[gamila]

The Australian philosopher colin leslie dean has shown
Natural selection is proven wrong for 4 reasons

You can read the complete refutation of natural selection here

published 2009

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … ection.pdf

1)the cambrian explosion as darwin saw invalidates his theory

2)NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with traits already present and cant deal with the generation of new species
genetics might be able to account for the generation of new species [ see below where it is shown genetics cannot account for the generation of new species] but NS cant as the generation of new species it not part of its remit

3) NS deals with the transmission of favorable traits and the eradication of unfavorable traits so the fact that unfavorable traits ie the gene for breast cancer are and can be transmitted and become common invalidates NS out right

Some argue that harmful genes can be transmitted and become common when accompanied by good genes but this makes natural selection wrong ie

quote :

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005

seeing bad genes can become common this thus makes natural selection wrong which says bad genes should be come rare or less common

4) genetics cannot account for the generation of new species-ie the cambrian explosion

quote :

THE REFUTATION
EVOLUTIONARY THEORY:
NATURAL SELECTION
SHOWN TO BE WRONG

BY
COLIN LESLIE DEAN
B.SC, B.A, B.LITT (HONS), M.A, B,LITT (HONS), M.A,
M.A (PSYCHOANALYTIC STUDIES), MASTER OF PSYCHOANALYTIC STUDIES, GRAD CERT (LITERARY STUDIES)

THE REFUTATION
EVOLUTIONARY THEORY:
NATURAL SELECTION
SHOWN TO BE WRONG

BY
COLIN LESLIE DEAN
B.SC, B.A, B.LITT (HONS), M.A, B,LITT (HONS), M.A,
M.A (PSYCHOANALYTIC STUDIES), MASTER OF PSYCHOANALYTIC STUDIES, GRAD CERT (LITERARY STUDIES)

GAMAHUCHER PRESS WEST GEELONG, VICTORIA AUSTRALIA
2009
There are four points which show natural selection [NS]is invalid or wrong
1)the cambrian explosion as darwin saw invalidates his theory.
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/explo/explo.htm
“No real progress has been made by evolutionists since Darwin’s day and “The Cambrian evolutionary explosion is still shrouded in mystery.” (Eldredge, N., The Monkey Business, 1982, p. 46.)”
2)NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with traits already present and cant deal with the generation of new species genetics might be able to account for the generation of new species [ see below where it is shown genetics cannot account for the generation of new species] but NS cant as the generation of new species it not part of its remit
3) NS deals with the transmission of favorable traits and the eradication of unfavorable traits so the fact that unfavorable traits ie the gene for breast cancer are and can be transmitted and become common invalidates NS out right Some argue that harmful genes can be transmitted and become common when accompanied by good genes but this makes natural selection wrong ie

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare”(Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005”

seeing bad genes can become common this thus makes natural selection wrong which says bad genes should be come rare or less common

4) genetics cannot account for the generation of new species-ie the cambrian explosion
TO GIVE DETAIL
Natural selection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

“Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common,”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005
Bowler, Peter. Evolution: the hisotry of an idea)

Note the terms “favorable” “ unfavorable” and “common” are subjective value laden theory laden and relative terms. All open to varying ideological interpretations

it is stated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections … _contested

“evolutionary theory itself has been entirely uncontested in the field of biology and is commonly described as the “cornerstone of modern biology”
Evolution takes place via two process according to evolutionary theory
Natural Selection and genetic drift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Two major mechanisms determine which variants will become more common or rare in a population. The first is natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare. This occurs because individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce, meaning that more individuals in the next generation will inherit these traits.[2][3] Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of the variants best-suited for their environment.[4] The second major mechanism driving evolution is genetic drift, an independent process that produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population. Genetic drift results from the role that chance plays in whether a given trait will be passed on as individuals survive and reproduce.

points which disproves natural selection
1_punctuated equilibrium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
“Punctuated equilibrium is a theory in evolutionary biology which states that most sexually reproducing species experience little change for most of their geological history, showing stasis in the fossil record, and that when phenotypic evolution does occur, it is localized in rare, rapid events of branching speciation (called cladogenesis).”

Charles Darwin noted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

“The sudden appearance and lack of substantial gradual change of most species in the geologic record—from their initial appearance until their extinction—“
now the current thinking notes that speciation or punctuated equilibrium contradicts Darwin theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

“Thus punctuated equilibrium contradicts some of Darwin’s ideas regarding the specific mechanisms of evolution, but generally accords with Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection”

It is claimed that Goulds intention with PE was to be compatible with NS. Goulds intentions are irrelevant. As the consequence of PE is that it invalidates NS
Now NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with triats already present and cant deal with the generation of new species
genetics might be able to account for the generation of new species [ see below where it is shown genetics cannot account for the generation of new species] but NS cant as the generation of new species it not part of its remit as it only deals with traits already present . A new species has completely new traits which were not in an antecedent so the antecedent species could not have passed them on
NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation
Note Gould talks about speciation ie the appearance of new species And below Gould talks about phylum BUT scientists cannot tell us what a species or phylum is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
“However, the exact definition of the term “species” is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[2] and this is called the species problem.[3″
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum
“Although a phylum is often spoken of as if it were a hard and fast entity, no satisfactory definition of a phylum exists”
With out a definition of these terms then biologists are really talking nonsense for with out definitions to locate and identify the things they talk about they are really not talking about anything at all If the biologist talks about say speciation or this species proving natural selection but cant tell you what a species or phylum is then he is talking meaningless nonsense. He could as easily said certain gibbles prove natural selection but with out knowing what a gibble is the claim is meaningless
http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress … -evolution
“British geneticist C. H. Waddington also recognized natural selection to be a tautology. Consider another example: “vertebrates evolved from invertebrates.” But invertebrate by definition means “not a vertebrate.” Evolve means to change, and a changed thing is not what it once was, by definition. Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not. The end result of the phrase is merely an assumption, not a demonstration. Evolution in this way assumes itself, cloaked in logical fallacy.”

NOTE
“Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common,”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005
Bowler, Peter. Evolution: the hisotry of an idea)

2_The Cambrian explosion disproves natural selection
“Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common,”
but the cambrian explosion contradicts natural selection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
Cambrian explosion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
“The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was the seemingly rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals around 530 million years ago, as evidenced by the fossil record.[1][2] This was accompanied by a major diversification of other organisms, including animals, phytoplankton, and calcimicrobes.[3] Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude (as defined in terms of the extinction and origination rate of species[4]) and the diversity of life began to resemble today’s.[5]
The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century,[6] and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.[7]
The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere”
species appeared from no where
“The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere,”
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/explo/explo.htm
“No real progress has been made by evolutionists since Darwin’s day and “The Cambrian evolutionary explosion is still shrouded in mystery.” (Eldredge, N., The Monkey Business, 1982, p. 46.)”
now even Darwin saw this as destroying his theory

“The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century,[6] and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.[7]”
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/explo/explo.htm
“Some modern Darwinists have suggested that the absence of primitive lifeforms below the Cambrian is not a problem for evolution. However, this difficulty was fully appreciated by Darwin and it has only become more acute since his days. “Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great. …The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” (Darwin, C., The Origin of Species, 1872, pp. 316-317.) Today, Gould writes, “The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. …not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion. So much for chordate uniqueness… Contrary to Darwin’s expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event…” (Gould, Stephen J., Nature, vol. 377, October 1995, p.682.) “The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.” (Gould, Stephen J., “The Evolution of Life,” in Schopf, Evolution: Facts and Fallacies, 1999, p. 9.)”
NOTE
Even the arch evolutionist Dawkins states the Cambrian explosion is a major problem and gives support for the creationists
http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/explo/explo.htm
“Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.” (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker,” 1986, p.229).
NOTE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
“Charles Darwin considered this sudden appearance of many animal groups with few or no antecedents to be the greatest single objection to his theory of evolution:”
note there is little or no evidence in the preceeding geological strata of transitional fossils
thus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution

“Darwin himself found the paucity of transitional species to be one of the greatest weaknesses of his theory:”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated … s_theories

“who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favored explanation.”
As it stands right now the evidence of cambrian explosion invalidates NS
if there is no evidence to prove NS that is just to bad
and you cant live in hope the evidence will show up
As it stand right now the evidence of cambrian explosion invalidates NS
darwin saw
if you have an abrupt explosion of species out of now where ,that invalidates NS-the geological evidence cannot be found to support NS so empirically it is not suppported -thus invalidated -up to the present time

This sudden appearence of new species has been explained as speciation but as we saw speciation mean NS is wrong
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiolog … losion.htm
“some scientists believe there was indeed an explosion of diversity [cambrian explosion] (the so-called punctuated equilibrium theory elaborated by Nils Eldredge the late Stephen J. Gould – Models In Paleobiology, 1972
note that at the time of Darwin the cambrian explosion was evidence that refuted his theory all the religious people had to do at the times was refer to science itself for refutation of evolutionism ie the cambrian explosion and lack of EVIDENCE for natural selection
3)
NOW NS is invalidated by the fact that unfavorable traits are transmitted and can become common – THERE ARE MANY GENETIC DISORDERS WHICH ARE COMMON ie the gene for breast cancer
“Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005
Bowler, Peter. Evolution: the hisotry of an idea)

Note some say that harmful genes can be transmitted so long as they accompany good genes or have beneficial results. But this is not what NS says –

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare”(Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005”

seeing bad genes can become common in the population this thus makes natural selection wrong which says bad genes should be come rare or less common in the population
NS. Also concepts of “good” and harmful/bad “rare” “common” are subjective value laden ideological terms which can mean different things to different people.

Now NS is about favorable genes being transmitted and becoming common
and unfavorable genes becoming less common
Now unfavorable killer genes ie breast cancer genes can and are transmitted and are common in the population-thus invalidating NS
Young women mums and grandmother are killed by it ie breast cancer genes It occurs in women of childbearing age and they transmit it to their daughters. Some say a gene that kills after child bearing age does not invalidate NS. The fact is the gene for breast cancer kills Young women mums and grandmother. It is an abuse of language to say such a deleterious gene which kills all ages of women is not bad or unfavorable

Some argue that NS or survival only matters up to the point where you survive long enough to reproduce These people seem to think humans are a species of octopus or salmon If all human women died after giving birth to children the kids would die as well-thus humans would not survive
Kids need living parents to survive if the mothers died after birthing the kids would die Take mammals if the mammal mother died after giving birth the off spring would die and mammals become extinct

Also kids can only survive if there are adults around to look after them
now adults can be mum and dad and also grandparents
Note In africa with the adults dieing of aids it is the grandparents bringing up the kids. All members of the human population play their part in the survival of the species- humans are not a species of octopus or bacteria or amoeba or salmon

EVIDENCE FOR COMMON HARMFUL GENES IN THE POPULATION

Research has shown the breast cancer genes are common and may lead to other cancers – all of which invalidates NS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005
Bowler, Peter. Evolution: the hisotry of an idea)

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ … 529713.htm

Researchers find new breast cancer genes

“Associate Professor Jennifer Byrne, at the University of Sydney’s Faculty of Medicine, says the two studies suggest there are more of these “weak alleles” that affect breast cancer risk yet to be found.
Byrne, an oncology researcher, says these genes play a tiny role in increasing risk, but may be quite common in the general population.
“Individually they are probably not major factors, but cumulatively they could be helpful in working out who is at greater risk,” she says.
“They are all small pieces of the puzzle.”
She also suggests they may play an important role in what is termed sporadic breast cancer, which is cancer without an obvious genetic basis.
“These are the genes that might underlie this form of cancer,” she says.
Regardless of their role in breast cancer, Byrne says the findings may have side benefits for cancer research in general.
Genes involved in breast cancer predisposition can also play roles in cancers such as ovarian and prostate, she says.
“They [the variants] may predispose to more than breast cancer in the end,” she says”
MORE EVIDENCE
these genes are harmful as they can lead to the death of the person –even child bearing women

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=5689

“But it is possible to be born with a gene fault that may cause cancer. This doesn’t mean you will definitely get cancer. But it means that you are more likely to develop cancer than the average person”

“The first breast cancer gene faults to be found were BRCA1 and BRCA2. These faults don’t mean you have cancer, or you definitely will get cancer but women with these genes have a 50 to 80% chance of getting breast cancer in their lifetime. We now know of other genes that significantly increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer. They are called TP53 and PTEN. Genetic tests are available to women with a high risk of having changes in their BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53 or PTEN genes.

“Researchers have found other common genes that can slightly increase a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer. These are called CASP8, FGFR2, TNRCP, MAP3K1 and LSP1. No tests are available to find these genes yet.”

“Rare genes that can also increase breast cancer risk slightly include CHEK2, ATM (ataxia telangiectasia mutated), BRIP1 and PALB2. No tests are available for these genes yet”

“With particular groups of women, there are very common specific gene faults. Ashkenazi Jewish women tend to have one of 3 very particular gene mutations”

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition=breastcancer

“Hereditary cancers are those associated with inherited gene mutations. Hereditary breast cancers tend to occur earlier in life than noninherited (sporadic) cases and are more likely to involve both breasts”

“BRCA1 and BRCA2 are major genes related to hereditary breast cancer. Women who have inherited certain mutations in these genes have a high risk of developing breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and several other types of cancer during their lifetimes”

“Additionally, BRCA1 mutations are associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer. Mutations in the BRCA2 gene are associated with an increased chance of developing male breast cancer and cancers of the prostate and pancreas. An aggressive form of skin cancer called melanoma is also more common among people who have BRCA2 mutations.”

