of the mammal foot all the way from the first limb buds. We've charted the formation of the notochord and the first spine. We've charted the evolution of the mammalian heart. I just last month read yet another paper on the evolution of the feather.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


You mean you've charted the foot all the way to the first foot, and the notochord to the formation of the first notochord. Feathers from scales is a joke. They simply appear on microraptors, and in birds like archeopteryx way before that. And there's strong evidence for fully formed bird wings in the Triassic, even. Evos don't have a clue.

Oh well, those lobe fins sure do look close to feet, don't they? Then you find the biomechanics of Icthyostega legs wouldn't even let it walk on land, and then advanced tetrapod trackways show up 20 million years before Tiktaalik.


Molecular phylogeny splits identical morphology into independent lineages, forcing evolutionists to dream up baseless, unsubstantiated models like 'convergent evolution', stating the exact same creatures must have evolved over and over again. There is no consistency between protein mapping to form anything close to a uniform tree.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


Err, no.

The phytogenetic tree is identical to every other cladistic, from paleontological to mutation frequencies in non-coding parts of the gene.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


Identical? Uh, no. Every biologist who has done extensive work on the tree readily admits to repeated incongruence. Sure, similar organisms tend to line up together,(equally predicted in design by common functionality) but we do not see nearly the kind of progression and consistency predicted by gradual darwinian evolution.

When there are unexpected divergences between genes, it is attributed to an unusually high level of conservation, or vise-versa, periods of 'rapid evolution', 'stasis', etc. if it comes down to totally unpredicted genes, HGT can explain it away. There is a model for every discrepancy. It is mostly unfalsifiable beyond what we would expect of similar phenotype possessing similar genotype.

There is no animal of higher organization than a single-cell for which a shrug of "must be convergent evolution" is used to excuse physiological replication.

Let's just take fliers as a large-scale convergency. There are some five different groups of flying animals either alive today or well-represented in the fossil record. Each is unique. The closest you will get between, say, bat and bird is a certain superficial similarity. The actual structures are physiologically distinct and show origin along different paths.

Same for eyes, of which there are multiple examples each of which is in fact unique to its line of descent.

If you have a specific counter-example, I'd be entertained to hear it.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183



Burrowing lizards. Despite virtually identical morphology, genetic differences tell us they must have evolved convergently.


Experimental evidence shows the evolutionary mechanism of Random Mutation + Natural Selection to be a total failure.

50,000+ generations of E.Coli produce nothing novel. We never observe a single novel protein evolve.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


I'm sorry, but that is a clear falsehood. That is exactly what we observe. Speciation events have been observed in the laboratory. Major changes of diet and form have been observed in the laboratory. Populations are constantly changing, enough that we've been able to construct fairly accurate clocks.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


No, it is not a falsehood, and you've provided no refutation.

"Speciation" is species becoming reproductively isolated from each other. That has nothing to do with the addition of novel complexity in an organism. It can just as easily be attributed to loss of function.

"Major changes of diet and form", I'm assuming you're referring to P. Sicula here, or some other similar example. I guarantee if it's described as "rapid evolution", what that really means is it is plasticity. What do you think?

Other major changes in organisms such as Italian Wall Lizards forming cecal valves and other altered structures turn out to be a fixed response to the environment, a phenomena termed Phenotypic Plasticity. You move the lizards out, and the cecal valves recede on que. Nothing random about it at all. It is built into the organism.

Same with the Nylonase(modified Esterase) enzyme. Wild-type bacteria is shown to adapt to produce Nylonase in only 9 days, consistently. It is a fixed adaptation to the environment.

Random Mutations never produce anything novel, and Natural Selection doesn't have any material with which to create.

The foundational mechanism of Evolution is an empty vapor. It's not happening.


Evolution is little more than a Public Relations industry and a religion of supernatural materialism.


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


Now this is interesting. After showing a gross ignorance of current science, you then come up with startlingly specific examples to support your claims.

You obviously didn't find these on your own. The rest of your post demonstrates you probably do not even UNDERSTAND the references you have made.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


yawn. you really are arrogant and condescending. par for the course for religious fanatics.

And, yes, there certainly are simple movements around the built-in plasticity of an organism.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183



Uh yes. "Simple" as in Plasticity explains the totality of changes in the P. Sicula lizard, from enlarged structures to the development of cecal valves. Take them out of the environment and the changes revert on que. And that is peer-reviewed.

Conclusion: The changes are not based on any measure of random mutation or natural selection. They are direct responses to environment stimuli.

