tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post3579728729603824257..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Evolution is Crumbling and Now Even Issuing its Own DisclaimersUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger115125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83212817123495392942012-05-02T15:38:24.375-07:002012-05-02T15:38:24.375-07:00Thorton,
"If you really do understand it,......Thorton,<br /><br />"If you really do understand it,..."<br /><br />You're the self proclaimed genius, why don't you tell me all about it. <br /><br />You constantly claim vast amounts of knowledge but yet we never see anything but bluster and insults.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41797674423601154712012-04-30T22:42:34.657-07:002012-04-30T22:42:34.657-07:00According to darwinists all that's needed is s...According to darwinists all that's needed is self-replication. Once you have self-replication powered by an energy source and incremental changes along the way, in a biochemical context the net effect will be "positive", ie: leading to an eventual increase in information and specification. Natural selection will make sure via "survive or not" that the "best" information with respect to an environmental context will be preserved while the "worst" of it will be filtered out.<br />Seems reasonable at first.<br />Then of course we examine the details of this process we find that a system such as this is extremely volatile (ie: it can quickly lose even a "well adapted" state, never mind a state which hasn't yet "adapted" or formed)<br />Take RM's which is indiscriminate; that is it doesn't "care" about the current state of the system. The next incurred (via RM) state of the system all depends on whether the current state survives or not with respect to the environment. This dynamic environment in turn acts as another indiscriminate factor with respect to the current state of the system, adding to the volatility. We find that internal and external dynamics are acting "adjacently" against the possible increase in net information and specification but the "wheels keep on turning".<br />What "keeps the wheels turning" and why? Error-detection and correction mechanisms?<br /><br />Will continue soon...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89205338216092309932012-04-30T09:51:52.581-07:002012-04-30T09:51:52.581-07:00Computerist -
Its officially flawed.
Says who? ...Computerist - <br /><br /><b>Its officially flawed.</b><br /><br />Says who? You?<br /><br />Are all clocks in town wrong but yours?<br /><br /><b>Again, I am questioning the way a "species" is defined/categorized "officially".</b><br /><br />And you are right to do so. This is, in fact a very grey area. 'Able to interbreed' and 'unable to interbreed' are not clear-cut and easily distinguished. Pinpointing the moment when two sub-species become distinct species is like selecting the exact shade on the colour wheel that distinguishes red from orange.<br /><br /><b>We don't even know if they are a different "species" for that matter. We happened to given them names. Are "Asians" or "Africans" considered different species?</b><br /><br />No. The differences between Homo sapiens and, say, Homo neanderthalis are much more pronounced than those of mere race. There is no question of modern humans all being the same species - and genetically a distinctly uniform species at that.<br /><br /><b>Its not so much an ethical problem as it is a question of profit. Forseen profit has a tendency to maneuver ethical barriers. Is there no profit in the Darwinist camp?</b><br /><br />I wonder how you came to the conclusion it was all about profit. A humanzee would surely be the very epicentre of worldwide attention its whole life long. I imagine the scientists who discovered/created it would have their places in scientific history assured - overnight celebrities. This would be truly incredible news. Why WOULDN'T it be a profitable venture?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70965096685763206922012-04-30T09:29:31.227-07:002012-04-30T09:29:31.227-07:00Elizabeth,
"Well I'm glad you agree tha...Elizabeth,<br /><br /><br />"Well I'm glad you agree that adaptation is the same as micro-evolution at least. Someone else was claiming that adaptation wasn't evolution at all."<br /><br />You completely misunderstand, the term micro-evolution is referring only to adaptation and can no more be used as evidence of common ancestry than can adaptation.<br /><br />"You talk about "new creatures" and yet agree that the theory posits only incremental change, not "new creatures" at all."<br /><br />Evolutionary theory uses the idea of incremental changes to extrapolate wholesale changes which would require the development of new creatures over the course of time. You seem to posses some weird idea that all life forms are the same and are simply some variation of what has gone before. That is simply bizarre. Do you or do you not believe that earthworms and humans have common ancestor?<br /><br />"We have a vast amount of "supporting observations" in the genetic and fossil record."<br /><br />Provide them.<br /><br />"What supports common descent is distribution of morphological and genetic characters into nested hierarchies."<br /><br />Do you really not see this is circular reasoning? Nested hierarchies are used as evidence for evolution and in turn evolution is used to explain nested hierarchies. This is truly elementary logic.<br /><br />"At what point in a process of gradual change do you say a "new" creature has emerged?"