“Inherited changes in several other genes, including CDH1, PTEN, STK11, and TP53, have been found to increase the risk of developing breast cancer”

“Some research suggests that inherited variants of the ATM, BARD1, BRIP1, CHEK2, NBN, PALB2, RAD50, and RAD51 genes, as well as certain versions of the AR gene, may also be associated with breast cancer risk. Not all studies have shown these connections, however. Of these genes, ATM and CHEK2 have the strongest evidence of being related to the risk of developing breast cancer”
MORE EVIDENCE –THAT HARMFUL GENES ARE COMMON
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/su … 738782_ITM
“2001 MAY 25 – (NewsRx Network) — New research indicates that a vast majority of children admitted to hospitals have a genetically determined underlying disorder.

The study, led by a pediatrician and medical geneticist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found such disorders accounting for more than two-thirds of all children admitted to a large full-service pediatric hospital over a one-year period.

Moreover, regardless of reason for admission, children whose underlying disorder had a strong genetic basis tended to be hospitalized longer, with charges for their care accounting for 80% of total costs.”

http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/270/G … rders.html
“There are more than 6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about one in every 200 births. Examples are cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell anemia, Huntington’s disease, and hereditary hemochromatosis”
4)

Now some people seem to think that Genetics can account for the generation of new species

lets be logical
there are only two possibilities
1)the generation of new species is random process
or
2) there is some purpose or design programmed into the genes/DNA such that the generation of a new species takes place in a certain manner

when you think about these alternatives
logically then genetics cant account for the generation of new species

1) if the process is random then genetics cannot account for why a species appears for being random there can be no deterministic reason why it happens in a particular why- once the generation process has started genetics can account for how it unfolds-but genetics cannot account for its random starting point chaos theory might but genetics cant

2)if there is some plan programmed into the genes/DNA such that species unfold according to the plan
then
genetics cant account for the generation of new species- it can account for how the process might unfold
but
it cant account why the genes have been progammed that way- the idea of god might but genetics cant

THUS IN SUMMARY
1)the cambrian explosion as darwin saw invalidates his theory
2)NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals ith traits already present and cant deal with the generation of new species
genetics might be able to account for the generation of new species [ see above where it is shown genetics cannot account for the generation of new species] but NS cant as the generation of new species it not part of its remit
3) NS deals with the transmission of favorable traits and the eradication of unfavorable traits so the fact that unfavorable traits ie the gene for breast cancer are and can be transmitted and become common invalidates NS out right
4) genetics cannot account for the generation of new species-ie the cambrian explosion and speciation

APPENDIX
SPECIES PARADOX

The first humans Adam and Eve gave birth to Cain and Able
so who did Cain mate with

similarly
who did the first bird mate with who did the first dog mate with

an individual of species A gives birth to a individual of the new species B so who did this new individual of new species B mate with to continue the new species

either

1)there was no one to mate with- so how did the new species B become common
or
2)a whole lot of species A gave birth toa whole lot of new individuals of species B at the same time so that these new individual members of species B could mate together

if this 2) was the way it happened
we have a major problem
it would mean something made a whole lot of members of species A give birth to a whole lot new members of species B at the same time
we are told species form due to random mutations
so
it is beyound possibility that the same random mutation took place in a whole lot of different members of species A at the same time

the other alternative is that some intelligence was at work

ISBN 1876347783

[Twila]

wow thats amazing.. I just got done studying darwin’s NS theory….

Im going to have to print this out and ask my teacher about it. our books are brand new(ordered this year new too) he’s going to freak. I never really doubted it. hmmm.. this is interesting

thanks Ill read up on it some more

[gamila]

read this about the cambrian explosion
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/explo/explo.htm

quote :

Modern multicellular animals make their first uncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570 million years ago – and with a bang, not a protracted crescendo. This ‘Cambrian explosion’ marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals – and all within the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years.” (Gould, Stephen J., Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1989, pp. 23-24.)

"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs…” (Gould, Stephen Jay., The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, pp. 238-239.) The Cambrian period (thought to have started 540 million years ago) is a huge evolutionary enigma. Scientists at one time postulated that evolution of phyla took more than 75 million years. Even that period of time was vastly insufficient for this major evolutionary step. Now Darwinists believe that this happened in a few million years. Supposedly nothing but blue-green algae and bacteria lived for billions of years and then in a geologic instant all of the major types of animals sprung into existence! This has been called the Big Bang of Biology. No real progress has been made by evolutionists since Darwin’s day and “The Cambrian evolutionary explosion is still shrouded in mystery.” (Eldredge, N., The Monkey Business, 1982, p. 46.)

[biohazard]

Oh for crying out loud, where do all these people spawn from? 😛

For example, the fact that we have genes that make us prone to breast cancer in no way proves natural selection wrong. Natural selection does not necessarily improve helpful traits or lessen bad ones: if you can live and have offspring with a bad trait (such as a gene for breast cancer), it’s all fine with natural selection. It doesn’t mean a flying fuck whether you have bad traits as long as you have enough good ones to survive and have offspring, who in turn have offspring etc etc.

Breast cancer has not been a problem for humans in the past, because people simply died before it had time to have an effect, and because it requires many genetic and environmental factors to kick in, so on a large scale as far as human populations are concerned, it’s a mere nuisance.

Breast cancer (and cancers in general) have a marked impact on human life at the moment because we live much longer and are exposed to more environmental pollution nowadays, but it has nothing to do with natural selection not working. If breast cancer or any other such condition starts wiping out fertile women, for example, you will for sure see that trait becoming more rare, by means of natural selection.

That was just to cover one mistake in those claims by the starter of this thread, someone else please handle the rest. I’m getting tired of explaining these things ever again.

[biohazard]

On a side note, the link (and the "article") mentioned in the first post is a complete joke. I bet the author doesn’t have any of the academic degrees mentioned in the intro, because even a five-year-old child with half a brain could come up with more coherent article with better reasoning than what is in that text.

Hell, that text is ultra-poor even on your average creationist’s standards.

So don’t waste your time on that text, it’s a hoax. If someone wants to ask their teacher about evolution vs. creationism, please choose a better article (probably ANY other article). Showing that to your teacher will make him cry no matter whether he actually supports evoltuion theory or creationism…

[canalon]

Interesting points:
-The author has a very long list of title, but none of them relevant with science. He might have read a little bit on the subject before writing and
– Wikipedia can be a convenient place to start searching for information, but one should always try to go back to the original source, and (I might be too demanding but who knows…) actually try to understand it rather than just dealing with a 2 lines quote.
– I know, we all make typos but a minimum amount a proofreading would at least prove that you actually care about what you are talking about.

1/ I do not see why the Cambrian explosion would invalidate the NS. In fact in an earth that was still relatively empty, an early explosion of plenty of life form has nothing to be surprising.

2/ Darwin himself talk about the generation of new traits, and the modern synthesis (which while still using Darwin’s framework has seriously improved the mechanistic details of the evolution theory) explains that extensively

3/ The definition of favourable and unfavourable are highly relative in the darwinian theory, hence the existence of traits currently perceived as unfavourable does not mean that there was no good reason for those to be maintained. And the fact that there are no real alternative is avery excellent reason. Example our spine sucks for bipedal position, really, but making it really better would require massive changes in our body plan that are much more likely to be detrimental than to increase your fitness. While backpain when you age as limited impact on our reproductive ability.

4/ Why not?

[biohazard]

quote canalon:

3/ The definition of favourable and unfavourable are highly relative in the darwinian theory, hence the existence of traits currently perceived as unfavourable does not mean that there was no good reason for those to be maintained. And the fact that there are no real alternative is avery excellent reason. Example our spine sucks for bipedal position, really, but making it really better would require massive changes in our body plan that are much more likely to be detrimental than to increase your fitness. While backpain when you age as limited impact on our reproductive ability.

Oh, I love this section! This is exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t come up with any good examples at the moment of my first reply.

You need to understand the mechanisms of evolution to a certain degree before you can start thinking about some seemingly contradictory parts of evoltuion, but ufortunately many who criticize the theory of evolution so much don’t always understand the underlying basics at all (the whole context is of course extremely complicated, but even the basics get you pretty far). Thus, examples as quoted above are very nice for explaining the situation!

[gamila]

you say

1)

quote :

1/ I do not see why the Cambrian explosion would invalidate the NS. In fact in an earth that was still relatively empty, an early explosion of plenty of life form has nothing to be surprising.

read this
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/explo/explo.htm

quote :

Some modern Darwinists have suggested that the absence of primitive lifeforms below the Cambrian is not a problem for evolution. However, this difficulty was fully appreciated by Darwin and it has only become more acute since his days.

quote :

While many of scientists have commented about the “missing links” in the fossil record, H.S. Ladd of UCLA observes, “Most paleontologists today give little thought to fossiliferous rocks older than the Cambrian, thus ignoring the most important missing link of all. Indeed the missing Pre-Cambrian record cannot properly be described as a link for it is in reality, about nine-tenths of the chain of life: the first nine-tenths.” (Geological Society of America Memoir, vol. II, 1967, p.7.)

you say 2)

quote :

For example, the fact that we have genes that make us prone to breast cancer in no way proves natural selection wrong. Natural selection does not necessarily improve helpful traits or lessen bad ones:

based on your own wordsn NS is wrong as it says bad harmfull genes should become less common

quote :

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare”(Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005”

read this

quote :

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/03/30/2529713.htm

Researchers find new breast cancer genes

“Associate Professor Jennifer Byrne, at the University of Sydney’s Faculty of Medicine, says the two studies suggest there are more of these “weak alleles” that affect breast cancer risk yet to be found.
Byrne, an oncology researcher, says these genes play a tiny role in increasing risk, but may be quite common in the general population.
“Individually they are probably not major factors, but cumulatively they could be helpful in working out who is at greater risk,” she says.
“They are all small pieces of the puzzle.”
She also suggests they may play an important role in what is termed sporadic breast cancer, which is cancer without an obvious genetic basis.
“These are the genes that might underlie this form of cancer,” she says.
Regardless of their role in breast cancer, Byrne says the findings may have side benefits for cancer research in general.
Genes involved in breast cancer predisposition can also play roles in cancers such as ovarian and prostate, she says.
"They [the variants] may predispose to more than breast cancer in the end," she says”

http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/explo/explo.htm

quote :

The problem has become more acute as recent studies in developmental biology make clear that mutations expressed early in development typically have severely deleterious effects, including mutations in crucially important “master regulator” or hox genes. The problem has led to what geneticist John F. MacDonald has called “a great Darwinian paradox." He notes that genes that vary within a populations affect only minor aspects of form and function, while genes that govern major changes – the very stuff of macroevolution – apparently do not vary, or vary only to the detriment of the organism. (McDonald, “The Molecular Basis of Adaption: A Critical Review of Relevant Ideas and Observations,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematic, 1983 14:93)

[AstusAleator]

Current human evolution is atypical and standard natural selection doesn’t necessarily apply.

Modern medicine allows people with harmful disorders (asthma, diabetes, etc) to live long prolific lives, and pass their genes on to the next generation.
In a more "natural" setting, these people would die much sooner, leaving no offspring or severely damaging the fitness of their offspring.

In a broader sense, I suppose you could say that the fitness benefits gained from our increased mental capacity far outweigh the other accumulated genetic disorders. In which case NS still applies to humans, just in a very broad abstract sense.

[alextemplet]

This is worse than a hoax; it’s complete garbage. At least a hoax makes an effort to be believable, whereas no reasonable person would believe the article posted here.

As Canalon said, the author has a lovely collection of degrees, but not a single one of them has anything to do with science. If you want to push this issue, find sources from respectable biologists with PhDs or at least MS degrees who are trying to say that natural selection is false. I’d be willing to bet you won’t find even one.

How does the cambrian explosion invalidate natural selection? The link you posted gives no evidence at all as to why it wouldn’t have happened. In fact, if you studied the molecular and genetic histories of developing life from its origin up through the cambrian period, you’ll find that it’s really not hard to believe at all, especially given that multicellular life was still very new at that time. A "phylum" can be reduced to little more than a body plan, and with the first multicellular organisms came life’s first experiments at putting multiple cells together into a single organism. Just play around with some legos for a bit and you’ll see that there’s plenty of different ways to put various building blocks together, and this combined with the relative emptiness of the earth that this time makes it very believable that, as soon as the first multicellular life forms appeared, there would be an explosion of biodiversity as all sorts of phyla (body plans) evolved to take advantage of the many unexploited niches available.

To claim that the presence of cancer invalidates natural selection is foolish. As Astus pointed out, the real reason we have such a problem with it is because our level of medical technology has developed to a point where people who, in the wild, would be "naturally selected" are actually remaining alive longer than nature intended and thus having problems that aboriginal humans never had to deal with. Astus’s proposal that our mental capacity outweighs other problems (such as cancer or the poor spinal column that Canalon pointed out) certainly has some merits, but I would instead claim that it is wrong to apply theories of natural selection to a human population that no longer lives in nature.

As for the generation of new species, I would like to know how this cannot be accounted for. Given that we know mechanisms by which mutations can produce new DNA sequences, and natural selection works on those traits, selecting favorable ones, until over time the entire genome of the population is altered.

In conclusion, I would recommend that you do some serious research into evolutionary science by looking into some serious sources, not relying on half-baked articles conjured up by amateurs who don’t even have an associate’s degree in the relevant field.