That empirical evidence won't change evos like you from prancing around proclaiming another miracle of evolution though, will it?

Ah, I get it.. Random Mutations and Natural Selection made Phenotypic Plasticity possible, right? That darn elusive RM-NS, just never wants to reveal itself in action.

But you have two huge barriers to claiming that in reference to the nylonerase examples. First is that the environment did not include nylon for a good 2 billion years. Even if you use a more ludicrous time-table, I think you would be forced to agree that there was no nylon-6 in the Garden of Eden.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


What are you ranting about? Are you alluding to the idea that the bacteria knows it is digesting a man-made synthetic material? No, it is simply modifying an enzyme in response to a changed diet.

The other, even more interesting, barrier is that THERE IS NO ALLELE FOR THIS IN FLAVOBACTIN. None. Period. It isn't in the intron, it isn't in the extron. No plasmid carries it. No other bacteria is close at hand to borrow it from (bacteria are genetically promiscuous that way). The code for that protein does not exist and to say that it is already in the genetics is a gross mischaracterization; similar to saying that, since my post here uses the 26 letters of the English language same as Shakespeare does, my post already includes Act II, scene 3 of "Hamlet, Prince of Denmark" (first folio edition).
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183



What are you ranting about? Flavobactin? Extron? Calm down. Nylonase isn't even a protein. It is a mere two amino-acid substitution in the enzyme Esterase, which already existed in wild-type Flavobacterium. Your claim that the "code for it does not exist" is complete nonsense. I'm guessing you're still under the misguided assumption that Nylonase was the result of a frameshift mutation. Check the literature.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 25559315
United States
12/11/2012 10:07 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID!"
Evolution if pure science! And we have theories to prove it. And we can alter them if we need to.
Prostetnik

User ID: 29418390
Canada
12/11/2012 10:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID!"
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 9442212


He lost my attention at "evangelist".
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 23223519
United States
12/11/2012 02:21 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID!"

[link to www.youtube.com]

Stuart Newman - professor of cell biology and anatomy

One of the members of the Altenberg 16 meetings in which the theory of the driving mechanisms of Evolution is being radically changed.

Oh of course Evolution must still be true, only the whole theory of the mechanisms that cause it have to be altered.

Yes you've been called stupid and ignorant for decades for questioning the central darwinian method of biodiversity produced by Random Mutations + Natural Selection. And now mainstream science is finally having to admit this mechanism is inadequate. They're even bringing back forms of Saltation.

non-falsifiable theory.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 25701329
Romania
12/11/2012 02:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID!"
Ok, ok, I believe you! Evolution is stupid (although I don’t know that chick)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 23223519
United States
12/11/2012 08:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID!"
In this paper, "Modern Synthesis", refers to the commonly taught evolutionary mechanism of incremental Random Mutations + Natural Selection as the primary factor for creating all of biodiversity.

Yes this is the dogma that you've been called 'stupid' and 'ignorant' for not believing in for decades. Mainstream Science is finally being forced to admit that it was a failed assumption.

What 'Soft Inheritance' refers to is Epigenetics. These are developmental changes in an individual organism that gets inherited by its offspring, that do not include genetic variations in the underlying DNA.


[link to www.somosbacteriasyvirus.com]

Soft inheritance: Challenging the Modern Synthesis

This paper presents some of the recent challenges to the Modern Synthesis of evolutionary theory, which has dominated
evolutionary thinking for the last sixty years. The focus of the paper is the challenge of soft inheritance - the
idea that variations that arise during development can be inherited. There is ample evidence showing that phenotypic
variations that are independent of variations in DNA sequence, and targeted DNA changes that are guided by
epigenetic control systems, are important sources of hereditary variation, and hence can contribute to evolutionary
changes. Furthermore, under certain conditions, the mechanisms underlying epigenetic inheritance can also lead to
saltational changes that reorganize the epigenome. These discoveries are clearly incompatible with the tenets of the
Modern Synthesis, which denied any significant role for Lamarckian and saltational processes. In view of the data
that support soft inheritance, as well as other challenges to the Modern Synthesis, it is concluded that that synthesis
no longer offers a satisfactory theoretical framework for evolutionary biology.
AllGunsBlazing

User ID: 23985283
United States
12/11/2012 08:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID!"
What does that have to do with monkeys turning into humans?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 17492600


No one ever said that monkeys turned into humans.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28902085


This!
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
12/11/2012 09:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID!"
Nope. It is easy to propose alternates to universal gravitation. For instance; Intelligent Falling. Let us propose that googillians of invisible tiny angels are at work racing to every individual object on Earth, and dragging it downwards with all the power of their tiny undetectable wings.

