Charles Darwin

Originally posted by The Lone Ranger


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Charles Darwin:
How do you dress up an idea that makes no sense, get it accepted as science, and even as a scientific fact? Well it isn't easy. You'll have to stretch the truth in several different ways. First, and most obviously, you have to direct attention away from the fact that your idea is nothing more than handwaving, and doesn't actually explain how life and her intricacies were supposed to have arisen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all, for the umpteenth time, evolutionary theory doesn�t attempt to explain the origin(s) of life. As far as evolutionary biology is concerned, life may be the result of purple goblins from the 12th dimension. What matters is what has happened since the origin(s) of life.

To claim that evolution is a flawed theory because it cannot explain the origin(s) of life is no more logical than would be the claim that quantum mechanics is a flawed theory because it doesn�t explain why some genes are dominant and others are recessive.

Of course, how life arose is relevant to evolutionary biology, since life must first exist in order for it to evolve. Knowing more about how life may have arisen would also be quite useful to biologists, since it could very likely give us clues as to the chemical idiosyncracies displayed by living organisms. [Why do all living organisms use the same 20 amino acids, for example? Are these the �best� combination of amino acids for building proteins, or is it just chance that these were the ones that the first living organisms used?] So, the origin(s) of life is certainly of interest, but it nonetheless lies outside the scope of evolutionary theory.

You seem to want very much for evolutionary theory to be something that it is not, and never was.

You missed my point a bit. The point is not that evolution is a flawed theory because it cannot explain the origin(s) of life � it is already plenty flawed, thank you. My point is that evolutionists play a sort of bait-and-switch game with the origin of life. It shows up repeatedly in the evolution literature, from textbooks to popular literature. And it is claimed to be a solved problem (though not all the details are known; have we heard that somewhere before?). The Miller-Urey experiment is a favorite example that shows up repeatedly.

But when someone questions evolution, suddenly evolutionists become minimalists. They'll have nothing to do with the origin of life. Now secondly, having sequestered evolution, they now use the origin of life problem as a great safe-zone in which to place as many difficulties as possible. Protein synthesis, or a million other micro wonders, for which there is nothing more than speculation, are now no longer a problem.

Evolutionary biologists consider it a fact � that is, established beyond any reasonable doubt � that all extant organisms are related through common descent. I�m curious as to how this idea could be said to make no sense.

I'm not sure I put it that way. Something that goes against our scientific understanding and is highly unlikely doesn't necessarily "make no sense."

Here�s an overview of evolutionary theory. Please tell us where it breaks down.

�

Conclusion: Given that those individuals that are well-suited to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce than are those that are poorly-suited to it, the genetic makeup of populations is expected to change over time, as traits which make their bearers well-suited to the environment become more common and traits which make their bearers less well-suited to the environment become rarer. This process is called evolution. [If you disagree with this conclusion, please explain why.]

But evolution is not equivalent to this process. In other words, what you have described is only part, and the non heroic part, of evolution. Coloration changes in moths, or beaks changing shapes in birds are examples of this process you describe. But with evolution, we have to have microbes changing into monkeys. But this is what evolutionists are forced to do. In order to show that their idea is a scientific fact, they must take a minimalist approach where the theory becomes essentially equivalent to evolution on a small scale, which of course, is a scientific fact. Then, when it comes to the part of theory which is not a fact, they run out of gas, as we see below:

No one disputes that natural selection occurs, and that populations evolve as a result. Nor is there any disagreement within the scientific community that the Earth is more than four billion years old. Fossils have been found in rocks that are almost four billion years old.

So?

Given the age of the Earth and the amount of time that living organisms have been around, and given that populations do evolve, it is an inevitable conclusion that we should expect to see quite a lot of evolutionary change over time.

Ah, hah, now we finally get to the meat of the issue. And what is the claim: that the vast oceans of change, creating everything from echolocation to the brain, is simply the "inevitable conclusion." Amazing � I can see that modern science is working wonders for us.

Indeed, field studies often document rates of evolution hundreds or even thousands of times greater than are necessary to explain the rates of change implied by the fossil record.

Ah, those guppies again. Isn't it amazing what we've been able to learn from their growth patterns (of course, they still look a lot like guppies, but that's another matter). They change so fast, surely frogs must have come from fish.

There are three possible reasons why we wouldn�t expect substantial amounts of evolution to have occurred.

Eh, hum; sorry but I think you've missed just a few reasons, say about ten thousand. But let's make it simple and stick with echolocation (sorry folks, it doesn't "just happen").

The scientific community has concluded that the evidence in favor of the fact of evolution is overwhelming. The evidence which leads to that conclusion is publicly-available, and the reasoning has been explained. Your claim is that we�re wrong in our conclusion. The burden of proof, therefore, is on you to show us why we�re wrong.

Right. And since I can't disprove your mythology, it must be a fact.

Charles Darwin

Earlier posted by Ipetrich:

Again, so what? Is that the end of the world or something like that?