[canalon]

quote gamila:

you say 2)

quote :

For example, the fact that we have genes that make us prone to breast cancer in no way proves natural selection wrong. Natural selection does not necessarily improve helpful traits or lessen bad ones:

based on your own wordsn NS is wrong as it says bad harmfull genes should become less common

quote :

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare”(Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005”

You completely miss the point. You see cancer as bad because it kills you however evolutionary it is of very little relevance. Good or bad are not part of the evolutionary vocabulary. The key concept here is fitness, which can roughly be translated as the ability to transmit gene to the next generation.
Or as you might know, most cancer happen in the latter year, when many people have already procreated, so the cancer will not affect their fitness, so there is no evolutionary pressure to remove a gene that will cause it from the gene pool.

On the other hand a gene that would allow you to live very healthily untill 120 years old, but with reduced fertility, although quite good from a human point of view, would probably quickly be removd from the gene pool, because it will directly reduce the fitness of the (in?)fortunate carriers of the gene.

[alextemplet]

To add to what Canalon said, one might also consider that cancer-causing genes would be very, very good from an evolutionary point of view because they guarantee that people will die after they are no longer able to reproduce. It would be very bad, from the standpoint of natural selection, to have a large population of geriatrics that would amount to evolutionary parasites by consuming resources while contributing nothing in terms of additional offspring or possibly even work to support the offspring of others. In evolutionary terms, it is much better that individuals die as soon as they are no longer able to breed, thus removing competition for resources and giving the younger generations an opportunity to thrive.

So, interestingly, one could argue that high rates of cancer actually proves the validity of natural selection as a biological theory.

[gamila]

quote :

You see cancer as bad because it kills you however evolutionary it is of very little relevance

you are abusing language

there is no way you can say the genes that cause cancer are not harmful

and as such there being transmitted and common invalidates NS

quote :

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare”(Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005”

read this

http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/explo/explo.htm

quote :

For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history[/quote]

quote :

The introduction of a variety of organisms in the early Cambrian, including such complex forms of the arthropods as the trilobites, is surprising…. The introduction of abundant organisms in the record would not be so surprising if they were simple. Why should such complex organic forms be in rocks about six hundred million years old and be absent or unrecognized in the records of the preceding two billion years? …If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than the Cambrian is puzzling." (Kay, Marshall, and Edwin H. Colbert, Stratigraphy and Life History, 1965, 736 pp.102-103, as cited in Morris, 1974)

some genetic disorders
http://www.noah-health.org/en/genetic/

quote :

Specific Conditions

* Achromatopsia

* Adrenal Hypoplasia Congenita

* Adrenoleukodystrophy

* Aicardi Syndrome

* Alagille Syndrome

* Albinism/Hypopigmentation

* Alexander Disease

* Alpers’ Disease

* Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency

* Alzheimer’s Disease

* Amblyopia

* Angelman Syndrome

* Anencephaly

* Aniridia

* Anophthalmia

* Ataxia Telangiectasia

* Autism

* Bardet-Biedl Syndrome

* Barth Syndrome

* Batten Disease

* Best’s Disease

* Bipolar Disorder

* Bloom Syndrome

* Branchio-Oto-Renal (BOR) Syndrome

* Canavan Syndrome

* Cancer Genetics

* Carnitine Deficiencies

* Carnitine Acylcarnitine Translocase Deficiency

* Carnitine Palmitoyltransferase Deficiency

* Cerebral Palsy

* Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease

* Cleft Lip/Cleft Palate

* Coffin Lowry Syndrome

* Coloboma

* Color Blindness

* Congenital Heart Defects

* Congenital Hip Dysplasia (Dislocation)

* Connective Tissue Disorders

* Cooley’s Anemia

* Corneal Dystrophy

* Cornelia de Lange Syndrome

* Cystic Fibrosis

* Cystinosis

* Developmental Disabilities

* Diabetes

* Down Syndrome

* Duane Syndrome

* Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome

* Epidermolysis Bullosa

* Familial Dysautonomia

* Familial Mediterranean Fever

* Fanconi Anemia

* Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva

* Fragile X Syndrome

* G6PD (Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase) Deficiency Anemia

* Galactosemia

* Gaucher Disease

* Gilbert’s Syndrome

* Glaucoma

* Hemochromatosis

* Hemoglobin C Disease

* Hemophilia/Bleeding Disorders

* Hirschsprung’s Disease

* Homocystinuria

* Huntington’s Disease

* Hurler Syndrome

* Juvenile Retinoschisis (X Linked)

* Klinefelter Syndrome

* Krabbe Disease

* Leber Congenital Amaurosis

* Leukodystrophies

* Lipid Storage Diseases

* Long Q-T Syndrome

* Macular Degeneration

* Marfan Syndrome

* Marshall Syndrome

* McCune-Albright Syndrome

* Menkes Disease

* Metabolic Disorders

* Microphthalmus

* Mitochondrial Disease

* Mucolipidoses

* Mucopolysaccharide Disorders

* Muscular Dystrophy

* Neonatal Onset Multisystem Inflammatory Disease

* Neural Tube Defects

* Neurofibromatosis

* Niemann-Pick Disease

* Noonan Syndrome

* Optic Atrophy

* Osteogenesis Imperfecta

* Peutz-Jeghers Syndrome

* Phenylketonuria (PKU)

* Polycystic Kidney Disease

* Prader-Willi Syndrome

* Progeria

* Pseudoxanthoma Elasticum

* Ptosis

* Rentinitis Pigmentosa

* Scheie Syndrome

* Schizophrenia

* Severe Combined Immunodeficiency (SCID)

* Sickle Cell Anemia

* Skeletal Dysplasias

* Smith-Magenis Syndrome

* Spherocytosis

* Spina Bifida

* Spinocerebellar Ataxia

* Stargardt Disease (Macular Degeneration)

* Stickler Syndrome

* Tay-Sachs Disease

* Thalassemia

* Treacher Collins Syndrome

* Tuberous Sclerosis

* Turner’s Syndrome

* Urea Cycle Disorder

* Usher’s Syndrome

* Velocardiofacial Syndrome

* von Hippel-Lindau Disease

* Werner Syndrome

* Williams Syndrome

* Xeroderma Pigmentosum

* XXX Syndrome

* XYY Syndrome

[alextemplet]

quote gamila:

there is no way you can say the genes that cause cancer are not harmful

Yes there is; I just explained it. Care to point out where I went wrong?

[biohazard]

quote AstusAleator:

Current human evolution is atypical and standard natural selection doesn’t necessarily apply.

Modern medicine allows people with harmful disorders (asthma, diabetes, etc) to live long prolific lives, and pass their genes on to the next generation.
In a more “natural” setting, these people would die much sooner, leaving no offspring or severely damaging the fitness of their offspring.

In a broader sense, I suppose you could say that the fitness benefits gained from our increased mental capacity far outweigh the other accumulated genetic disorders. In which case NS still applies to humans, just in a very broad abstract sense.

Uhh, I’m pretty sure natural selection still applies to humans. It’s good, though, that you mentioned "in a very broad abstract sense", because if you truly want to understand natural selection, you must look things in a broad sense. Just because natural selection looks more straightforward in, say, flatworms than in humans does not make humans immune to it.

It is true that humans with their brains have changed the situation on a small scale (e.g. what happens now; you can live with conditions that would have killed you just a century ago and still have children). But if you look at the situation after 100 000 years, you are very likely to notice that people with "good" enough genes to survive in their given environment did so and their genes got passed on.

Humans are not so different after all. We use technology to overcome our disadvantages, but there are animals also that use tools and there are myriads of species that need symbiosis with one another in order to survive: they just do what we do: use external aids in their fight of survival and procreation.

Just like Canalon earlier said, terms "harmful" and "beneficial" when talking about different traits of an organism are very treacherous in the context of evolution. Evolution just "deals random cards" and we just must make use of what we happen to get. Something that today is very useful can be disadvantageous in the future. Natural selection doesn’t aim for anything beneficial and many seemingly harmful traits tag along. It’s just the sum of this combined with your current environment (including whatever culture, knowledge or technology it may contain) that matters.

If the environment stayed constant without any change (including your sources of nutrition and predators), then, by the laws of natural selection, "beneficial" traits should constantly increase and "harmful" ones decrease in numbers. But the world will never be like this.

Maybe if we one day manage to transport our consciousness and our "self" from biological substrate (i.e. DNA) to some artificial one (e.g. silicon), then we may actually be free from the laws of natural selection.

[biohazard]

quote gamila:

you are abusing language

there is no way you can say the genes that cause cancer are not harmful

and as such there being transmitted and common invalidates NS

If some gene is harmuful when you are 80 years old (e.g. something that causes cancer), it doesn’t mean it is exclusively a bad gene. Many oncogenes, for example, are genetic control elements that have an important role in the life and development of an individual. If you removed them, you would die as a fetus. So can you really call a gene that allows you to become an adult and have children a harmful gene? It may become harmful later on for sure, but it has already done its good deeds. Also it is worth noting that often these harmful genes have simply mutated during the individual’s life and become malfunctioning. Evolutionary it is not very disastrous if you die of cancer at the age of 80, if the gene that caused your death was useful the years before that.

You posted a long list of genetic disorders, but do you actually have any knowledge about them? Vast majority are either recessive genes, which pretty much lessens the evolutionary pressure to eliminate those genes, or are genes that only cause disease if combined to other mutations and/or environmental agents, which again means that just a proportion of these genetic elements get eliminated from the gene pool. On a long run they just aren’t deleterious enough to disappear completely – if viewed on a species level. Finally, some of the conditions are caused by point mutations, deletions, chromosomal translocation or invertion, and as such are results of random events on a genomic scale. They are not inherited from anywhere, and because they cause lethal diseases, get also eliminated by the means of natural selection.

It is important to remember that natural selection does not aim to produce anything "good" or remove anything "bad". It just chooses individuals that have good enough means to surive and prosper in their current environment. There are dozens of examples of this: e.g. very large animals seem to benefit from their size (very few or no predators for example), but the size is always a trade-off – they are also the ones who suffer the most if food becomes scarce, they are slow to mature and thus have less offspring, which in turn makes them evolutionary "slow" to react to environmental changes.

So as you hopefully see from that simplified example that there rarely is anything good or bad in the nature, there are just things that either make your species survive, or slowly kill it off. Pretty much all those genetic diseases you mentioned are evolutionary almost irrelevant. There are much more powerful forces driving species development (e.g. nutrition, infectious diseas, predation) than a couple of random mutations that now and then kills an individual of the species.

Also, you kind of shoot yourself in the leg with that genetic disorder list you copied somewhere, because for example the sickle cell anemia you mentioned there is a school book example of the failure of your reasoning: as a heterozygous form it is actually beneficial in certain areas of the world because it protects from malaria, but is disadvantageous in other parts of the worlds due to a degree of anemia it causes. The malaria is worse than the anemia it causes, so in malaria regions the allele that causes the condition is much more common than anywhere else. So here we clearly see that your reasoning that bad genes should simply go away and good ones become more common fails.

[gamila]

quote :

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005

this prove NS wrong as genetic disorders are common when NS says they should be rare or less common
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/su … 738782_ITM

Publication: Genomics & Genetics Weekly
Publication Date: 25-MAY-01

quote :

2001 MAY 25 – (NewsRx Network) — New research indicates that a vast majority of children admitted to hospitals have a genetically determined underlying disorder.

The study, led by a pediatrician and medical geneticist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found such disorders accounting for more than two-thirds of all children admitted to a large full-service pediatric hospital over a one-year period.

Moreover, regardless of reason for admission, children whose underlying disorder had a strong genetic basis tended to be hospitalized longer, with charges for their care accounting for 80% of total costs.

The new findings and their potential implications were presented April 30 to the 2001 Pediatric Academic Societies and American Academy of Pediatrics joint…

[biohazard]

Aight, let’s try this one more time.

Every single one of us has a genetic defect of some sort.

That already explains why you can find a lot of genetic elements that are potentially harmful when studying hospitalized children. You could take any population, and still find plenty of these same genes.

That being said, serious genetic diseases are rare, and the most serious genetic disorders are very rare – completely in line with natural selection; the more serious a given disorder is, the less likely it is to affect an individual. There are some exceptions to this for well-documented reasons, but a clear trend can be seen: colour blindness is relatively common, because it is almost harmless; Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a rare disease – even though it is common among lethal genetic diseases, you see people suffering from this rarely. And why is that? Because it is such a serious illness, that it has become extremely rare in the gene pool, and only female carriers pass it on. And the reason for it is that it’s an X-linked disorder so they are basically unaffected.

So it all works in a perfect logic if you look at the whole picture. Mild disorders are fairly common, serious ones rare, and lethal ones extremely rare. Just like the chapter you keep quoting says.

Our genes aren’t "perfect". They aren’t immune to mutations, so even if natural selection would eliminate all "bad" mutations, new ones will emerge, and unless they kill the individual or make them unable to reproduce, they stay in the gene pool as long as the individuals carrying them manage to compete in the "evolutionary race".

There will never be a perfect set of genes, because the genes we have are never completely up-to-date. Natural selection instantly removes only genes that are lethal on early age or make reproduction impossible. All else comes along and dies off slowly, and during that time new mutations occur – some poor, some beneficial in their current environment.

Already the mere rate of mutation alone means that there are always genetical disorders among any given population. It has nothing to do with natural selection not working. To the contrary, mutations are the tools that give new substance for natural selection to take place.