Prove that isn't so. You can't.



Stupid. For this comparison, the causal agent (design or nature) is irrelevant in both gravity and biodiversity. The point is that the observed phenomena of what we call Gravity can be measured, tested, and repeated.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


I was on the point of conceding this on procedural grounds; aka, the discussion has wandered so far from the original point it has become something neither of us can argue with.

But then I thought a moment.

The point of having a universal law of gravitation is that it is predictive. Mathematically predictive. If one day an astronaut brings her pet cat out on an EVA (with the appropriate attire), we would be successfully predict the orbital period of said cat around the minuscule mass of a human being. And be confident in the answer.

The evolutionary theories you disdain have the same predictive power. That's why they are in use.

Both cases are still identical in that we may be entirely mistaken -- not just about the root cause (as in, gravity is actually caused by the shoves of angels) but that it actually adheres to the model. At any moment, one of us may suddenly fly up into the sky, instantly refuting the idea that we can predict the steady gravitational attraction of our own planet. Or we may discover at the fringes of the observable universe that the values worked out for G don't add up there.

The ONLY shoe you have to stand in is that you are willing to reject certain data but accept others. That is to say; you accept allele frequency shift, and mutation, quibble on speciation, and reject beneficial mutation and common descent.

You do so because one can be demonstrated "instantaneously" -- aka the lifetime of a bacterium, easily witnessed in a lab by a patient observer.

The same caveat applied to geology, say, would hold that mountains never erode, the continents have always been in the arrangement they are today, the magnetic field has always had the same polarity, and the structure of most minerals is impossible. Because the large-scale events like the formation of mountain ranges or ocean basins -- whilst arising from processes which are observable -- are too large a scale to fit within human lifetimes or even human history. The simplest rock falls prey to this problem, as geology agrees that the processes of infusion and crystallization seen in many common minerals simply can not happen on a scale of less than millions of years.

Which means they can only be "inferred." The complete formation has never been observed.

There is also margin of error in every other scientific field. We may be wrong about the photometric effect, we may be wrong about the nature of pressure in a gas. What we have, in all cases, is a statistical likelihood. And evolutionary biology is no different.


No, in physics we have measurable, testable, and repeatable phenomena. We have this in Biology as well, but certainly nothing that amounts to an evolutionary explanation for biodiversity.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


I don't see a bright line here. Perhaps you could be more specific.

WHAT is different between, say, inferring the passage of stars across the Main Sequence, and inferring that two living organisms have a common (and extinct) ancestor?

What makes one of these "measurable, testable, repeatable" and the other "historical claims and assumptions?" What makes one of them empirical and the other not?


And if you want to get down to the nuts and bolts, it will be revealed over and over again that Evolution is based on a mountain of historical claims and assumptions and not empirical evidence. When we get into the lab, we see no evidence of an evolutionary mechanism that explains the advent of body plans.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519



I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Assuming you do, could you explain?

The closest I can come to a guess is either that you are making some remark about the explosion of body plans that appeared in the early Cambrian, or, that you are remarking on something more modern and more specific, such as the origin of snakes. (Hint...look at the HOX genes.)


Perhaps? A little less? Uh no. It's night and day, nomuse, and you know it.

And now we're talking about Common Descent, which can be totally separated from the belief in Random Mutation+Natural Selection. (the central dogma of Evolution)
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


I will agree with you there; Common Descent is very different than Natural Selection. One is the data. The other is the explanation. One is theory. The other is LAW.

The pattern of interrelationship of species, even if it is an illusion, pre-dates Darwin and is far too well established for there to be any remaining quibble about the fact. You can argue all you like that there is no "proof" Microclaenodon is an actual ancestor between Eoconodon and the mesonychids. But you can not deny the multiple lines of investigation that all confirm the apparent relationship.



Some Design theories are based around Common Descent. Other evolutionists have proposed Natural Genetic Engineering to compensate for the obvious shortcomings of RM-NS to produce novel complexity.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


There are design theories? I haven't seen one yet. Saying "Hey, it could have happened," (or, as is more usually the case among the Cdesign Propentists, "Well, YOUR way is broken, so it has to be something else") is hardly what anyone would call a functional theory.