<br /><br />Let me again ask you a question I asked earlier. Do you believe an earthworm and a human are the same creature? If not, at what point did the common ancestor process diverge to eventually evolve into earthworms on one hand and humans on the other?<br /><br />"By "Darwinian mechanism" I mean exactly what Darwin proposed - that heritable variance in reproductive success would lead to the "natural" (i.e. not artificial) selection of those variants that reproduced best."<br /><br />"We now know, as Darwin didn't, that the mechanism of heritability is genetic, and that phenotypic variance arises from small variations in genetic sequences."<br /><br />So you are going to argue for natural selection, but not random mutation, is that correct?Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75414381789164835432012-04-29T06:36:45.838-07:002012-04-29T06:36:45.838-07:00"Micro-evolution is a synonym for adaptation ..."Micro-evolution is a synonym for adaptation and nothing more."<br /><br />Well I'm glad you agree that adaptation is the same as micro-evolution at least. Someone else was claiming that adaptation wasn't evolution at all.<br /><br />But you don't say what "more than that" means. More than what? You talk about "new creatures" and yet agree that the theory posits only incremental change, not "new creatures" at all. How much evolution, in your view, would be "more than" mere "micro-evolution"? <br /><br />Unless you can give these criteria, your question is meaningless.<br /><br />"You still are only extrapolating"<br /><br />In a sense, although it's more like interpolation than extrapolation - the big picture preceded the small. Darwin had no idea that we would actually be able to observe his predicted processes happening in real time, but of course we do.<br /><br />"with no supporting observations that adaptation leads to full scale evolution."<br /><br />We have a vast amount of "supporting observations" in the genetic and fossil record.<br /><br />"Evolution can provide no demonstrable proof that whales evolved from a land mammal for example. All that can be presented is conjecture based on presupposition."<br /><br />Science never "proves" anything. We test hypotheses. A hypothesis is not a "presupposition". The hypothesis that whales evolved from land mammals well-supported by a great deal of palaeontological, morphological and genetic data.<br /><br />""Micro-evolution - adaptation" does absolutely nothing to support the idea of common descent."<br /><br />No, it doesn't. What supports common descent is distribution of morphological and genetic characters into nested hierarchies. What micro-evolution supports is the mechanism postulated to account for the longitudinal change implied by the theory of common descent.<br /><br />"Adaptation in no way demonstrates evolution, it is simply adaptation which science is now finding is built in to the genetic code."<br /><br />Observed adaptation does demonstrate evolution, very clearly, albeit over a short time scale. We know that allele frequencies in populations undergo change that is biased in favour of traits that promote reproductive success, exactly as Darwin predicted. This is what is called "adaptation". Of course it is "built in" to the genetic code in the sense that the mechanism of variance-generation is alterations (mutations) of the DNA sequence, but there is no evidence that the appearance of such mutations have any correlation with environmental change, merely evidence that those that promote reproductive success become (as you would expect, and as Darwin predicted) more prevalent in the population.<br /><br />"And yes, to demonstrate evolution you must point to adaptation resulting in a new creature. To say the emergence of new creatures is exactly the opposite of evolutionary theory only demonstrates it is you who does not understand what evolutionary theory teaches."<br /><br />Not unless you define "new creature". At what point in a process of gradual change do you say a "new" creature has emerged? At what point in the colour spectrum does "red" change to "yellow"?<br /><br /><br />"Please, explain to me what you mean by "Darwinian mechanisms." I sure hope you're not going to argue for random mutation and natural selection."<br /><br />By "Darwinian mechanism" I mean exactly what Darwin proposed - that heritable variance in reproductive success would lead to the "natural" (i.e. not artificial) selection of those variants that reproduced best.<br /><br />We now know, as Darwin didn't, that the mechanism of heritability is genetic, and that phenotypic variance arises from small variations in genetic sequences.Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35468642374280489062012-04-29T00:14:59.429-07:002012-04-29T00:14:59.429-07:00Nic
Oh please, not the old 'you don't und...<i>Nic<br /><br />Oh please, not the old 'you don't understand evolution' canard. I do understand it, that is why I came to reject it.</i><br /><br />If you really do understand it, then you're doing a heck of a job hiding the fact by faking pitiful ignorance.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39146271984906606852012-04-28T14:42:21.266-07:002012-04-28T14:42:21.266-07:00Ritchie:
"Lions and tigers can interbreed, a...Ritchie:<br /><br />"Lions and tigers can interbreed, and yet they are officially different species (Panthera leo and Panthera tigris respectively)."<br /><br />Its officially flawed.<br /><br />"There have, in fact, been many human species in the past. Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalis to name but a few. It is a quirk of history that only Homo sapiens remains."<br /><br />Again, I am questioning the way a "species" is defined/categorized "officially".<br /><br />"Though whether we were capable of interbreeding with any of these other 'species' is beyond me to say."<br /><br />We don't even know if they are a different "species" for that matter. We happened to given them names. Are "Asians" or "Africans" considered different species?<br /><br />The closest objective way to tell is by the number of Chromosomes.<br /><br />"Are they really? Why? Just because no 'humanzee' has so far been created/discovered? I would imagine that is more than partly to do with the ethical questions and taboos which prevent such experiments."<br /><br />Its not so much an ethical problem as it is a question of profit. Forseen profit has a tendency to maneuver ethical barriers. Is there no profit in the Darwinist camp?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-67995890645912102032012-04-28T12:20:35.916-07:002012-04-28T12:20:35.916-07:00Elizabeth,
"It has been definitively demonst...Elizabeth,<br /><br />"It has been definitively demonstrated to be a result of heritable variance in the probability of reproductive success, which is the principle of evolution."<br /><br />What has not been definitively demonstrated is that heritable variance is anything more than that. It is pure conjecture that such variance leads eventually to new life forms in the nature demanded by evolution through common descent.<br /><br />"So why are you demanding a completely new creature? Nobody claims that completely new creatures ever appear."<br /><br />And you say I do not understand evolution. No, new life forms don't suddenly appear, but the basic premise of the theory is that all life comes from a common ancestor. If that's true there has been billions of "new" life forms develop gradually over the millions of years of claimed by evolution. That is unless you think there is no difference between humans and an earthworm.<br /><br />"Yes, we can. We can demonstrate what ID proponents usually call "micro-evolution" (although not you, apparently, because you don't accept that adaptation is evolution at all)."<br /><br />Micro-evolution is a synonym for adaptation and nothing more. You still are only extrapolating with no supporting observations that adaptation leads to full scale evolution. Evolution can provide no demonstrable proof that whales evolved from a land mammal for example. All that can be presented is conjecture based on presupposition. <br />"Micro-evolution - adaptation" does absolutely nothing to support the idea of common descent.<br /><br />"And yet, when I point you to evidence that it has been demonstrated, you merely respond "that's not evolution"."<br /><br />You have not provided any evidence whatsoever. All you've done is spout the party line about adaptation leading inevitably to full scale evolution.<br /><br />"Well, on the evidence of your statements here, no you don't. You don't seem to understand what "adaptation" means, that it has been demonstrated, and that it involves darwinian mechanisms. And while you accept that no creature is completely new, you nonethless seem to think that to demonstrate evolution we would have to point to a "completely new" creature. Even though this is the reverse of what evolutionary theory posits."<br /><br />Adaptation in no way demonstrates evolution, it is simply adaptation which science is now finding is built in to the genetic code. And yes, to demonstrate evolution you must point to adaptation resulting in a new creature. To say the emergence of new creatures is exactly the opposite of evolutionary theory only demonstrates it is you who does not understand what evolutionary theory teaches. If all living things arose from a single common ancestor there had to be an emergence of countless "new creatures" to account for all life throughout the history of the earth.<br /><br />Please, explain to me what you mean by "Darwinian mechanisms." I sure hope you're not going to argue for random mutation and natural selection.<br /><br />"So to demonstrate it we look for evidence of a nested hierarchy (check) and gradual adaptive change down each branch (check)."<br /><br />So again you are assuming the presence of hierarchies is only explained by evolution, and the process of adaptation results in full scale evolution. Again, these are simply assertions for which you nor anyone else who adheres to evolution can demonstrate. Both are totally based on presupposed conjecture.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2348383566919574292012-04-28T11:32:29.444-07:002012-04-28T11:32:29.444-07:00"It would seem that orphan genes dwarf the nu..."It would seem that orphan genes dwarf the number of proteins that would be required just to replicate so I don't think the problem just goes away once you get a replicator. Besides, then you have the context problem, ie. why would genes be so interconnected if they only had billions of years to mutate?"<br /><br />I'm not understanding your point here. Could you rephrase?<br /><br />"So I guess the genes were either there at the beginning or they arrived afterward. Is there another possibility?"<br /><br />"Genes" is a convenient post hoc label for sequences of DNA that do something that affects the whole organism in some way. The very earliest self-replicators may not have had anything we would call a "gene" at all - just a sequences of some polymer that were more readily reproduced than others, possibly simply because the materials they required were more abundant. The first thing you might call a "gene" could have been a sequence that catalysed some compound that enhanced the probabilty that the proto-organism's chance of self-replicating faithfully. But we simply don't know, and may never know, for sure, although there are plenty of testable hypotheses.