Why is it that you cannot seem to follow a thread for more than about one post? No, it is not the end of the world; no it does not undermine systematics. What it does do is answer the question raised earlier about why phylogenetic results fail to prove evolution to be a fact. Earlier, phylogenetic results were raised as one of the critical and compelling evidences for evolution, demonstrating it to be a scientific fact. I pointed out that those results are often conflicting. There is not doubt that explanatory mechanisms can always be brought to bear. Things can be explained by this convergence, or that lateral transfer.

People, this is a good example of the bankruptcy of thought. You will be told evolution is a fact, when you critique the reasons and evidence given, you will be chastised for having failed to disprove the theory. Meanwhile, the absurdity continues: the most amazing of devices are to have merely arisen.

Doubting Didymus

Phylogenetic mismatches are rare, and thus do not cause problems for evolutionary theory. You do not damage a major field of science with five questionable quotations, which I highly doubt you even understand.

Do you actually have anything at all to add to the E/C debate other than your overblown personal incredulity? Because that is a singularly unimpressive factor.

Charles Darwin

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Charles Darwin
I don't think the separate creation hypothesis supplies sufficient detail to say how the species comparisons would play out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which is exactly why my first statement read with the following sentiment: "There is no particular reason for any two phylogenetic tree creation methods to produce the same results, if species were are not in fact related."

Perhaps I mispoke, or perhaps you read too much into my sentence. Be that as it may, I did not mean to say that nothing can be said of different phylogenetic trees, of the same species set but based on different features, on the theory of separate creation. It certainly makes sense that design features would converge. The spokes, seats, and gearing of bicycles follow correlated trends. Of course, one can find plenty of exceptions, just as one finds with the species.

quote: Originally posted by Charles Darwin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then if evolution is true, why do segments in the human and mouse genome, which evolutionists say are functionless, show near identity?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You do not appear to understand what I am talking about. Humans and mice are closely related. I should expect functionless DNA from those two species to be similar. I should also expect functionless DNA from a species closer to humans than mice to be more similar still to humans. Why shouldn't human and mouse junk DNA be similar?

No, I think you aren't following here. When I say "near identity" of functionless segments, I mean just that. ["As researchers begin comparing newly sequenced genomes, numerous surprises are emerging, as described at a genome meeting here held from 7 to 11 May. For one, some of that 'useless' noncoding DNA turns out to be highly conserved among humans and mice." Science, 296:1601.]. There is no explanation for it under evolution, aside from the usual contrivances.

quote: Originally posted by Charles Darwin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Evolution explains it nicely"? You've got to be kidding? Evolution has no idea (beyond hand waving) how all this change and complexity is supposed to have come about. You see some similarities between the dolphin and other mammals, and say evolution explains this nicely?! There's got to be something behind this, for science doesn't work this way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now it's my turn to not understand what you are talking about. Lets stay on this one specific topic: If an organisms genome is created without adapting it from ancestral genomes, we should see genome similarity correspond to similarities in environmental needs. It doesn't. Instead, genomes are more similar when organisms share more recent hypothesised ancestors. We should not be able to build ancestor trees if there were no ancestors, but we can. These ancestor trees should not be borne out by the hypothetical history in the fossil record, but they do (e.g. we should not find transitional forms in the right places. I do hope we can finish with this topic before discussing those, however, as I am no paleontologist, and the topic deserves its own thread. Deal?). This is the same for every phylogentic tree, of which there are many. Every time a new tree agrees with an old tree it is a confirmation of the common descent hypothesis. This particular argument has nothing to do with explaining 'how all this change and complexity is supposed to have come about', so your motivation for mentioning that escapes me.

You could build the exact same argument using automobiles (indeed, evolutionists have done it many times). It is true that automobiles demonstrate a sort of evolutionary process, and would form convergent trees, the analogy also reveals that convergent trees do not imply the sort of evolution you are talking about. In fact, there are a great many exceptions, which is a fact for designed things, but you must explain away with your contrivances.

quote: Originally posted by Charles Darwin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't have anything to add beyond the obvious, such as dolphins share genetic similarities because they share many traits with those mammals that evolutionists think they are descended from. But what's that got to do with evolution being a scientific fact?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, the idea that genomes are more similar because the genes are catering to similar functions does not work, as I mentioned earlier, because we can get the same phylogenetic tree results with genetic segments that do not do anything to the organism. The similarity we see is therefore not linked to functional similarity.

And who gets to decide which segments have function and which do not? It seems that everytime evolutionists discover something they claim it has no function. It is therefore strong evidence for evolution. Years later, when the function is found, the clamor isn't so loud.

As for what this has to do with 'fact' status: If a theory makes a prediction, and the prediction is correct, then it helps the theories standing. If a theory makes many many many predictions, and they all turn out right without any falsifying evidence showing up,

No falsifying evidence? We've discovered a realm of undreamt of complexity. We wouldn't have a clue how to put it all together. Yet you believe it came about on its own? And you see no reason to doubt this? And you call it a scientific fact? This is ridiculous.

Phylogenetics is a very precise science with well established guidelines. I don't see how you can call it handwaving.