I am reminded of what Galileo argued at one point. He said, basically "Let us assume that the solar system is in truth arranged the way Aristotle described it. However, use my arrangement to make your calculations -- it is faster and gives more accurate results."

Even if one were to drop all the philosophical level from the discourse, ID has nothing to offer. No guide to develop new experiments or new vaccines or new fossil hunts. No guide to relationships of histocompatibilities or structural similarities of possible use for organ donation. Nothing. Just a fun story for the camp fire.

Perhaps ID's time would be better spent making a functional theory first. Starting a proper science. Then they could argue for a seat at the table. Instead they seem to want to Nobel but without having to do any of the work.


You mean you've charted the foot all the way to the first foot, and the notochord to the formation of the first notochord. Feathers from scales is a joke. They simply appear on microraptors, and in birds like archeopteryx way before that. And there's strong evidence for fully formed bird wings in the Triassic, even. Evos don't have a clue.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


You may want to broaden your reading here. Your description doesn't come close to what I've seen in the literature -- and I'm talking literature from 5-10 years ago, too.

You also appear to be showing some confusion of what evolution looks like across time and across species. It isn't built on one-time innovations. There wasn't one single proto-bird that developed the first feather, and all else descends from that.

(Your later remarks in re land dwellers pre-dating tiktaalik is naught but an even better example. No. It doesn't work like that.)


Identical? Uh, no. Every biologist who has done extensive work on the tree readily admits to repeated incongruence. Sure, similar organisms tend to line up together,(equally predicted in design by common functionality) but we do not see nearly the kind of progression and consistency predicted by gradual darwinian evolution.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


Not even Darwin required change at a constant rate. And only creotards use the term "Darwinism" outside of discussions about the history of science.

I'll cop to ongoing non-congruences, because I didn't want to go into that sideline on my previous (already far too long) post. Yes; these crop up all the time.
The lie is not that they don't exist. The lie is that everyone around simply throws up their hands and decides to work around it.

I've mostly read deeply in hominid evolution, and nary a year (or a major conference, or a book, or a discovery) that there aren't shouting matches, recriminations, fist fights in the hallways (almost!) about aligning the results of one data pool with another. Studied disinterest is about as far as you can get from the correct description of how differences in the relationships revealed by, say, mitochondrial DNA versus pre-historic migration patterns are treated within the field.

They aren't left fallow. They are worked on and argued over until they are solved and accounted for.

Which means if you sift through the literature with a creationists' eyes, you will always, for any period, find unanswered questions and places where the data doesn't seem to make sense.

Because if all the data made sense and there were no more questions left, no-one would need to be working in the sciences any more. They could just write it all down in one big book and go home.

Oh, yeah. And design doesn't predict these arrangements. Because it can't predict. Because there is no characterization of the designer, and no agreement on what make up the tenants of design.

(It sure as hell ain't human design, because no human team would have done some of the things we see in even our own physiology. And, yes, it is easy to snap back that we don't know the constraints that designer was working under. But you see, that's exactly the point. A known designer with unknown constraints looks exactly like an unknown designer. And you are back to having no ability to predict based on any two examples what you may find in a third.)


When there are unexpected divergences between genes, it is attributed to an unusually high level of conservation, or vise-versa, periods of 'rapid evolution', 'stasis', etc. if it comes down to totally unpredicted genes, HGT can explain it away. There is a model for every discrepancy. It is mostly unfalsifiable beyond what we would expect of similar phenotype possessing similar genotype.



Burrowing lizards. Despite virtually identical morphology, genetic differences tell us they must have evolved convergently.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


Citation, please.

I notice you said "morphology," not "physiology." If you have found two burrowing lizards...heck, two of any lizards...with identical blood chemistry despite an otherwise well-documented evolutionary separation of millions of years, then I will happily enter the whack-job cult of your choice.

Morphology. Huh. At a gross enough scale, our morphology is identical to that of an Emperor Penguin.

See, convergent evolution doesn't proscribe against evolving a similar trait along a similar path. Species don't face a completely flat landscape, in which all choices are equally possible. They are constrained by existing biology and evolutionary history. Every tetrapod on Earth is heir to a similar skeletal structure. As much as it might be "more fit" to have a brain located below the caudal plate, the climb towards that is simply too great to be at all likely.

So two lizards, moving towards almost identical ecological niches, happen to move/fuse/drop parts of their skeletons in the same manner? Whoda thunkit!

I'm guessing here what the deep dark secret of your magic lizards are, though. So please do provide a cite. I'm honestly interested in reading it.