<br /><br />"I'm saying that if you want to claim ignorance about configurations in the RNA world or OOL in general when you have at your disposal all the genes of their descendants, but then claim that "dog descendents will always have genetic material common to mammals" then you have roundly refuted yourself. Which story should I believe? Or what reason is there for me to believe both?"<br /><br />OK, I see what you are saying. Yes, I guess that it's possible that over billions more years, the DNA of the descendents of today's organisms may be so altered that there is no way of figuring out, should there still be biologists, of what was descended from which.<br /><br />But one reason that is unlikely is that some sequences are highly conserved (because they do something useful for that lineage), and while they may vary a bit, the variations are likely to remain trackable, just as we can insert hox genes from one lineage into another and get a comparable (if different) result.<br /><br />So I'll rephrase: If there are still dog and cat descendents a few billion years hence, I expect them to share some of the DNA sequences with their present day ancestors that today distingish each population from the other.<br /><br />But it is possible (but unlikely for the reasons I've given) that those sequences will be unrecognisable by then.<br /><br />What is vanishingly unlikely (and we could do the math on this) is that they would look more closely related genetically than they do now.Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41642051454991995382012-04-28T11:20:06.553-07:002012-04-28T11:20:06.553-07:00"I don't see why it is clear that the pro..."I don't see why it is clear that the probability is high. How did you calculate the probability? Are you sure you didn't just look at existing organisms and say, "more of that"?"<br /><br />From the frequency with which it occurs.<br /><br />We know species that are very different genetically can be very similar phenotypically, in features that help them to survive similar environments.<br /><br />"Yes, I'm quite sure already that it posits everything in the universe. Stuff does happen after all."<br /><br />Obviously it doesn't. Are you serious about this conversation?<br /><br />That is self-evidently true (it's a syllogism more than a theory) and has been directly observed to happen, in lab, field and in computer simulations."<br /><br />"So is that like 49% a theory, or not really a theory at all? Does it really predict anything it doesn't already define, or not? Can you illustrate how you used it to arrive at any of your claims?"<br /><br />The theory part is that it accounts for observed adaptation in biology. The syllogism part is that it is demonstrably true given a population of self replicators that replicate with heritable variance in reproductive success.<br /><br />As a theory, it predicts that if you have a population of organisms (let's say guppies, we've had enough of finches) that replicate with variability, say in the pattern of their spots, and you put them in a tank with a gravel bottom and introduce predators, that over several generations, the population will be dominated by guppies with spot patterns that maximise their camouflage against the gravel. It also predicts that if you then remove the predators, after a few generations, the guppie population will be dominate by guppies with spot patterns that make them stand out from the gravel, enabling them to be noticed by potential mates.<br /><br />And this has in fact been observed. So it supports the theory that the self-evident principle that variants that replicate most successfully in a given environment will be replicated most often does in fact apply to biological populations.<br /><br />Which in any case was, and is well known, and exploited by children trying to grow the tallest sunflowers, and of course by breeders of all organisms.<br /><br />More in a minute :)Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44179772638251479462012-04-28T11:05:51.438-07:002012-04-28T11:05:51.438-07:00"So you think the first time an organism beca..."So you think the first time an organism became a cat, it was destiny, and only the second time would be coincidence?"<br /><br />No.<br /><br />I'm saying the probability that a dog lineages that terminated in cat-like populations would independently arrive at their cat-likeness by such similar DNA sequences that one could mistake them for members of a completely different lineage (the cats) is vanishingly improbable.<br /><br />For instance, air-breathing marine creatures include birds and mammals. Both the birds (e.g. penguins) and the mammals (e.g. seals) look quite similar. Both are sleek, flightless, have pectoral flippers, have legs that serve as tail fins, and are quite clumsy on land. Both live in large colonies and mate on shore, while getting most of their food from the sea. Both incubate their young with their own bodies, and feed them with fluids ejected from their own bodies.<br /><br />But they are different lineages, and no-one would mistake a seal for a bird on close inspection, nor would anyone mistake a penguin for a mammal.<br /><br />And their DNA is radically different, as you would expect.<br /><br />It is quite common for different lineages to converge on similar "solutions" to survival in similar habitats, but the chances that two separated lineages will do so by converging on the same DNA sequences is as unlikely as the bridge hand you win today with will be the bridge hand you win tomorrow with. There isn't a one-to-one mapping between phenotypic solution and genotypic recipe.Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49775438642909925302012-04-28T10:56:08.490-07:002012-04-28T10:56:08.490-07:00continued...