[gamila]

quote :

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005

there are many genetic diseases which are common some occur in about one in every 200 births-which according to NS should be rare

http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/270/G … rders.html

quote :

There are more than 6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about one in every 200 births. Examples are cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell anemia, Huntington’s disease, and hereditary hemochromatosiss

quote :

Some of the most common chronic diseases are multifactorial in origin. Examples include heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, arthritis, diabetes, and cancer.

quote :

The science of genomics relies on knowledge of and access to the entire genome and applies to common conditions, such as breast and colorectal cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and Alzheimer’s disease. It also has a role in infectious diseases once believed to be entirely environmentally caused such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV, which is the virus that causes acquired immune deficiency syndrome [AIDS]) infection and tuberculosis. Like most diseases, these frequently occurring disorders are due to the interactions of multiple genes and environmental factors.

[biohazard]

Yep, keep repeating those chapters.

One in 200 leaves you 199 healthy individuals, so what’s the problem? And even of those genetically ill children, most are not affected until at old age, can cope with their condition well enough to have children, or do not express the disease at all (common with multifactorial diseases).

I don’t believe you are as thick as you try to look like, so please read my previous post again with thought – it explains all that you quote in this one.

[canalon]

quote gamila:

quote :

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005

there are many genetic diseases which are common some occur in about one in every 200 births-which according to NS should be rare

To make things simple, you do not understand what you are quoting. The part that should be bolded is what is in brackets, the definition of helpful (and by opposition of harmful). In fact a gene that would cause you an incredibly painful and slow death but will simultaneously considerably increase your fertility would be extremely helpful evolutionary speaking, while you as an individual would probably disagree.
Take Huntington’s disease: it is dominant, lead to an early death (in the 40’s or 50’s) that is not even quick and painless. It looks bad. However, since the symptom do not appear before 40 or 50 year old, most human will probably have had kids and raised them before any symptoms are visible. As a consequence, this gene do not reduce the chances of your genes to be passed on the next generation. There is very little evolutionary pressure for this gene to disappear.
Another example: Sickle cell anemia, caused by a simple mutation in the gene coding for the hemoglobin. If the 2 copies are mutated it is a debilitating disease. But one copy and you can live quite normally (providing you avoid mountain climbing and extreme diving) and even have protection against malaria. This last trait is highly desirable and hence the mutated gene is found at high frequency in African and Mediterranean populations. Because the benefit for the heterozygous are so much more than the cost for the homozygous.

In conclusion, start reading more than just a few chosen quotes on evolution to realize that it is much more complicated than bad are excluded, and good are conserved. Because right now you are not bringing anything to the debate, and you are making a fool of yourself for showing that you do not have an inkling of understanding on what you are talking about. Some of the books the quotes have been extracted from are actually quite good. Gould is really nice to read, Dawkins is quite an extremist in evolutionary theory, but he knows what he is talking about, and what he says is worth thinking about. Plus he knows how to write too and research. Much better than what was offered in the original text.

[gamila]

It really is very simple in the light of the evidence the position of the evolutionists/darwinists is untenable – not colin leslie dean dean is not a creationist

NS is s very simple formulation

quote :

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005

the cambrian explosion shows NS is wrong

quote :

. No real progress has been made by evolutionists since Darwin’s day and “The Cambrian evolutionary explosion is still shrouded in mystery.” (Eldredge, N., The Monkey Business, 1982, p. 46.)

quote :

For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history

and

the the fact that harmful genes are transmitted and are common or not rare shows NS is wrong

quote :

There are more than 6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about one in every 200 births. Examples are cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell anemia, Huntington’s disease, and hereditary hemochromatosis

quote :

ew research indicates that a vast majority of children admitted to hospitals have a genetically determined underlying disorder.

The study, led by a pediatrician and medical geneticist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found such disorders accounting for more than two-thirds of all children admitted to a large full-service pediatric hospital over a one-year period.

i think the case is closed
the evidence is out there and copious to show NS is wrong as colin leslie dean has shown

[alextemplet]

Gamila, I would like to point out to you that most of the people that have presented arguments against your claim have biology degrees themselves, and I think at least one of us here has a doctorate. I myself am a lowly undergrad bio student. My point is that your claim is based on the word of person who has plenty of nice degrees but not one of them has to do with science. Thus, you are taking the word of an amateur. If you can provide something from a real scientific journal, perhaps we will take you seriously.

For that matter, it is also obvious that you yourself do not understand what you are talking about, as you have not satisfactorily answered even one of the questions presented to you. I am still waiting for you to explain what was wrong with my previous analysis of oncogenic genes and natural selection. In fact, all you have done is provide quotes taken out of context that you clearly do not understand, and you have not offered any explanations of your own. And by now you are to the point of repeating statements that have repeatedly been shown to be false by several people.

Why don’t you go ahead and provide us with some serious evidence and explanations as to why you think the theory of natural selection is flawed? If you can’t, then I suggest you sign up for a freshman-level biology course at your nearest university so you can learn why what you have presented so far is mere gibberish.

[gamila]

quote :

The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs

quote :

And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history

quote :

“The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century,[6] and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.[7]”
NOTE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

“[b]Charles Darwin considered this sudden appearance of many animal groups with few or no antecedents to be the greatest single objection to his theory of evolution:”

thus we have at the cambrian period are rapid speciation-

now
go read dean

[biohazard]

You do realize the Cambrian era was quite a few years ago? Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, we don’t know all about the environment and species living that time? Just because it looks more difficult to explain than certain other periods in history doesn’t disprove evolution or natural selection.

There are several reasonable explanations for this event that are in line with the theory of evolution. For example, each year there are findings of pre-Cambrian organisms that have been unknown this far and may prove to be the ancestors of those more advanced organisms that allegedly "appeared from nowhere". The whole phenomenon has possibly been a sum of many factors and only because we do not know all of them (yet) hardly gives a reason to doubt natural selection.

Actually Wikipedia, which you so eagerly keep quoting, lists many factors that help to explain the Cambrian explosion. Maybe you should look at the whole picture instead of choosing few isolated lines or chapters that seem to support your view when taken out of context.

[alextemplet]

quote gamila:

thus we have at the cambrian period are rapid speciation

And the problem with this would be???

quote biohazard:

Actually Wikipedia, which you so eagerly keep quoting, lists many factors that help to explain the Cambrian explosion. Maybe you should look at the whole picture instead of choosing few isolated lines or chapters that seem to support your view when taken out of context.

Seconded.

[gamila]

quote :

And the problem with this would be???

read dean

quote :

Now NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with triats already present and cant deal with the generation of new species
genetics might be able to account for the generation of new species [ see below where it is shown genetics cannot account for the generation of new species] but NS cant as the generation of new species it not part of its remit as it only deals with traits already present . A new species has completely new traits which were not in an antecedent so the antecedent species could not have passed them on
NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation

[alextemplet]

Your entire argument is based on natural selection only being able to work on DNA that is already present in a population, but this is where mutation comes into play for creating new genes for natural selection to work with. Thus you entire argument is like a castle built on sand, doomed to collapse.

[gamila]

quote :

Your entire argument is based on natural selection only being able to work on DNA that is already present in a population, but this is where mutation comes into play for creating new genes for natural selection to work with.

fact is speciation a new species has new genes not present in the antecendent species so they could not have been passed on as NS says -thus you own words show NS is wrong

[wbla3335]

gamila, let me try to walk you through this. Evolution is based on two principles: descent with modification and natural selection. "Descent with modification" just means that new muations are inherited from parent to offspring. Darwin didn’t know the source of modifications, but modern genetics understands it well. New mutations in DNA happen all the time. Errors during the replication of DNA when a cell divides, radiation from a variety of natural and man-made sources, various chemicals in the environment – these can all cause mutations. When they happen in germ cells (sperm and eggs in sexually reproducing organisms, or anywhere in unicellular organisms that reproduce by simply dividing), these new changes are inherited. Now, natural selection. This seems to be where you are having trouble. You say that natural selection only acts on traits that are already present. You are absolutely right. But you must admit that there is variation within species. No two people are the same. Dogs are a good example, too. Look at all the different breeds within a single species. Where did this variation come from? Mutations. One here, one there, one now, one later. They accumulate in populations over time. Long periods of time. This is what natural selection acts on. Some individual or combinations of variations help an organism to survive and reproduce. Some don’t. Most are pretty neutral. Nature selects those that help, and weeds out those that don’t – perhaps not quickly, but statistically over time, this is what happens. New species don’t arise overnight. Imagine a species that has a large range where environmental conditions vary (including purely physical conditions such as climate, and nonphysical conditions such as the community of other species present). A population of that species in the eastern part of that range lives in an environment that is somewhat different than what a population in the western part of the range lives in. "Nature" is different in the east and the west. Natural selection will therefore select for different traits in the two populations that are already present in the species. These two populations will therefore become somewhat different over time. If the flow of genetic material (sex) between these populations is somehow prevented, the two populations will continue to diverge genetically to the point where if they were to meet again, their genomes are sufficiently different that they can no longer interbreed. By our definition, they are different species. Voila.
Now, the Cambrian explosion. This "explosion" occurred over a period of 40-50 million years. It’s called an explosion because relative to other geological eras, a lot of new forms did indeed appear. If you look at the fossils from one site, e.g. the Burgess shales, you do see forms appearing "suddenly" without evidence of intermediate forms in lower strata at the same site. This is probably because conditions at that site were not conducive to the preservation of fossils in the lower strata. You must try to understand how fossils are formed. Not every organism that dies gets fossilized. You need an environment where sediments can cover a dead organism (quickly) and conditions that will prevent its complete destruction once buried. This doesn’t happen everywhere at all times. The fossil record is very spotty indeed. Dead organsims only get fossilized here and there, now and then. And we certainly haven’t looked everywhere on this planet. The search for intermediate forms is very slowly finding a number of "missing links". People used to claim that the gaps in the fossil record between reptiles and mammals, reptiles and birds, apes and humans, etc., etc. were evidence against evolution. These gaps, though, are slowly being filled by new discoveries. We’ve only been at this fossil-hunting game for a very, very short time. More and more fossils from the Cambrian are being found from periods earlier than those where many new forms "suddenly" appeared. But nowhere (yet) has anyone found a single site representing the entire Cambrian that might contain all early, intermediate, and later forms.
So please have patience, and an open mind.

[gamila]

quote :

You say that natural selection only acts on traits that are already present. You are absolutely right. But you must admit that there is variation within species. No two people are the same.

i am not talking about variations in a species but complete new species with complete new genes the new species differs from the older species because it has new genes-never before seen
thus NS can account for it as it only deals with genes already present

http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress … evolution/

quote :

British geneticist C. H. Waddington also recognized natural selection to be a tautology. Consider another example: “vertebrates evolved from invertebrates.” But invertebrate by definition means “not a vertebrate.” Evolve means to change, and a changed thing is not what it once was, by definition. Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not. The end result of the phrase is merely an assumption, not a demonstration. Evolution in this way assumes itself, cloaked in logical fallacy

[gamila]

before you can talk about speciation you have to know what a species is
and there is no agreement

so you cannot argue as you all do that speciation does not make NS wrong- untill there is a definition

quote :

The processes leading to the origin of new species have long been of interest and often a source of debate, e.g., whether ecological barriers to gene flow are essential for populations to diverge into distinct species

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl … rtid=22088

quote :

Because MMR influences the rate of mutation as well as recombination, this pathway may be important with respect to speciation – defined broadly as the process of genetic divergence of populations – whether or not one favors a species definition that is based on recombination potential.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

quote :

However, the exact definition of the term “species” is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[2] and this is called the species problem

quote :

A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as based on similarity of DNA or morphology. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into subspecies.

now purely from the NS formulation speciation shows it to be wrong
ie NS is about genes already present being passed on
as such
it cant account for a completely new species-with new genes never seen before

http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress … evolution/

quote :

Evolve means to change, and a changed thing is not what it once was, by definition. Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not. The end result of the phrase is merely an assumption, not a demonstration. Evolution in this way assumes itself, cloaked in logical fallacy.

[alextemplet]

quote gamila:

fact is speciation a new species has new genes not present in the antecendent species so they could not have been passed on as NS says -thus you own words show NS is wrong

And where do you think these new genes came from? Mutations!

I find it interesting that you dropped your argument about cancer almost as quickly as that was explained to you. In fact you still haven’t answered my question as to what (if anything) you found wrong with my analysis. Have you conceded this point or are you simply neglecting to answer it? For that matter, you also haven’t presented any legitimate scientific sources to verify your claims. As much as I love wikipedia, it doesn’t even come close to counting as a scientific source.

Another question I would like to ask is what theory you wish to propose in place of natural selection, and what evidence you can put forward for it.