"Speciation" is species becoming reproductively isolated from each other. That has nothing to do with the addition of novel complexity in an organism. It can just as easily be attributed to loss of function.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


If you want to go there, sure. Species is a semantic construct. No organism on Earth ever gained or lost anything by being one of a "species." It is only the container we put them in to better understand their relationships.

For the purpose of this argument, I define speciation as the arising of a population with BOTH novel form AND an a strong disability to breed back to the original population.

And if we want to be extra careful, we'd omit bacteria as well, since species doesn't mean quite the same thing to those plasmid-swapping little guys.

Isn't goal-post dragging fun? Add enough caveats, and soon enough no possible observation will fit. Have fun with it...I don't consider it necessary to observe only in the lab, as opposed to, say, observing the natural history of the Galapagos. Or observing the fossil record.

It's the time scale again. You are demanding we show you a star forming from interstellar gas, and you won't take anything less than average density all the way through to stabilization on the Main Sequence (hint...MAMMALS haven't been around long enough to witness that!)

So we take what we can get. Novel developments that fall far short of our bacterial culture becoming a metazoan and sprouting wings to fly off the petri dish.

And what has been seen on this more human scale has been convincing to everyone but a small number of people who all have surprising commonalities in their backgrounds.



"Major changes of diet and form", I'm assuming you're referring to P. Sicula here, or some other similar example. I guarantee if it's described as "rapid evolution", what that really means is it is plasticity. What do you think?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


I think you haven't answered how you can play the game of shifts in allele frequency for something that has no allele.

I mean the flavobactin, specifically. Not familiar with your P. sicula but I'll look it up some time.

Ah. Just did. I didn't recognize the name but the story was vaguely familiar.

I assume you have something you are dying to trot out about how the cecal valves doesn't mean what it appears to mean? Otherwise I'm not sure why you brought this up. Evolution isn't steady-state. No-one I know argues it is. The mechanism doesn't require it...or support it (and now I'm trying to image an environment that changes continually at a pace defined by the ability of organisms in it to successfully adapt -- regardless of whether such adaptation is even within range.)

And pardon me for using the word "adapt." I'm not interested in having a conversation with Humpty-Dumpty here. I refuse to attempt to converse only using the limited and specific (and sometimes hidden) meanings ascribed to common terms by one individual in the discussion.


You move the lizards out, and the cecal valves recede on que. Nothing random about it at all. It is built into the organism.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


Ah, good. You did get to it. I should have simply read downwards.

Who said it had to be random? Do you actually think the fitness landscape is flat? Do you think that all evolutionary pathways are of equal cost? Do you imagine that mutations are truly random?

NONE of these things are argued within the modern synthesis. Heck...none of them were required by Darwin, writing a century earlier.

Is this really the corner you are arguing from? That only truly random events can be evolutionary, and anything that isn't random can be written off as simply "designed in?"

I think the only thing that allows you to get away with this is the time scale problem again. Every change in a species builds upon the gestalt of that species as of that moment; past evolutions, and most recent evolutions. Give it a few hundred thousand years, and each group of the now divergent species of lizards would move in different directions when presented with the same environmental pressures. Because their history is now different.

The fact that one SINGLE change is observed to happen statistically often among members of the same original species, presented with the same pressure....well, it is all but meaningless. It is like taking the first bounce of a superball and claiming you now have no need to know where or how it might be bouncing four minutes from now.

Heck...even the studies you mention (would an actual cite kill you?) show the same thing; there is variation in the details as to how the cloacal valves form. The lizards are only near-identical at this the first advance of the first pawn. Six moves down is when you will start to see the difference between a check and a mate!


What are you ranting about? Flavobactin? Extron? Calm down. Nylonase isn't even a protein. It is a mere two amino-acid substitution in the enzyme Esterase, which already existed in wild-type Flavobacterium. Your claim that the "code for it does not exist" is complete nonsense. I'm guessing you're still under the misguided assumption that Nylonase was the result of a frameshift mutation. Check the literature.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


Cite, please.

I know it wasn't a frameshift. That's an over-simplified way of putting what it was; but it is still a known and common form of transcription error.

And, yes...it is exactly as you described. An existing protein that was modified. Because that is how it is done. No-one is requiring a novel protein to be constructed from thin air.

Are you going to argue that the antigens of my blood are completely unimportant, as several of them are "just" slight modifications from their ancestor? That they are in fact arisen from a similar mechanism? Because if so I hope you aren't a blood donor!