"The fact is you cannot even de...continued...<br /><br />"The fact is you cannot even demonstrate it is an extremely gradual process."<br /><br />Yes, we can. We can demonstrate what ID proponents usually call "micro-evolution" (although not you, apparently, because you don't accept that adaptation is evolution at all). <br /><br />"All claims to this process happening are only wishful thinking based on conjecture. It has never and can never be demonstrated."<br /><br />And yet, when I point you to evidence that it has been demonstrated, you merely respond "that's not evolution".<br /><br />"Oh please, not the old 'you don't understand evolution' canard. I do understand it, that is why I came to reject it."<br /><br />Well, on the evidence of your statements here, no you don't. You don't seem to understand what "adaptation" means, that it has been demonstrated, and that it involves darwinian mechanisms. And while you accept that no creature is completely new, you nonethless seem to think that to demonstrate evolution we would have to point to a "completely new" creature. Even though this is the reverse of what evolutionary theory posits.<br /><br />It is creationism that posits "completely new" creatures, created in 6 days, often called "special creation". Evolutionary theory posits that no creatures are "completely new", and that each is extremely like its parents. Only gradually do populations adapt to their environment, and some populations adapt down different lineages, leading to descendent populations that not only no longer resemble their ancestral population, but even each other. But neither is "completely new" and were you to trace the lineage of each population backwards, you would find increasing resemblance to each other and to that ancestral population.<br /><br />That is the theory. So to demonstrate it we look for evidence of a nested hierarchy (check) and gradual adaptive change down each branch (check).Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42008706814385767532012-04-28T10:55:14.176-07:002012-04-28T10:55:14.176-07:00"This is only further evidence of the presupp..."This is only further evidence of the presupposition. It is not "the theory" that explains nested hierarchy, it is only one theory which attempts to explain hierarchies. It is only those who blindly adhere to evolutionary doctrine which claim it as "the" explanation."<br /><br />OK, fine, I didn't mean it was the only one. <br /><br />"Snakes do not "fall into the tetrapod clade," they are placed there working again on the assumption of common descent."<br /><br />No, they are placed there because of their morphological characters. The distribution of morphological characters forms a nested hierarchy. You do not need to assume common descent to derive that hierarchy. Linneaus made no such assumption, yet he derived it.<br /><br />"Those who adhere to evolution must prove snakes arose from an ancestor with legs." <br /><br />Or demonstrate that the evidence strongly suggests it. But, as you say, common descent is not the only theory that could account for the nested hierarchy. It is possible that the reasons snakes fall into the tetrapod clade is that tetrapods were what God was working on at the time he came up with the idea of snakes. That's exactly what baraminologists work on - figuring out what the nested hierarchy means if it doesn't mean common descent.<br /><br />"Adaptation IS NOT evolution, it is simply adaptation."<br /><br />It has been definitively demonstrated to be a result of heritable variance in the probability of reproductive success, which is the principle of evolution. Are you disputing this? Or merely whether we should use the term "evolution" for this mechanism?<br /><br />"Please, give me one example of adaptation resulting in a new creature. Not a new species of an existing creature, but a uniquely new creature." <br /><br />Firstly, you'd have to say what criterion you used for "new". Secondly, no, because it is a principle of the theory of evolution <i>that there are no entirely new creatures</i> that each creature is a close variant of its parent(s). <br /><br />"No one is claiming it must be a sudden jump."<br /><br />I agree. So why are you demanding a completely new creature? Nobody claims that completely new creatures ever appear.<br /><br />(more belowElizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65617464359714709272012-04-28T06:27:05.849-07:002012-04-28T06:27:05.849-07:00Computerist -
For a new distinct and legitimate ...Computerist - <br /><br /><b>For a new distinct and legitimate species to be claimed, one has to show they are indeed incapable of producing offspring.</b><br /><br />I don't think that's true. That seems a very strict definition. Lions and tigers can interbreed, and yet they are officially different species (Panthera leo and Panthera tigris respectively).<br /><br /><b>If tigers and lions are considered different species, then we have a great deal of un-categorized human "species".</b><br /><br />Do we? What do you mean?<br /><br />There have, in fact, been many human species in the past. Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalis to name but a few. It is a quirk of history that only Homo sapiens remains. Though whether we were capable of interbreeding with any of these other 'species' is beyond me to say.<br /><br />(actually, with the exception of Homo neanderthalis: http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/07/18/research-confirms-it-were-part-neanderthal/)<br /><br /><b>Are you implying a tiger and a lion split the same way a human and a chimp did?</b><br /><br />Why not? They 'split', and that is all that matters. Why should it matter precisely how/why they split?<br /><br /><b>They are quite different scenarios.</b><br /><br />Are they really? Why? Just because no 'humanzee' has so far been created/discovered? I would imagine that is more than partly to do with the ethical questions and taboos which prevent such experiments.<br /><br />Genetically there appears to be no good reason why such a creature should be impossible. Creatures more distantly related to each other than humans are to chimpanzees have been successfully crossbred. There is no essential difference here.<br /><br /><b>What type of "split" occurs is what determines a new species.</b><br /><br />Pardon? How many types of 'split' are there? What are they? How does a species 'split' into two without forming two new species?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28853534747621427882012-04-27T13:14:04.341-07:002012-04-27T13:14:04.341-07:00"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee
Shoul..."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee<br /><br />Should we be considered 'sub-classes' of the same species?"<br /><br />Are you implying a tiger and a lion split the same way a human and a chimp did?<br /><br />Look at the chromosomes of a tiger and lion, the ability to produce a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger.<br />The failed ability to produce a humanzee based on mere genetic similarity.<br />They are quite different scenarios.<br />Its comparing apples to oranges.<br />What type of "split" occurs is what determines a new species.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17242731776819973112012-04-27T12:53:27.732-07:002012-04-27T12:53:27.732-07:00Thorton and Ritchie, both of you seem to be on the...Thorton and Ritchie, both of you seem to be on the same page:<br /><br />"That is why tigers and lions are considered different species. Not that they can't breed, but that they don't naturally."<br /><br />For a new distinct and legitimate species to be claimed, one has to show they are indeed incapable of producing offspring. Humans have a preferential/natural tendency to produce offspring within their kind/race for various reasons (physiological, cultural etc...). <br />If tigers and lions are considered different species, then we have a great deal of un-categorized human "species".<br />Either that, or we have another form of failed Darwinian logic/thinking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64648455839267441302012-04-27T11:39:29.306-07:002012-04-27T11:39:29.306-07:00EL: "Well, that would depend on your philosop...EL: "Well, that would depend on your philosophical or theological viewpoint I guess."<br /><br />So you think the first time an organism became a cat, it was destiny, and only the second time would be coincidence?<br /><br />EL: "The point however, is that evolutionary theory doesn't posit that vanishingly improbable events happened, but that what happened wasn't vanishingly improbable."<br /><br />I also believe the chance of survivors surviving is very probable, seemingly 100%!<br /><br />EL: "However, the probability of two independent lineages adapting to similar environments with comparable adaptations (webbed feet, flippers, sleek surface, etc) is clearly quite high, as it would be driven by common factors."<br /><br />I don't see why it is clear that the probability is high. How did you calculate the probability? Are you sure you didn't just look at existing organisms and say, "more of that"?<br /><br />EL: "Well, I'm not going to give you a primer in evolutionary theory, but it certainly posits a great deal."<br /><br />Yes, I'm quite sure already that it posits everything in the universe. Stuff does happen after all.<br /><br />EL: "which is that if a population of self-replicators replicates with heritable variance in the probability of reproductive success, then the more successful variants will become more prevalent in the population.<br /><br />That is self-evidently true (it's a syllogism more than a theory) and has been directly observed to happen, in lab, field and in computer simulations."<br /><br />So is that like 49% a theory, or not really a theory at all? Does it really predict anything it doesn't already define, or not? Can you illustrate how you used it to arrive at any of your claims?<br /><br />EL: "We don't know that yet, so if you like, feel free to posit that the earliest Darwinian-capable self-replicators were too complex to have arisen "by chance". But that would be inferring design from the lack of knowledge of OOL, not from the inadequacy of Darwinian evolution."<br /><br />It would seem that orphan genes dwarf the number of proteins that would be required just to replicate so I don't think the problem just goes away once you get a replicator. Besides, then you have the context problem, ie. why would genes be so interconnected if they only had billions of years to mutate?<br /><br />EL: "Darwinian evolution can only occur once you have a population of self-replicators that replicate with sufficient fidelity to be self replicators, but sufficient variance that some variants will out-perform their parents in the current environment. Once you have that, you have the ingredients for Darwinian evolution."<br /><br />So I guess the genes were either there at the beginning or they arrived afterward. Is there another possibility?<br /><br />EL: "I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm not talking about "in a just a few generations" either."<br /><br />I'm saying that if you want to claim ignorance about configurations in the RNA world or OOL in general when you have at your disposal all the genes of their descendants, but then claim that "dog descendents will always have genetic material common to mammals" then you have roundly refuted yourself. Which story should I believe? Or what reason is there for me to believe both?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32801706094933903752012-04-27T09:37:35.189-07:002012-04-27T09:37:35.189-07:00Elizabeth,
"common descent is the theory tha...Elizabeth,<br /><br />"common descent is the theory that explains the observed nested hierarchy."<br /><br />This is only further evidence of the presupposition. It is not "the theory" that explains nested hierarchy, it is only one theory which attempts to explain hierarchies. It is only those who blindly adhere to evolutionary doctrine which claim it as "the" explanation.<br /><br /><br />"Whether you believe that common descent is a explanatory model or not, snakes fall into the tetrapod clade."<br /><br />Snakes do not "fall into the tetrapod clade," they are placed there working again on the assumption of common descent. Those who adhere to evolution must prove snakes arose from an ancestor with legs. This claim has never been demonstrated, like virtually every other claim of evolution.<br /><br /><br />"adaptation is the name we give to darwinian evolution. It doesn't "lead to" Darwinian evolution. It's Darwinian evolution action."<br /><br />This is only a re-wording of your previous assertion. Adaptation IS NOT evolution, it is simply adaptation. Neither you or any evolutionist can demonstrate that adaptation is evolution in action. Please, give me one example of adaptation resulting in a new creature. Not a new species of an existing creature, but a uniquely new creature. This is the standard required to adhere to a belief of common descent of all life. You cannot do it, no one can and that is why evolutionary science is bankrupt.