"Until about 5 years ago, researchers considered the transfer of genetic material from one species to another an oddity. Since then, genome studies have shown that some genes have moved around quite a bit. [Note, no one has shown any such thing; this all hinges on the assumption evolution is true � CD] Even so, microbiologists assumed this would not be true for genes involved in translating DNA to RNA, for example, or sunlight to biomass; they couldn't see how genes of such mixed ancestry could possibly coordinate these complex processes. But that assumption 'doesn't seem to be true,' says W. Ford Doolittle, an evolutionary biologist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The new work 'clearly shows that photosynthesis genes have moved from one organism to another,' adds Carl Bauer, a biochemist at Indiana University, Bloomington." Science, 298:1538.

Charles Darwin

It is not a matter of causing problems for the theory. They are claimed as part of the evidence that makes evolution a fact. They do no such thing, not even close. There are plenty of mismatches, at every level. If you think they are rare then you are misinformed.

Anyone who questions evolution must be ignorant.

Pay no attention to evidential problems, this man has nothing to offer except personal incredulity. Above all, we must not question evolution.

Doubting Didymus

I may have to take this as evidence that you havent got the foggiest idea what the hell you're talking about. You seem to have no clue about the biology involved here.

Please, dispel this perception for me. Tell me in your own words what the article is talking about. What kind of species does this happen in? What do you suppose is the mechanism of such gene transfers? Importantly, what on earth is the implication of finding genes of mixed ancestry in a species on the accuracy of phylogenetic research? Lastly, regarding your insert into the above quote: (genes have moved around quite a bit. [Note, no one has shown any such thing; this all hinges on the assumption evolution is true � CD]). In your opinion, can genes move between species as described in the above article, or is there no mechanism for such an occurance?

Doubting Didymus

You were asked several times to provide evidence of phylogenetic mismatches. You utterly failed, and instead displayed for us a series of abominable misquotes that are not even talking about the same thing, or anything like it. I say again: mismatches of significance to evolutionary theory are rare. Mismatches happen, and are the subject of many papers, but they are not problems unless there is no explaition for the mismatch. The fact that you insist on childishly dismissing all explainations offered as contrived handwaving does not make the explaination ineffective unless you actually support your case, which of course you cannot do. You are about rhetoric, and you do not care for real debate.

That was not my first assumption. I came to this suspicion (for that is all it is), based on the things you think are problems for phylogenetics. I suspect you searched for words that sounded good for your case, without really grasping the science. I may well be wrong about that! However, you will need to do more than link to irrelevant nature articles to make your case to the contrary.

Not a bit of it. Please, all onlookers, pay your fullest attention to any evidential problems charles raises. It would do you all good, however, to note that much of it is empty rhetoric, and to ignore that when you find it.

Would you agree that that is a fairer sentiment?

God Fearing Atheist

Charles, there are literally *millions* of phylogenic trees we can construct between taxa. Oddly, even in the worst cases, independent methods rarely arrive at more than a couple dozen or so.

To me, this suggests that independent phylogenies are converging to a highly, highly statistically significant degree.

Their use as support for common decent is as strong as ever.

-GFA

Urvogel Reverie

You have an amazing ability to imply viewpoints and then categorically dismiss them once they prove to be untenable to your current argument. It is an unenviable trait. Were creationism correct the nested hierarchy revealed by cladistic analysis of all taxa, should not be evident, as this very same pattern reveals evolution in action. Your idiotically labelled phylogenetic "mismatches" are the result of numerical statistical analysis using algorithms designed to isolate the most parsimonious cladograms displaying the greatest character-support at each node, they demonstrate that it is often not easy to establish phylogeny, and not any significant complication nor do they constitute a flaw in using phylogenetic analysis as substantiation of evolution. Given that your posts indicate significant misunderstanding of the practice and methods of phylogenetic reconstruction, it is absurd that you should pontificate on the shortcomings of such analysis in upholding evolution.

The further claim that the "most amazing of devices are to have merely arisen" is even more specious, in that if one bothers to look at a phylogenetic map, most particularly a cladogram, you would see that hiearchical distribution of character states is at the very heart of the method: quantifying the polarity and nature of phenotypic variation is what makes cladograms work--ergo they never have and never will be arguments for derived features appearing as if by magic. If one considers that cladograms are merely shorthand for documenting the process of evolution in any given taxonomic category, one could easily see that on the contrary, evolutionary biologists go to pains to document as meticulously as possible, the changes associated with that process. In other words, the cherished creationist strawman of how evolutionists merely assert that things occurred without bothering to elucidate evidence to substantiate their hypotheses, is nothing less than bunk.

Considering the quality of the posts you have advanced, littered as they are with fallacies and distortions, it is nothing less than laughable that you would be accusing anyone or anything, of intellectual bankruptcy.

Urvogel Reverie

Doubting Didymus

Hell-o Urvogel, that's very "good" technical systematics language you have going there (as opposed to 'bad' technical language: that which suggests unfamiliarity with the terminology, or using unneccesary amounts of jargon). You sound like some of my lecturers. Do you work or study in a related field, by any chance?


Edit: I see that you do!

Welcome to Infidels.