[gamila]

quote :

For that matter, you also haven’t presented any legitimate scientific sources to verify your claims.

what is this

quote :

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ … 529713.htm

Researchers find new breast cancer genes

“Associate Professor Jennifer Byrne, at the University of Sydney’s Faculty of Medicine, says the two studies suggest there are more of these “weak alleles” that affect breast cancer risk yet to be found.
Byrne, an oncology researcher, says these genes play a tiny role in increasing risk, but may be quite common in the general population.
“Individually they are probably not major factors, but cumulatively they could be helpful in working out who is at greater risk,” she says.
“They are all small pieces of the puzzle.”
She also suggests they may play an important role in what is termed sporadic breast cancer, which is cancer without an obvious genetic basis.
“These are the genes that might underlie this form of cancer,” she says.
Regardless of their role in breast cancer, Byrne says the findings may have side benefits for cancer research in general.
Genes involved in breast cancer predisposition can also play roles in cancers such as ovarian and prostate, she says.
“They [the variants] may predispose to more than breast cancer in the end,” she says”

[alextemplet]

quote gamila:

what is this

quote :

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ … 529713.htm

Researchers find new breast cancer genes

“Associate Professor Jennifer Byrne, at the University of Sydney’s Faculty of Medicine, says the two studies suggest there are more of these “weak alleles” that affect breast cancer risk yet to be found.
Byrne, an oncology researcher, says these genes play a tiny role in increasing risk, but may be quite common in the general population.
“Individually they are probably not major factors, but cumulatively they could be helpful in working out who is at greater risk,” she says.
“They are all small pieces of the puzzle.”
She also suggests they may play an important role in what is termed sporadic breast cancer, which is cancer without an obvious genetic basis.
“These are the genes that might underlie this form of cancer,” she says.
Regardless of their role in breast cancer, Byrne says the findings may have side benefits for cancer research in general.
Genes involved in breast cancer predisposition can also play roles in cancers such as ovarian and prostate, she says.
“They [the variants] may predispose to more than breast cancer in the end,” she says”

It’s an ABC News article, written for a popular audience, that just happens to have absolutely nothing at all to do with natural selection.. By "legitimate scientific source," I was thinking more along the lines of a peer-reviewed journal that is actually relevant to the topic of our discussion. Nature would be a good place to start, but there are plenty of others. Heck, I’d even settle for an article from Scientific American or National Geographic at this point. Even if they’re not peer-reviewed journals, they at least usually make an effort to ensure that their articles bear some resemblance to verifiable facts.

[gamila]

quote :

It’s an ABC News article, written for a popular audience, that just happens to have absolutely nothing at all to do with natural selection.. By “legitimate scientific source,”

if you followed the link you will see it is legitamate

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ … 529713.htm

quote :

The finding, published today in Nature Genetics, involved more than 80 research institutions collaborating with the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) and cancer patients from 16 countries, including Australia.

[alextemplet]

Okay, so your source claims to cite a legit journal, even though it links to the journal’s home page and not to the article in question (which still casts suspicion, but oh well). That still doesn’t resolve the problem that this article of yours has nothing to do with the topic of discussion, natural selection.

[gamila]

quote :

That still doesn’t resolve the problem that this article of yours has nothing to do with the topic of discussion, natural selection.

it shows harmful genes are common
which should not be the case for natural selection cliams harmful genes should be rare
thus NS is wrong

quote :

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005

you want more evidence
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/su … 738782_ITM

quote :

New research indicates that a vast majority of children admitted to hospitals have a genetically determined underlying disorder.

The study, led by a pediatrician and medical geneticist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found such disorders accounting for more than two-thirds of all children admitted to a large full-service pediatric hospital over a one-year period.

Moreover, regardless of reason for admission, children whose underlying disorder had a strong genetic basis tended to be hospitalized longer, with charges for their care accounting for 80% of total costs.

http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/270/G … rders.html

quote :

There are more than 6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about one in every 200 births. Examples are cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell anemia, Huntington’s disease, and hereditary hemochromatosis

[wbla3335]

Hello again gamila,

I’ve been trying to figure out why your last quote from an article on cancer research is at all relevant to your argument, but in light of some of your other comments, I think the title of the article "Researchers find new breast cancer genes" is causing the problem. New genes. You seem to be under the impression that speciation is caused by, or at least requires, the appearance of new genes. Before talking about how new genes develop, I’d like to clear up a common misconception that may or may not be contributing to your misunderstanding of the issues here.

This news article talks about new cancer genes. These genes are not new genes, they are just known genes that have been newly linked to some forms of cancer. And their function is not to cause cancer, but to perform some normal biological function that is probably described in the research article but is not mentioned in the news article. Some alleles of these genes (an allele is a variant of a gene – most genes have many variants in a population, but any one person can have at most two alleles for any gene, one from the mother and one from the father) possess polymorphisms (differences) that disrupt the normal function of the proteins encoded by the genes. Cancer is caused by the unfortunate co-existence of mutations in multiple genes, not by single mutations in only one gene. There are no genes whose function is to cause cancer.

Now, new genes. New genes arise from old genes (no spontaneous generation at the genetic level either). Genomes are not static things, particularly at the population level. We talk about "the human genome" or the genome of this or that species. If the genomes from all humans (or all individuals of any species) were completely sequenced and compared, you would be amazed at the differences that exist between individuals. And not just differences in alleles of genes, but differences in the numbers and locations of genes within "the" human genome. Genes get duplicated, small or large bits of chromosomes get duplicated, or deleted, or inverted, or transferred from one part of a chromosome to another or to a different chromosome. Some small bits of chromosomes can get duplicated, which then form small, independently reproduced circles. There’s plenty of weird stuff happening in the genomes of species. Sometimes entire genomes get duplicated, leading to polyploid organisms (we are diploid).

When a gene is duplicated, you now have two copies of the same gene, so the copy is not actually needed. If a mutation occurs in the copy that would normally cause a complete loss of function, no worries, the original is still there to perform that function. The copy is essentially a renegade and can continue to accumulate mutations without having any effect on the species’ fitness. If the copy still has its control sequences or finds itself embedded in another part of the genome where a protein can be produced from it, maybe (probably not, but maybe) it could some day a thousand years hence produce a protein that ends up with a different function. Try not to picture this happening as a single event within a single individual or lineage, but as multiple events accumulating within populations over very, very long periods of time. Sometime, somewhere one of these renegades is going to end up as a "new gene". Most of the trash is trash and will get tossed out eventually, but sometimes trash can be useful.

You don’t need new genes to get a new species. The genomes of humans and chimps are virtually identical in the genes that they contain, and there are no "chimp genes" that make a chimp a chimp. The difference between humans and chimps is determined by different alleles of common genes and by how and when our common genes are expressed (the production of the proteins that the genes encode). Imagine that. Two closely related species could even have the same genes and the same range of alleles of these genes yet be unable to interbreed due to something as trivial as a behavioural difference in the mating ritual.

The biological world is in a constant state of change. What we call species are discontinuities that we can recognize by morphology or genetics (or behaviour). What we choose to call a species is indeed a human construct, but these constructs are based on observation and are just our attempt at categorizing the biological world. You are right in stating that there is no agreed definition of what a species is. Few biologists will argue this point. The lack of a universal definition, however, in no way negates that speciation has occurred, is occurring, and will continue to occur. What it does illustrate, though, is the richness of the biological world. We try to digitize organisms into discreet groupings as best we can, but the biological world is better viewed as an analogue continuum in constant flux with smaller or larger gaps here and there that we choose to call species (with varying levels of success or justification).

Natural selection does not need new genes to operate. It operates in every gene of every individual of every population of every species every day. Given enough individuals with enough genetic variation in enough environments over a long enough time, natural selection will lead to the formation of new species.

As far as the presence of so many harmful "genes" in the human genome is concerned, you (and the popular press) are confusing the terms "genes" and "alleles". I think the last guestimate of how many genes we have stands at about 35,000 (someone give me an update if there is one). And there are roughly 6,000 single-gene disorders. My, but we’re in trouble. Why are only 1 in 200 births affected? My math is not particularly good, but shouldn’t there be more than 1 in 200 births affected? This discrepancy is due to there not being 6,000 bad genes in our genome, but 6,000 genes that have bad alleles in the population. Some genes can have hundeds of alleles, some of which may not work very well and can cause disease. Most alleles do just fine. New alleles arise all the time. They can arise by new mutations, but they can also arise by recombination during meiosis that ensures that no two individuals will ever be genetically identical (except monozygotic twins). So, bad alleles, over time, tend to be slowly (sometimes quickly if they are fatal or prevent reproduction) removed from populations by means of natural selection. New alleles are arising all the time, some of which may cause problems. I suspect that modern medicine and reproductive technologies will tend to increase the frequenccies of bad alleles in us. The presence of so many bad alleles in our species is, though, quite normal. Alleles come and go. Evolution, in part, is the change in frequencies of alleles over time.

[gamila]

quote :

You seem to be under the impression that speciation is caused by, or at least requires, the appearance of new genes

there i am talking about traits not genes

quote :

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005

and as such NS is invalidated ny speciation

quote :

NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with triats already present and cant deal with the generation of new species
genetics might be able to account for the generation of new species [ see below where it is shown genetics cannot account for the generation of new species] but NS cant as the generation of new species it not part of its remit as it only deals with traits already present . A new species has completely new traits which were not in an antecedent so the antecedent species could not have passed them on
NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation

[gamila]

quote :

These genes are not new genes, they are just known genes that have been newly linked to some forms of cancer.

and they are harmful as such

quote :

If the genomes from all humans (or all individuals of any species

you dont even know what a species is

and you talk all this scientific bumbo jumbo about speciation genome mutations – and none of you can agree on a definition of species
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

quote :

However, the exact definition of the term “species” is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[2] and this is called the species problem

While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as based on similarity of DNA or morphology. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into subspecies.

[wbla3335]

OK. I’m considering calling it quits on this thread. I don’t know why I’ve tried so hard to explain some of the basics behind natural selectiion. My wife’s been away for the last week, and maybe I’m just getting bored. Sometimes, though, I feel like a missionary, willing to strive to save even a single poor soul lost in the wilderness. But if that soul has no desire to be saved, then what’s the point?

gamila, I’m not a moderator and have no authority for saying this, but this forum is for discussions about evolution. Nonbiologists are more than welcome here. Many laypeople have questions they want help with, and we are willing to help. Sometimes we get an occassional creationist who beats their head against the wall of science. It seems to me that you are not here to learn or to rationally discuss specifics but only to state that natural selection does not happen, for whatever agenda you have. Well, you’ve come to the wrong place for that. You will get no converts here. There are plenty of forums available to you where you can happily exchange dubious quotes.

Confrontation is not a good strategy for fruitful discussion. I, at least, would be more tolerant if you were willing to discuss why you hold the beliefs you do. I realize that you’re not a biologist and so don’t have much knowledge of the subjects discussed here, but that’s OK. You’re not discussing anything, though. Tell us why you believe the sources you have quoted, not necessarily in scientific mumbo jumbo, but just discuss something, anything. This is a discussion forum. Give us one of your quotes and then tell us why you think they are right. Don’t just give them to us and say "There. I’m right and you’re wrong". This doesn’t get us too far. Evolutionists believe they are right because they have a wealth of evidence in support of their beliefs. Give us your evidence and we’ll talk. Some thought is required, preferrably of the rational variety. But as I said before, an open mind is required. I believe what I believe for good resaons. I KNOW very little of any consequence beyond a shadow of a doubt, but probability is good enough for me to be a missionary.

[gamila]

quote :

OK. I’m considering calling it quits on this thread

look its quite simple NS is

quote :

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005

1)darwin noted that the cambrian explosion made his theory wrong
it is noted

quote :

This has been called the Big Bang of Biology. No real progress has been made by evolutionists since Darwin’s day and “The Cambrian evolutionary explosion is still shrouded in mystery.” (Eldredge, N., The Monkey Business, 1982, p. 46.)

2) speciation makes NS wrong- i am talking about traits not genes and mutations are not what NS deals with

quote :

NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with triats already present and cant deal with the generation of new species
genetics might be able to account for the generation of new species [ see below where it is shown genetics cannot account for the generation of new species] but NS cant as the generation of new species it not part of its remit as it only deals with traits already present . A new species has completely new traits which were not in an antecedent so the antecedent species could not have passed them on
NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation

3* i have given evidence that harmful genes can be common thus invalidating NS which says they should rare

quote :

these genes play a tiny role in increasing risk, but may be quite common in the general population.
She also suggests they may play an important role in what is termed sporadic breast cancer, which is cancer without an obvious genetic basis.
“These are the genes that might underlie this form of cancer,” she says.

Genes involved in breast cancer predisposition can also play roles in cancers such as ovarian and prostate, she says.
“They [the variants] may predispose to more than breast cancer in the end,” she says

i think i have presented a sound case

[alextemplet]

quote gamila:

it shows harmful genes are common
which should not be the case for natural selection cliams harmful genes should be rare
thus NS is wrong

I have already addressed this question, and you have refused to answer it. Would you mind finally explaining what was wrong with my previous analysis of why oncogenic genes might be considered beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint? For that matter, you have also declined to answer my question of what sort of theory you propose in place of natural selection.

quote gamila:

darwin noted that the cambrian explosion made his theory wrong

This has also been answered previously, by myself and others. You have also never explained what was wrong with those explanations, either. In fact your habit of refusing to answer questions presented to you is beginning to convince me that wbla3335 is right. You are clearly not interested in a reasonable discussion; you are here to push whatever agenda you have, without any desire to keep an open mind to other possibilities and without any regard for the fact that your claims have been proven wrong time and again. If I am wrong and you really are interested in an intelligent, reasonable discussion, then you can begin by answering the questions presented to you.

[wbla3335]

Sorry, gamila. Good luck with your quest.

[gamila]

quote :

Sorry, gamila. Good luck with your quest.

best of luck to you too

[gamila]

more evidence that NS is wrong due to genes for breast cancer

some of these genes are common
these genes are harmful as they can lead to the death of the person

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=5689

quote :

But it is possible to be born with a gene fault that may cause cancer. This doesn’t mean you will definitely get cancer. But it means that you are more likely to develop cancer than the average person

quote :

The first breast cancer gene faults to be found were BRCA1 and BRCA2. These faults don’t mean you have cancer, or you definitely will get cancer but women with these genes have a 50 to 80% chance of getting breast cancer in their lifetime. We now know of other genes that significantly increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer. They are called TP53 and PTEN. Genetic tests are available to women with a high risk of having changes in their BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53 or PTEN genes.