<br /><br />"All offspring, as far as we know, are extremely similar to their parents. You don't suddenly jump "adapted old life" to "new life"."<br /><br />No one is claiming it must be a sudden jump. The fact is you cannot even demonstrate it is an extremely gradual process. All claims to this process happening are only wishful thinking based on conjecture. It has never and can never be demonstrated.<br /><br /><br />"They are, I suggest, misunderstandings on your part as to what evolutionary theory actually proposes."<br /><br />Oh please, not the old 'you don't understand evolution' canard. I do understand it, that is why I came to reject it.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6179472446773127282012-04-27T05:17:53.462-07:002012-04-27T05:17:53.462-07:00computerist
Elizabeth Liddle said:
"First of...<i>computerist<br /><br />Elizabeth Liddle said:<br />"First of all, it is arguable, even now, whether, a chihuahua and a Great Dane are the same species. "<br /><br />Well if x cannot (biologically, not preferentially) interbreed and produce offspring with y, then it is not a new species by definition.</i><br /><br />That is not the scientifically accepted definition of species. Two populations are considered different species if they no longer exchange genetic material between their respective gene pools, either through naturally occurring morphological differences, behavioral differences, or geographic separation. That is why tigers and lions are considered different species. Not that they can't breed, but that they don't naturally.<br /><br />Speciation is not binary but happens slowly as one population splits into two. The level of genetic mixing slowly decreases until it finally ceases altogether. That's the reason there is often ambiguity as to which species a particular individual specimen belongs, because there is no clear dividing line. It's like trying to decide where orange stops and yellow starts on a color spectrum.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68660376632055285622012-04-27T02:36:25.677-07:002012-04-27T02:36:25.677-07:00computerist -
Well I would say no, they are not ...computerist - <br /><br /><b>Well I would say no, they are not a different species. They are a "sub-class" of the same kind ie: another race.</b><br /><br />And yet genetically humans are as closely related to chimpanzees as horses are to donkeys:<br /><br />http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3042781.stm<br /><br />... or horses and zebras:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee<br /><br />Should we be considered 'sub-classes' of the same species?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59762552351539149762012-04-27T00:19:04.629-07:002012-04-27T00:19:04.629-07:00"I thought it was coincidental in the first p..."I thought it was coincidental in the first place."<br /><br />Well, that would depend on your philosophical or theological viewpoint I guess. <br /><br />The point however, is that evolutionary theory doesn't posit that vanishingly improbable events happened, but that what happened wasn't vanishingly improbable. The probability of two completely independent lineages ending up with vast stretches of DNA in common, when those stretches had not been in common earlier in the lineage, with no hybridisation or genetic engineering to account for it, is vanishingly improbable.<br /><br />However, the probability of two independent lineages adapting to similar environments with comparable adaptations (webbed feet, flippers, sleek surface, etc) is clearly quite high, as it would be driven by common factors.<br /><br />"You realize that if I asked you which evolutionary theory you were referring to that posited odds of any type it would be the third time asking you for anything concrete? Judging by our conversation, "evolutionary theory" doesn't really posit anything besides "things change" or as Coppedge puts it "stuff happens"."<br /><br />Well, I'm not going to give you a primer in evolutionary theory, but it certainly posits a great deal. I've given the basic principle either in this thread or some other on this blog, can't remember which, which is that if a population of self-replicators replicates with heritable variance in the probability of reproductive success, then the more successful variants will become more prevalent in the population.<br /><br />That is self-evidently true (it's a syllogism more than a theory) and has been directly observed to happen, in lab, field and in computer simulations.<br /><br /><br />"I'm starting to agree that if all the protein configurations popped into existence during OOL, then evolution is much more probable."<br /><br />Sure. Once you have the basic population of self-replicators replicating with heritable variance, evolution is virtually inevitable. The big OOL question is: how simple did that basic population have to be? And, from I guess an ID perspective, were they simple enough that not improbable chemical conditions would have made them likely to emerge? We don't know that yet, so if you like, feel free to posit that the earliest Darwinian-capable self-replicators were too complex to have arisen "by chance". But that would be inferring design from the lack of knowledge of OOL, not from the inadequacy of Darwinian evolution.<br /><br />Darwinian evolution can only occur once you have a population of self-replicators that replicate with sufficient fidelity to be <i>self</i> replicators, but sufficient variance that some variants will out-perform their parents in the current environment. Once you have that, you have the ingredients for Darwinian evolution.<br /><br />"Booooo!! You know that since I reference RNA world, I wasn't talking about what could happen in just a few generations."<br /><br />I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm not talking about "in a just a few generations" either.Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29972552261296442622012-04-26T22:58:00.692-07:002012-04-26T22:58:00.692-07:00EL: "No, I didn't acknowledge that. I sai...EL: "No, I didn't acknowledge that. I said it couldn't, because it would have to be completely coincidental, which is not worth thinking about."<br /><br />I thought it was coincidental in the first place.