It is not just possible, it is almost certain that many, many individual bacteria at some point coded for and manufactured the "broken" protein. In many cases (there is more than one observed mutation here in this and similar species), the result for the organism was negative enough for that gene to be uncoded again, and added to the general detritus all of us DNA-users carry around with us. In some cases that or a similar mutation may have been sufficiently neutral to be carried around for many generations (which we certainly do for non-coding stuff!)

So whereas the gene existed many times before, it would be nonsense to claim that it was part of the regular genetic make-up of the species.

It only became common enough to be selected for (or against) when there was a change to the environment; one that had never been there before. Before that, it was simply noise; no more or no less import than any other substitutions of amino acids within that same protein.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 29610875
United States
12/11/2012 09:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID!"
There are a 1001+∞

They only lie when their lips move. Everything they say is 180°
Spittin'Cesium

User ID: 14589973
United Kingdom
12/12/2012 09:57 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID!"
It's a good question. But don't expect to ever get a good answer.

Think about it, for every beneficial mutation becoming fixated in the population and progressing towards a new body plan, you had the rest of that population diverging into another evolutionary direction.

Where are all the fossils of dead-end designs that didn't work out?
How about a failed reproductive system that started out good but led to major detriments?

There is nothing like that. All we find are the same perfect designs. Extinctions always being due to some catastrophic event. Random Mutation and SuperNatural Selection somehow knew the right avenues to take every time.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 23223519


Show me a living trilobite.



Okay...maybe you didn't mean "successful organisms" but there again is where your error lies.

How does a species get into the fossil record? By dying in large numbers; large enough so one or two will be preserved, AND will be recovered by scientists. Those are pretty long odds. It is actually a surprise just how many hominid fossils we've managed to turn up, for instance.

So any mutation or series of mutations that led to an extremely sickly, poorly-breeding, or otherwise grossly unfit offshoot of a viable species would lead to...natural selection editing that experiment out before it got numerous enough to be part of the fossil record.

That said, there are plenty of examples of less-than-wonderful adaptations. Ones that were either neutral enough to be kept, or that were too tightly tied to necessary adaptations to allow them to be separated out and dropped.



Oh, and you mischaracterize extinction events. A meteorite doesn't come down and individually bonk each dinosaur on the head. Instead it changes the environment enough so some species thrive...and others do not.
 Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183


Hello nomuse,here,have a Slug [link to blogs.ngm.com]

'Now University of South Florida biologist Sidney Pierce and colleagues report that the Atlantic-dwelling E. chlorotica filches enough plant genetics that it can churn out its own chlorophyll, the pigment that chloroplasts exhaust during photosynthesis. That means the green slug can use the sun to refuel without ever eating again.

Pierce says it’s an intriguing evolutionary shortcut: “Movement of genes between species can make big and rapid changes. Evolution doesn’t always need to wait for a mutation.” —Jennifer S. Holland' [link to blogs.ngm.com]

Now ain't that friggin' awesome!?
 Quoting: Spittin'Cesium


All you commenting that didn't read the prior comments need to see the Sea Slug Above ^ ^ that should help you with seeing things differently.

I'm aware nomuse took notewink
The thing that hath been,
is That which shall be;
and that which is done is that which shall be done:and there is no new thing under the Sun.
Ecclesiastes 9:1
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 23223519
United States
12/13/2012 07:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: "100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID!"
'Now University of South Florida biologist Sidney Pierce and colleagues report that the Atlantic-dwelling E. chlorotica filches enough plant genetics that it can churn out its own chlorophyll, the pigment that chloroplasts exhaust during photosynthesis. That means the green slug can use the sun to refuel without ever eating again.

Pierce says it’s an intriguing evolutionary shortcut: “Movement of genes between species can make big and rapid changes. Evolution doesn’t always need to wait for a mutation.” —Jennifer S. Holland' [link to blogs.ngm.com]

Now ain't that friggin' awesome!?
 Quoting: Spittin'Cesium


All you commenting that didn't read the prior comments need to see the Sea Slug Above ^ ^ that should help you with seeing things differently.

I'm aware nomuse took notewink
 Quoting: Spittin'Cesium


Isn't biology awesome? So many features that life is equipped to handle.

What is predictable is that this is another example of change that did not involve the oft repeated mantra of evolution: (Random Mutation + Natural Selection)

Funny how every time we observe some fascinating change in nature, it has nothing to do with that mechanism.

News








We're dropping truth bombs like it's the end of days!