Researchers have found other common genes that can slightly increase a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer. These are called CASP8, FGFR2, TNRCP, MAP3K1 and LSP1. No tests are available to find these genes yet.

Rare genes that can also increase breast cancer risk slightly include CHEK2, ATM (ataxia telangiectasia mutated), BRIP1 and PALB2. No tests are available for these genes yet

quote :

With particular groups of women, there are very common specific gene faults. Ashkenazi Jewish women tend to have one of 3 very particular gene mutations

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition=breastcancer

quote :

Hereditary cancers are those associated with inherited gene mutations. Hereditary breast cancers tend to occur earlier in life than noninherited (sporadic) cases and are more likely to involve both breasts

quote :

BRCA1 and BRCA2 are major genes related to hereditary breast cancer. Women who have inherited certain mutations in these genes have a high risk of developing breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and several other types of cancer during their lifetimes

quote :

Additionally, BRCA1 mutations are associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer. Mutations in the BRCA2 gene are associated with an increased chance of developing male breast cancer and cancers of the prostate and pancreas. An aggressive form of skin cancer called melanoma is also more common among people who have BRCA2 mutations.

quote :

Inherited changes in several other genes, including CDH1, PTEN, STK11, and TP53, have been found to increase the risk of developing breast cancer

quote :

Some research suggests that inherited variants of the ATM, BARD1, BRIP1, CHEK2, NBN, PALB2, RAD50, and RAD51 genes, as well as certain versions of the AR gene, may also be associated with breast cancer risk. Not all studies have shown these connections, however. Of these genes, ATM and CHEK2 have the strongest evidence of being related to the risk of developing breast cancer.

[gamila]

more evidence that the cambrian explosion makes NS wrong
even steven J Gould notes the problem

"The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." (Darwin, C., The Origin of Species, 1872, pp. 316-317.) Today, Gould writes, "The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. …not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion. So much for chordate uniqueness… Contrary to Darwin’s expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event…" (Gould, Stephen J., Nature, vol. 377, October 1995, p.682.)

[alextemplet]

quote gamila:

more evidence that NS is wrong due to genes for breast cancer

some of these genes are common
these genes are harmful as they can lead to the death of the person

Why is the death of a person no longer able to breed a bad thing from an evolutionary point of view? It has already been explained why this would be beneficial to the species as a whole, and once again you have declined to address that point.

quote gamila:

more evidence that the cambrian explosion makes NS wrong
even steven J Gould notes the problem

I suggest you read It’s a Wonderful Life by Steven J. Gould. It’s about the Burgess Shale and deals with many of the questions you have about the Cambrian explosion.

[gamila]

quote :

Why is the death of a person no longer able to breed a bad thing from an evolutionary point of view?

the point is
women of child bearing age die of it as well
and
childbearing women pass it on

also
NS is also about survial of the species
you seem to think that non child bearing people are irrrelevant- we are social creatures grand parents play a role -they are not useless for survial of ie kids

you did not select your wife caus you had her genome in front of you -you selected her for social reasons

quote :

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005

quote :

I suggest you read It’s a Wonderful Life by Steven J. Gould. It’s about the Burgess Shale and deals with many of the questions you have about the Cambrian explosion.

it was due to the cambrain explosion that gould formulated punctuated equilibrium’
and it has been shown speciation makes NS wrong

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiolog … losion.htm

quote :

some scientists believe there was indeed an explosion of diversity [cambrian explosion] (the so-called punctuated equilibrium theory elaborated by Nils Eldredge the late Stephen J. Gould – Models In Paleobiology, 1972,

quote :

Contrary to Darwin’s expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event…” (Gould, Stephen J., Nature, vol. 377, October 1995, p.682.) “The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.” (Gould, Stephen J., “The Evolution of Life,” in Schopf, Evolution: Facts and Fallacies, 1999, p. 9.)

[GaryGaulin]

The problem with Evolutionary Theory is it completely ignores the "intelligence" that makes mate-selection choices, or can account for the rate at which "information increase" in a genome can be predicted to be.

I accounted for the Cambrian Explosion and other things ET cannot. Just don’t mind the title of the theory which is due to what happens when a theory explaining said phenomena (intelligence) was already proposed and naming it something else gets labeled a "Trojan".

http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/

[biohazard]

Déjà vu…

[alextemplet]

Gamila, the vast majority of cancer occurs in individuals beyond reproductive age. You and I may think grandparents are important but the history of humanity indicates that this is not the case. Until recently, most people knew their grandparents only very early in life before they died and it was almost unheard of for anyone to know their great-grandparents. Today, grandparents and even great-grandparents are becoming much more common, so much so that we can’t imagine life without them. But history tells us that their survival into old age is not necessary to the survival of the human species. As for younger women getting infected, those rates are rare, which is exactly what natural selection would indicate they should be.

As for punk-eek, as far as I know it’s a pretty solid theory and an important part of the modern synthesis. Would you care to go into more detail as to what are your problems with it? And what’s this about speciation? If anything, speciation proves natural selection is right, not wrong.

Gary, glad to see you here to bring at least some respectability to the opposition side of this debate. I have two questions for you, and I know from our previous discussions I can count on you to give intelligent answers, so here you go:

Once again you’ve made me think with the unconventional manner in which you use the term "intelligence." I would like to ask if you think it’s possible that natural selection was responsible for the development of the intelligence that you associate with our mate-selection choices. As a humorous aside, however, I’ve got a long history of stupid relationship choices that makes me question your entire premise that intelligence has anything at all to do with human mating! 🙂

My other question is about the Cambrian explosion. Would you care to comment on some of the explanations given earlier in this thread as to how evolutionary theory might account for it?

[gamila]

quote :

You and I may think grandparents are important but the history of humanity indicates that this is not the case.

you no nothing of social anthrolopogy
or native cultures
take africa now with the aids crises childbearing men and women are dying so the grandparent take care of the kids
grandparent play a big role in the survial of humans – you think our atomised western culture is the norm historically-you are completely wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_family

quote :

Extended family (or joint family) is a term with several distinct meanings. First, it is used synonymously with consanguineous family. Second, in societies dominated by the conjugal family, it is used to refer to kindred who does not belong to the conjugal family. Often there could be many generations living under the same roof, depending on the circumstances.Extended type of family feels a greater security and belongingness. This is an advantage of extended type of family because this family contains more people to serve as resources during crisis and provides more role models for behaviour of values. The disadvantage of living in an extended type of family is shouldering more expenses for their basic needs.

[edit] Roles and Responsibilities

In extended families the network of relatives acts as a close-knit community. Extended families can include, aside from parents and their children:

* spouses of children, inlaws
* cousins, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews,
* foster children/adopted children etc.

In the cultures where the extended family is the basic family unit, growing up to adulthood does not necessarily mean severing bonds between oneself and one’s parents or even grandparents. When the child grows up, he or she moves into the larger and more real world of adulthood, yet he or she doesn’t, under normal circumstances, establish an identity separate from that of the community….

Workload is equally shared among the members. The women are often housewives and cook for the entire family. The patriarch of the family (often the oldest male member) lays down the rules, works (if not retired) and arbitrates disputes. Other senior members of the household baby sit infants. They are also responsible in teaching the younger children their mother tongue, manners and etiquette. The members of the household also look after each other in case a member is ill.

[edit] Around the world

In many cultures, such as in those of many of the Africans, Koreans, the Middle Easterners, the Jewish family of Central Europe, the Latin Americans, the Indians, the East Asians, the Italians, the Greeks, the Spaniards, the Maori and the Pacific Islanders, extended families are the basic family unit. Cultures in which the extended family is common usually happen to be collectivistic cultures.

Australian Aborigines are another group for whom the concept of family extends well beyond the nuclear model. Aboriginal immediate families include aunts, uncles and a number of other relatives who would be considered “distant relations” in context of the nuclear family. Aboriginal families have strict social rules regarding who they can marry. Their family structure incorporates a shared responsibility for all tasks.[citation needed]

It refers to people related by blood or near age, in contrast to elementary/nuclear family and joint family,

quote :

Hereditary breast cancers tend to occur earlier in life than noninherited (sporadic) cases and are more likely to involve both breasts

breast cancer kills all ages – the genes are just siting there ready to go off -they are harmfull genes there are many of them but NS says they should be rare

quote :

Would you care to comment on some of the explanations given earlier in this thread as to how evolutionary theory might account for it?

i am not interested in MIGHT or some theory which might explain it some theory which tries and saves NS
the fact is as gould notes right now

quote :

Contrary to Darwin’s expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event...” (Gould, Stephen J., Nature, vol. 377, October 1995, p.682.)

[GaryGaulin]

quote alextemplet:

Gary, glad to see you here to bring at least some respectability to the opposition side of this debate.

Thanks again for the compliment Alex!

quote alextemplet:

I have two questions for you, and I know from our previous discussions I can count on you to give intelligent answers, so here you go:

And again I made good on that with putting plenty of thought in my reply. Takes more time but is better than rushing something to you.

quote alextemplet:

Once again you’ve made me think with the unconventional manner in which you use the term “intelligence.”

I see it as the result of forty+ years of staying current on what is known regarding the phenomena of intelligence. The theory is very much based on the work of David Heiserman who is quoted to better define things and U-Mass Professor Arnold Trehub’s university level book "The Cognitive Brain" that had me modeling synaptic networks of all sorts way before "neural-net" memories came around. I was lucky to find the best university level science that was around in how-to build self-programming robot books, how-to model brains and such.

These days just mentioning studying "Intelligence" has one automatically stereotyped as an nutter. So I’m now happily with the nutters having to make the theory real for them, or science and the people will suffer even more from system wide neglect even trashing of vital science basics you should have learned at least by high school. I sure think so anyway. What I am saying would then not be as unconventional. The ID movement would have been less of a problem with the theory maybe already accepted in science. Be a brighter future for science.

At least the hoopla over the religious intelligence theory had forums spring up on the internet like mushrooms after a storm to talk about one. So here I am with mine. To me it’s just a collection of what I have found out so far about the mechanism that produces intelligence that together makes for a theory that only seems unconventional because you didn’t know about science like this all adding up to what it does. You know it makes sense but with natural selection not needed for the theory to stand on its own scientific merit I’m best to leave RM&NS even ET out completely. Would not be the "Theory Of Intelligent Design" any other way. That would take much of the fun out of things.

Your questions will help explain why NS does not at all account for the mechanism in the genome able to create the intelligent entity we see when looking into a mirror.

quote alextemplet:

I would like to ask if you think it’s possible that natural selection was responsible for the development of the intelligence that you associate with our mate-selection choices.

All indications are that this question is very easily answered "no". Natural selection can change morphology, but is not responsible for it existing which more has to do with self-assembly and emergent levels of behavior. In a world where food is all liquid we can do without teeth and dentists but in this one we need them. In a land of plenty of where it is not necessary to hunt each other for food animals could be normally confident while alongside each other, instead of instinctually unconfident. Animals would still be there.

quote alextemplet:

As a humorous aside, however, I’ve got a long history of stupid relationship choices that makes me question your entire premise that intelligence has anything at all to do with human mating! 🙂

You’re not the only one to mention that! Ironically though, it fits into what I am here saying.

From what I learned studying the C.elegans nematode the origin of sex seems to be based on the birth of an occasional male-only in an easily fertilized population who adds extra excitement to a normally very boring sex-life. Epigenetics may play a role by the inheritable switches to produce males being passed on, then later the unused genes lose their function or take on a new one. What you call "coevolution" would then occur between the sexes, which in turn accounts for the current special-fit machinery.

As long as one can reasonably recognize and mate with their own species there can be males/females. If not then hermaphrodites could have continued to successfully reproduce. Would though lose the benefit of crossover exchange, not that we include that in reasons for selecting a mate either. We do it for the pleasure it brings to the highly confidence boosting sensors located you know where. So none have a choice but to endure the negative effects of that having long ago changed our morphology in a way that has made our hermaphrodite past almost completely gone now.

Unless natural selection is why hydrogen bonds with oxygen but not helium then there would still be genomes and cellular/multicellular animal intelligence.

quote alextemplet:

My other question is about the Cambrian explosion. Would you care to comment on some of the explanations given earlier in this thread as to how evolutionary theory might account for it?

Adding "punctuated equilibrium" and a hundred other things to the scientific vocabulary does not explain the mechanism to account for such a relatively rapid information increase like I could in the middle of the theory. That right there explains what would have been going on at the molecular level of the genome that predicts such curves, exactly. Saying something like that happened is no help at all explaining how it works, to begin with.

Evolutionary Theory can easily be interpreted to predict a linear information increase over time. Was a surprise to even scientists that it was not that way. So it easily misleads in the wrong direction. Does not have an definitive answer either way. There is no exact same curve generated from a simple computer model doing what the genome is doing like there needs to be to be convincing. Especially to those who expect an high school understandable faith-friendly explanation that somehow includes the required intelligence.

quote alextemplet:

As for punk-eek, as far as I know it’s a pretty solid theory and an important part of the modern synthesis.

My opinion of the modern synthesis is an overcomplicated mess to teach that still misses what matters the most, the awesomely powerful "intelligence" that makes what a genome can do relatively easy to achieve. Only have to spark it with the four part mechanism I described then it keeps on learning on it’s own like the genome does by replicating itself through time. Each lifetime another trip back up to the top of the four part loop demonstrated by the Intelligence Generator/Detector.