<br /><br />EL: "Never, because evolutionary theory doesn't posit overwhelming combinatorial odds"<br /><br />You realize that if I asked you which evolutionary theory you were referring to that posited odds of any type it would be the third time asking you for anything concrete? Judging by our conversation, "evolutionary theory" doesn't really posit anything besides "things change" or as Coppedge puts it "stuff happens".<br /><br />EL: "But that's OOL, not evolution."<br /><br />I'm starting to agree that if all the protein configurations popped into existence during OOL, then evolution is much more probable.<br /><br />EL: "Because we inherit DNA from our parents. What prevents it from "mutating beyond all recognition" is the constraint of viability."<br /><br />Booooo!! You know that since I reference RNA world, I wasn't talking about what could happen in just a few generations.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44262385985100670052012-04-26T15:55:31.770-07:002012-04-26T15:55:31.770-07:00Ritchie said:
"Lions and tigers are capable ...Ritchie said:<br /><br />"Lions and tigers are capable of interbreeding. As are horses and donkeys. Are they not different species?"<br /><br />Well I would say no, they are not a different species. They are a "sub-class" of the same kind ie: another race.<br />Its equivalent to different races between the human population.<br />Are dwarfs (ie: dwarfism) another species?<br />Clearly they are not.<br />The only sound way to distinguish between species is if they are capable of producing offspring or not, not simply based on their preference to interbreed.<br />Of course Darwinists really don't care, as long as they can make the claim a "new species was found" they are doing science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11072973232190218972012-04-26T14:18:04.747-07:002012-04-26T14:18:04.747-07:00tbh, Neal, in my experience 90% of the objections ...tbh, Neal, in my experience 90% of the objections to evolutionary theory are based on a misunderstanding of its claims. Another 5% are based on fear of its implications which I consider completely unfounded (it doesn't imply no divine creator, for instance). The remaining 5% I'd say were on the one hand bad but sciencey sounding arguments, and on the other, those sciencey sounding arguments being assumed valid by people who quite reasonably don't have the backgroundn to evaluate them,<br /><br />That's harsh, but I think its true. I find the scholarship of ID papers appalling.<br /><br />To be fair, I should probably have saved a few percent for the bad arguments made by a few pro-evolution defenders who themselves get the science wrong, and for those who seem persuaded that science <i>does</i> necessarily entail atheism. In my view that's just bad theology, even though I would call myself an atheist. But I'm not an atheist because science tells me there's no God. It doesn't.Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32827481353909359492012-04-26T14:09:04.627-07:002012-04-26T14:09:04.627-07:00"Common descent is not a "presupposition..."Common descent is not a "presupposition" for the nested hierarchy; common descent is the theory that explains the observed nested hierarchy."<br /><br />Common descent may be "a" theory which explains nested hierarchy, but that does not make it "the" explanation. Nested hierarchies can be be explained by common design as well, if not better, than by evolution."<br /><br />And that was exactly my point. The nested hierarchies are an observation, not the result of some "presupposition" as you suggested.<br /><br />That pattern is what demands an explanation. The patterns aren't an artefact of the explanation. Whether you believe that common descent is a explanatory model or not, snakes fall into the tetrapod clade.<br /><br />"Adaptation is the very essence of evolutionary theory."<br /><br />"Maybe in your mind. However, to claim adaptation is the 'very essence" of evolution, is simply again a reliance on wishful thinking and conjecture, based on unobservable extrapolation as you cannot in any way demonstrate adaptation inevitably leads to evolution."<br /><br />You misunderstand me: adaptation is what is proposed by evolutionary theory. You may dispute that it happens (I don't know) but adaptation is the name we give to darwinian evolution. It doesn't "lead to" Darwinian evolution. It's Darwinian evolution action.<br /><br />"These are simply facts you refuse to face because of your adherence to the evolutionary mindset."<br /><br />No, they are not "facts". They are, I suggest, misunderstandings on your part as to what evolutionary theory actually proposes. What it proposes is that populations adapt because of the simple mechanism proposed by Darwin: those variants that reproduce best in the current environment are those that obviously, leave the most copies of themselves in the next. And so if the environment favours a beak of 6 mm more than 5 mm or 7mm, then individuals with 6mm beaks will leave more of their 6mm beak promoting genes in the next generation than those with 7mm or 5mm beaks. This has been observed, in the field, in the lab, and in computer models. It is a fact. And we call that phenomenon "adaptation" because by this means the population "adapts" to the current environment (in this case seeds optimally accessed by 6mm beaks).<br /><br />I'm not saying adaptation "leads to" evolution. I'm saying this is what evolution <i>is</i>. You might call it "micro-evolution" but it is evolution nonetheless.<br /><br />"If you would be so kind please provide an instance of adaptations resulting in a new life form."<br /><br />Why? I don't think adaptations do result in "new life forms" only in incremental changes over time, to the point where, looking at the descendents and comparing them with their remote ancestors, you might call them "new life". Or comparing them with descendents via a different lineage, you might call both "different life". Or if the descendents on the other lineage looked more like the common ancestor of both than the one you are interested, you might call that one "new", but there would be no one point at which it was so. All offspring, as far as we know, are extremely similar to their parents. You don't suddenly jump "adapted old life" to "new life". It's a continuum, just as there are no clean lines between the colours of the spectrum.Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.com