In case you are interested here is where I keep my notes and best links of the current work of applying of epigenetics of E.coli to the schematic of the circuit the computer model simulates:

http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.ph … 8e8ddc1aa9

I will now have to update to include that I wrote software in Visual Basic to put all the files that can be dowloaded from the RegulonDB that have strand and location are put into genome. Also wrote another that from that draws all genes arranged in a vertical column showing operons with thicker line around groups with scrollbar that moves it real fast around the genome. I’m ready to draw the arrows showing input, addressing intomemory to flagellum and other things but doing that just right is very heavy into biology. Kind of problem you might like to try solving that doesn’t take much typing or hard work. Just need to get the logic of binding sites, promoters and all else into "If…then…" statements and the rest is easy to draw into then make come alive in the picture. Not need the equations that are out there for real time, whatever pace the computer does it will help show how the genome works like that too. Novel way to show the data so someone with a electronics or programming mind but not much about biology..

[alextemplet]

Gary, once again you’ve succeeded in making me think. I’m afraid I’m going to have to hold off on responding to your comments about intelligence, since I’d like to take my time reading the links you provided and that’s probably going to have to wait until after finals are over, so apologies for the delay with that.

I will, however, explain my thoughts on the cambrian explosion. I don’t see it as all that improbable from an evolutionary point of view. Given that the seas where it happened were almost empty of multicellular life, this left open countless niches for an evolving species to exploit. I think the recent development of multicellular animals created the perfect conditions for such an explosion of biodiversity to occur. As I mentioned previously, there’s plenty of ways to put multiple building blocks together. If we think of the building blocks as cells being put together into organisms, then I think it’s very plausible that all sorts of evolutionary experimentation might have occurred to exploit the many niches available. Factor in the fact that the explosion was not in fact instantaneous but actually took about 50 million years, and I think it’s a rather simple matter for evolution to account for the adaptive radiation that we see at this time period. After all, it never takes very long for a single common ancestor to diversify and exploit all sorts of niches in an unexplored habitat. I offer Darwin’s finches and the cichlids of Africa’s great lakes as examples of this sort of explosion of biodiversity in a relatively short time period.

Lastly, I’d like to ask your opinion on the concept of guided evolution. I realize that sort of question is at best stretching the boundaries of science (in fact, it probably belongs outside of science altogether), but I was just curious if you think it’s possible that an intelligent deity would have created life and then allowed it to evolve, possibly intervening from time to time to guide its evolution. This is not too far from what I believe, although I personally think God left it up to natural laws and random chance and kept His interference to a minimum. Yes, not exactly a scientific question I admit, but just asking your opinion while offering my own.

Anyway, I look forward as always to reading your response! 🙂

[GaryGaulin]

quote alextemplet:

Gary, once again you’ve succeeded in making me think.

I was hoping so!

quote alextemplet:

I’m afraid I’m going to have to hold off on responding to your comments about intelligence, since I’d like to take my time reading the links you provided and that’s probably going to have to wait until after finals are over, so apologies for the delay with that.

Good plan. Make sure doing great on finals takes priority over extra-curricula activities. Then study the systems biology info and all else. There is a good amount of information and I would rather you take the time you need.

quote alextemplet:

I will, however, explain my thoughts on the cambrian explosion. I don’t see it as all that improbable from an evolutionary point of view.

That’s all fine, but having a hunch something is possible still doesn’t explain how the mechanism works.

quote alextemplet:

Given that the seas where it happened were almost empty of multicellular life, this left open countless niches for an evolving species to exploit. I think the recent development of multicellular animals created the perfect conditions for such an explosion of biodiversity to occur.

We here have to be very specific as to how "biodiversity" is quantified. In the theory the graph we have to work with is measured by "cell types" not by population growth of something to exploit new niches early cells were likely already exploiting without needing to become multicellular.

When the fossil evidence is used to show biodiversity, even after extinction events the curve goes back to what the computer model predicts.

The thing most important here is how much it looks like beta class intelligence information increase that does correlate with "cell types" whereas new niches to exploit only correlates with "population growth" which could just as well be only the already existing cell types.

The cell types still came relatively suddenly. Why? And was the genome more likely to have once been largely nonfunctional coding or did it start off with just a small number of perfectly coded operons?

quote alextemplet:

As I mentioned previously, there’s plenty of ways to put multiple building blocks together.

Yes on the molecular level functional units of coding are regularly copied, sometimes rearranged. What are they and how does the mechanism that puts them together work? But you can wait on reply to that question until after finals too, I know how hard that one is.

quote alextemplet:

If we think of the building blocks as cells being put together into organisms, then I think it’s very plausible that all sorts of evolutionary experimentation might have occurred to exploit the many niches available.

Now you have to explain what makes it possible for cells to easily produce organisms. Where is your computer model of this happening? The best modern synthesis of ET can seem to provide is a microevolution "genetic algorithm" based on the little we know about how the genome works, which right away makes it a very incomplete model of reality. And you’re not going to model intelligently mate-selected multicellular macroevolution on your PC even best supercomputer which forces you to find another way to sum up what is going on in the genome to account for what it does.

quote alextemplet:

Factor in the fact that the explosion was not in fact instantaneous but actually took about 50 million years, and I think it’s a rather simple matter for evolution to account for the adaptive radiation that we see at this time period. After all, it never takes very long for a single common ancestor to diversify and exploit all sorts of niches in an unexplored habitat. I offer Darwin’s finches and the cichlids of Africa’s great lakes as examples of this sort of explosion of biodiversity in a relatively short time period.

Inside a 4 billion year span of time 50 million is still a very short moment. Which is why it’s still one of the biggest unanswered questions in science. And are the morphological changes recoding of the genome or primarily epigenetic switching? I’m not sure which but doubt the genome is recoding genes back and forth like ET suggests is happening, since without that there is not much left to explain what did the initial DNA coding to produce the seasonally variable sized beaks.

quote alextemplet:

Lastly, I’d like to ask your opinion on the concept of guided evolution. I realize that sort of question is at best stretching the boundaries of science (in fact, it probably belongs outside of science altogether), but I was just curious if you think it’s possible that an intelligent deity would have created life and then allowed it to evolve, possibly intervening from time to time to guide its evolution.

I believe that what created us is already everywhere and in everything always guiding our development through time. Because of the way emergence comes up through the levels what we feel and find beautiful is perhaps an expression of behavior from the subatomic on up through the genome to us.

quote alextemplet:

This is not too far from what I believe, although I personally think God left it up to natural laws and random chance and kept His interference to a minimum.

I don’t see the Creator requiring a sex or able to want to go somewhere else. Would be made of forces (as studied in physics) and already everywhere at the same time. Express itself through all living things but not like controlling minds it’s an "in its image" sort of thing.

quote alextemplet:

Anyway, I look forward as always to reading your response! 🙂

Hopefully I met expectations. 😀

[alextemplet]

I’m still in the middle of getting ready for finals (which is why I took a few days to respond), but I just wanted to point out one thing:

quote GaryGaulin:

That’s all fine, but having a hunch something is possible still doesn’t explain how the mechanism works.

I understand where you’re coming from, but I wouldn’t exactly call a theory accepted by the vast majority of scientists a mere "hunch." I also forgot to mention previously the Cambrian explosion is believed to have occurred right around the same time as the development of Hox genes that control the development of an embryo. Experiments have shown that even minor modifications in these control genes can produce significant alterations in the body-plan of the animal. For example, flies have been made to grow legs where their antennae should be by modifying their Hox genes. Given that the definition of "phylum" can be reduced to basically a body-plan, the development and subsequent mutation and diversification of these genes controlling an animal body’s development is also believed to have contributed to the sudden explosion of biodiversity in the Cambrian.

I’ll have to write more about this later; this shows all signs of turning into a very interesting discussion.

[MrMistery]

Interesting point, though it is surely not what happens. Let’s not forget the average life span of humans before we invented medicine was around 30 or so. It didn’t really matter whether you had cancer genes or not, and the alleles persisted through drift. Now because we can make our lifetime 3 times longer, new killers are making their entrance. but as canalon said, even now natural selection can’t act, because the traits only manifest after someone has produced offspring. this is how the gene for the debilitating Huntington’s disease managed to speak its way past natural selection into our gene pool.

[biohazard]

Someone mentioned that grandparents take part in raising their grandchildren, so if the grandparents live long and healthy, it may benefit the grandchildren. This way, diseases that kill people when they are older could actually have an effect by natural selection: those who have healthy grandparents may have a slight advantage and their "long-life" genes could become more common.

I think it’s important to remember two things when thinking about this: First, our life span has been considerably longer for a very short period of time, so we do not see any effect yet, because it usually takes quite a long time to notice the effect of natural selection. Second, the effect of grandparents is rather small after all when it comes to the overall picture, so there is also very little evolutionary effect if they happen to die of cancer at some point in their old age.

So, I don’t think we can completely count off the effect of some old-age diseases to the gene pool, even if the person affected couldn’t have own children any more. But in humans, the effect is still rather small overall. But think about many colonIal insects, for example: there individuals that have no chances whatsoever of passing on their genes (=workers/warriors) have a profound effect on the overall gene pool and natural selection of the species!

[alextemplet]

Colonial insects are an interesting special case. If we look at mammals, the reason parents so often go to such lengths to protect their offspring is basically out of a desire to see that their genes will have a future. In mammals, parents and children share 50% of their genome, and so do siblings. In colonial insects, the entire colony is centered around the queen and her constant reproduction. Every offspring she hatches is a sibling to the entire rest of the colony; thus they already have a very strong and evolutionarily valid reason to ensure each other’s survival. I read somewhere that worker bees share about 75% of their genome, significantly higher than the 50% shared among mammalian siblings and giving them a much stronger reason to work together for mutual benefit. Overall, the system these insects have worked out is really "thinking outside the box" in evolutionary terms. Even though many of them don’t reproduce in the classical sense of the word, they still are very successful at ensuring the continuation of their genes.

[AFJ]

I guess what saddens me about evolution, uniformintarianism (belief that almost all natural processes have always proceeded at the same rate we see today), and naturalism (belief that all creation is the result of only natural processes) are two things.

1. Teaching these things as though they are scientific law.

a. The evidence we have to observe today is limited in what is testable scientifically. Therefore there is an abundance of storytelling, conjecture, and suggestions from the so-called authorities of the subject (all of these people do not even agree among themselves when it comes down to the actual DYNAMICS of how things happened).

b. To claim evolution is a fact is in a nutshell cheating. A true scientist is bound by the scientific method–by repeated experimentation and testing theory moves to scientific law. But now evolutionists have replaced this process with CONSENSUS. As though the scientific method can be usurped by democratic majority.

c. This does not mean that a paleontologist or stratigraphist does not observe evidence–he does–but his evidence is incomplete– he was not there in the past to see how it came to that state of being. Therefore the history of the object must be there to draw a deduction–but it is not because he was not there. He must interpret then it according to the teachings he has received–his beliefs about the evidence. And anything that does not seem to fit is tabled or ignored.

2. The huge infrastructure by which these teachings are propagated.

a. Who can stand up against the government itself, who has legislated anything but these teachings, and philosophy out of our education system.

b. The majority of higher education and the media are liberal politically and at most deistic, pantheistic, or agnostic religiously and so these things fit fine with their beliefs and philosophy of life.

c. All dissenters within these systems will be hushed or eliminated.

I leave you with this thought though–a telescope operates by refracting light to a focal point and thereby magnifying the observed object, but it was not made by these principles. Neither can we interpret or explain the existence of, the separation and organization of, the continual power of all the elements, compounds, mixtures, and molecules— the information and complexity of life’s systems and micro-systems, and sustaining power by which life exists– the immensity and unimaginable power of the galaxies, and the order thereof. All of the power and order contained in creation can not be explained by current natural laws, but only by God who loves all of us, and who planned our salvation and the sending of His Word made flesh–His Son Jesus Christ to die for our sins–and to raise again to be Lord of Lords and Kings of Kings–and by Him all these things consist!

[alextemplet]

quote AFJ:

The evidence we have to observe today is limited in what is testable scientifically. Therefore there is an abundance of storytelling, conjecture, and suggestions from the so-called authorities of the subject (all of these people do not even agree among themselves when it comes down to the actual DYNAMICS of how things happened).

Of course there’s some lively debate going on, but it wouldn’t be science if everyone agreed with each other. "Storytelling" is too harsh of a term; conjecture, yes, but it’s the same sort of conjecture that an auto mechanic might make when he hears an engine making a particularly nasty-sounding noise. Until he actually peeks under the hood he won’t know for sure, but that still doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a pretty good idea of what’s causing the trouble. Similarly, almost nothing in science is known with absolute certainty, and that’s why there’s always a healthy degree of conjecture and debate going on. But that doesn’t mean that scientists are engaged in some massive conspiracy to pass off some fairy-tale on the genera public.

quote AFJ:

To claim evolution is a fact is in a nutshell cheating.

To claim that evolution is a fact would merely be a statement of what we have observed, sort of like calling a banana yellow. No one can seriously doubt this unless they’re also willing to claim that the sky doesn’t occasionally exhibit a slight shade of blue. I think you’re confusing the observable facts of evolution with various theories behind mechanisms which drive it (natural selection comes to mind, but there are others). Those theories are themselves debatable and not all of them are widely accepted, but just because we don’t fully understand how evolution works doesn’t mean it doesn’t work any more than not knowing how to drive a car or ride a bike invalidates the fact that cars are driven and bikes are ridden.

quote AFJ:

But now evolutionists have replaced this process with CONSENSUS. As though the scientific method can be usurped by democratic majority.

Again this is probably being more than a bit unfair. If it just so happens that the majority of scientists accept evolution or the theory of natural selection, then it is probably because the majority of evidence we have so far been able to collect supports such a view. Unless you’re willing to argue that all physicists have secretly banded together to present a unified consensus designed to convince us to believe in a little myth called gravity even though they don’t have a shred of evidence to back it up.

quote AFJ:

This does not mean that a paleontologist or stratigraphist does not observe evidence–he does–but his evidence is incomplete– he was not there in the past to see how it came to that state of being. Therefore the history of the object must be there to draw a deduction–but it is not because he was not there. He must interpret then it according to the teachings he has received–his beliefs about the evidence. And anything that does not seem to fit is tabled or ignored.

Sort of like how certain members of certain religious organizations have a habit of ignoring anything that might challenge their faith? Ditto for politicians and political parties? Come on now, even the most casual reading of any scientific journal will show that scientists are constantly seeking and exploring new ideas, not simply clinging doggedly to old dogmas!

quote AFJ:

Who can stand up against the government itself, who has legislated anything but these teachings, and philosophy out of our education system.

The government has a certain obligation to ensure the competency of public education, which has a certain obligation to ensure that what our children are taught bears at least a passing resemblance to reality, unless you want our chemistry teachers to go back to teaching that the only elements are earth, air, fire, and water.

quote AFJ:

The majority of higher education and the media are liberal politically and at most deistic, pantheistic, or agnostic religiously and so these things fit fine with their beliefs and philosophy of life.

As a college student myself, I’ll grant you that some professors are militantly liberal, but let’s be fair. At least as many have just as strong of a conservative bias, so overall I’d have to say the perspective among collegiate educators is pretty balanced. As for the media, I would rate their bias as at least slightly on the conservative side.

quote AFJ:

All dissenters within these systems will be hushed or eliminated.

Once again, even the most casual reading of any scientific journal will show that you are wrong. Quit confusing scientists with the Republican party.

quote AFJ:

All of the power and order contained in creation can not be explained by current natural laws, but only by God who loves all of us, and who planned our salvation and the sending of His Word made flesh–His Son Jesus Christ to die for our sins–and to raise again to be Lord of Lords and Kings of Kings–and by Him all these things consist!

Yes, we should all pay much closer attention to what Jesus said, especially where he instructed us to prepare for the coming of the final prophet that would come after him, the great Muhammed, who proclaimed the way to all of us who live in ignorance. Only a deity as powerful as that which Muhammed proclaimed can possibly explain the wonders of the natural world all around us!

[AFJ]

Alex, I tried to do this as you do, by quoting portions but I did something wrong–so I did this manually. Maybe you can give me a lesson. You know us middle aged people! lol

ALEX "Storytelling" is too harsh of a term;"

AFJ–By story telling I mean it literally–professors have to make up scenarios which no one has proved or seen. Chemistry on the other hand can be proven and tested, medical science can be researched and proven to be true much more than the geologic time scale or the diagram of primate to man. The latter are impossible to prove because they are historical science not applied science.

ALEX "…conjecture that an auto mechanic might make when he hears an engine making a particularly nasty-sounding noise. Until he actually peeks under the hood he won’t know for sure, but that still doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a pretty good idea of what’s causing the trouble."

AFJ—But we can’t "peek"– that’s my point, you can only interpret evidence according to your model which is the big bang, collapsing nebulae theory, the geologic timescale, and microorganism to man evolution. Creationists have no problem fitting the evidence into the model of creation by design and a worldwide flood. We still ask questions and investigate, there are still unknowns.

ALEX "Similarly, almost nothing in science is known with absolute certainty, and that’s why there’s always a healthy degree of conjecture and debate going on. But that doesn’t mean that scientists are engaged in some massive conspiracy to pass off some fairy-tale on the genera public."

AFJ—Again, there are scientific laws in the applied sciences and mathematics which are laws which can be tested and proven to the greatest degree that science allows. Historical science cannot do this whether one believes in evolution or creation by God. I do not believe in conspiracy theories, although I know how the science field is political, because man is political.

ALEX "To claim that evolution is a fact would merely be a statement of what we have observed, sort of like calling a banana yellow. No one can seriously doubt this unless they’re also willing to claim that the sky doesn’t occasionally exhibit a slight shade of blue."

AFJ I don’t doubt many results of research. Just one instance, chimps and humans apparently have what 95% DNA in common. Of course until we count sequencing and "junk DNA" which I am quite sure will be found not to be "junk" as time goes along. But it would seem apparent that a common designer would have a common method of design. We have many things in common with chimps in design, but we also have many things that are different. The word of God declares that man is not a beast but a living eternal soul. He did not come from another species but God breathed a soul into him. Common designer, not common ancestor.

ALEX "I think you’re confusing the observable facts of evolution with various theories behind mechanisms which drive it (natural selection comes to mind, but there are others). Those theories are themselves debatable and not all of them are widely accepted, but just because we don’t fully understand how evolution works doesn’t mean it doesn’t work any more than not knowing how to drive a car or ride a bike invalidates the fact that cars are driven and bikes are ridden."

AFJ–My head is not in the sand sir. I have been hit in the face with evolution for 47 years. I have studied to see why many scientists believe this way. Do you yourself know the history of uniformintarianistic thought upon which Darwin’s books found fertile soil to produce the evolutionary faith?

Also you are using circular reasoning here. You admit that the theories upon which evolution rest upon are debatable, but then you equate evolution to a car as though it is undebatable reality.

What you can actually observe is natural selection (which by critical research has also been observed to reverse itself) and speciation. There is obviously a variation allowance in the genome which allows adaptation to different environments through natural selection. A creator would have surely put this variation within the genome for survival. The bible says that God created the different "kinds" not species. Species is a modern scientific term. "Kinds" is obviously a general term but we are researching to see how general. Is it the same as a family or order?

But what no one has observed is a mutation that adds information to the genome, and which also results in a higher species. This is a critical issue that is ignored by evolutionists. They tout observable NS and say little of this kind of mutation—and it is absolutely NECESSARY for evolution to take place. If it had been observed it would have been on every headline and TV channel worldwide.

This is why you can not make such an arrogant claim that evolution is scientific law! If you want to teach it as theory, I can handle that, but to ignore the scientific method and to blend evolution, which is a historical science, with applied science, with the purpose of borrowing from it’s creditability is not at scientific, but being slick.

quote :

If it just so happens that the majority of scientists accept evolution or the theory of natural selection, then it is probably because the majority of evidence we have so far been able to collect supports such a view. Unless you’re willing to argue that all physicists have secretly banded together to present a unified consensus designed to convince us to believe in a little myth called gravity even though they don’t have a shred of evidence to back it up.

Again you are taking applied science–in this case Newtonian physics– and applying it to historical science. Historical science requires observed history in order to correctly interpret what we see today. But then you have bought the fact for instance that carbon 14 and other radiometric dating methods are infallible, without considering critical research that has shown the contrary.

quote :

Sort of like how certain members of certain religious organizations have a habit of ignoring anything that might challenge their faith?

Evolution does not challenge my faith, but it challenges your soul. I am writing to you not for my sake but for yours! Microorganism to man evolution–not natural selection or speciation–is an idea in man’s mind that finds its rudiments in atheistic philosophy–not Judeo-Christian or Islamic faith.

quote :

The government has a certain obligation to ensure the competency of public education, which has a certain obligation to ensure that what our children are taught bears at least a passing resemblance to reality, unless you want our chemistry teachers to go back to teaching that the only elements are earth, air, fire, and water.

First of all, please don’t be guilty of the arrogance of our generation. Science was birthed in the philosophy of the Greeks. If they had not built the foundation of scientific inquiry, we would not have the discoveries we have today. In 200 years they will look perhaps at our primitive understanding. And you again seem to lay evolutionary thought on the applied science of chemistry, as if to borrow from it’s credibility and scientific law. You err my friend in this.

[alextemplet]

quote AFJ:

Alex, I tried to do this as you do, by quoting portions but I did something wrong–so I did this manually. Maybe you can give me a lesson. You know us middle aged people! lol

Just type this code: [xquote="name"x]text[x/quotex] Fill in the name of the person you’re quoting and the text he/she typed, and delete the x’s (I only have them here to make the code visible to you).

quote AFJ:

By story telling I mean it literally–professors have to make up scenarios which no one has proved or seen.

Almost nothing in science is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, so that’s an irrelevant point. Seen? Yes, I’ll grant you that no one alive today was able to see what happened millions of years ago. Of course, no one around today witnessed the construction of the Egyptian pyramids, either. Some people believe the pyramids were built by aliens. So-called "serious" scientists discredit such explanations as lacking in sufficient evidence, and go with hypotheses more consistent with observable data. If scientists used your methods, we’d be giving those alien theorists a voice in scientific circles that they just don’t deserve. My point is that just because something happened in the past doesn’t mean we can’t figure out a little bit about what happened.

quote AFJ:

Chemistry on the other hand can be proven and tested

And yet very little in chemistry is provable, and there’s a lot that doesn’t even make sense to the casual observer, but the theories we have fit the evidence better than anything else, so chemists go with it even though some parts of it seem downright weird. p-orbitals are a perfect example. The p-orbital exists in two lobes projecting in opposite directions from the nucleus, with a gap in the center. Somehow, an electron is capable of crossing from one lobe to the other without ever passing through the gap. No one’s sure how it happens, but as far as we can tell, it does. Does this mean p-orbitals don’t exist? Certainly not; it just means we don’t understand them as well as we’d like to.

quote AFJ:

But we can’t “peek”– that’s my point, you can only interpret evidence according to your model

If this was true, then every police detective in the world would be out of work. Again, just because something happened in the past doesn’t mean we can’t piece together clues and figure out what happened.

quote AFJ:

Creationists have no problem fitting the evidence into the model of creation by design and a worldwide flood.

I’m afraid I’m going to have to call an untruth on this one. There is no evidence that a worldwide flood ever occurred, so I’m at a loss to see how you can fit evidence that doesn’t exist into such a model.

quote AFJ:

I do not believe in conspiracy theories, although I know how the science field is political, because man is political.

I’ve got to agree with you on this one. At my university, I’ve met more than a few professors who think the classroom is the perfect place to preach a political agenda. It’s regrettable, but as you say, it’s only human, so sigh . . . 🙄

quote AFJ:

The word of God declares that man is not a beast but a living eternal soul. He did not come from another species but God breathed a soul into him. Common designer, not common ancestor.

Are you willing to bet your soul on that one? 🙂

quote AFJ:

I have studied to see why many scientists believe this way. Do you yourself know the history of uniformintarianistic thought upon which Darwin’s books found fertile soil to produce the evolutionary faith?

I know a little bit about how some people have twisted Darwin’s theory around to suit their own political agenda, just as countless people throughout history have subjected the Bible to similar abuse. Politics should be kept out of science (and religion too, for that matter). Pity that such idealism rarely comes to pass.

quote AFJ:

Also you are using circular reasoning here. You admit that the theories upon which evolution rest upon are debatable, but then you equate evolution to a car as though it is undebatable reality.

This is not circular reasoning at all, because evolution is an observable phenomenon just like gravity. The theories explaining evolution are indeed debatable, just as multiple theories have been proposed to explain gravity; however, these multiple and debatable theories do not change the central irrefutable fact of the phenomenon in question.

In fact, given the nature of some of the statements you have made, do you really want to be the one bringing up matters of circular reasoning? People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

quote AFJ:

What you can actually observe is natural selection (which by critical research has also been observed to reverse itself) and speciation.

No, natural selection is a theory put forward by Charles Darwin to explain how organisms evolve. Evolution is an observable fact of nature that scientists have been aware of since at least the period of classical Greece.

quote AFJ:

The bible says that God created the different “kinds” not species. Species is a modern scientific term. “Kinds” is obviously a general term but we are researching to see how general. Is it the same as a family or order?

This is a question I have often asked and never heard answered. Can you answer it?

quote AFJ:

But what no one has observed is a mutation that adds information to the genome, and which also results in a higher species.

First of all, yes, mutations have been observed that add information to the genome, especially in the medical sciences. Secondly, how do you define "higher" species?

quote AFJ:

This is why you can not make such an arrogant claim that evolution is scientific law!

I’m not saying it’s a scientific law, merely that it’s an observable phenomenon. Those aren’t exactly the same thing.

quote AFJ:

But then you have bought the fact for instance that carbon 14 and other radiometric dating methods are infallible, without considering critical research that has shown the contrary.

Of course C14 dating is not infallible! Neither, for that matter, is any other form of radiometric dating. There’s always a margin of error involved. However, that margin of error is much, much smaller than some people would like us to believe.

quote AFJ:

Evolution does not challenge my faith, but it challenges your soul.

Does it? Because the Church I belong to would disagree. In fact, it was my Church that first put forward the Big Bang theory. Top that! 😀

quote AFJ:

I am writing to you not for my sake but for yours!

I am glad to see you are so concerned about me! I am writing this because, for some strange reason, I enjoy discussing the topic.

quote AFJ:

Microorganism to man evolution–not natural selection or speciation–is an idea in man’s mind that finds its rudiments in atheistic philosophy–not Judeo-Christian or Islamic faith.

You might want to read some of the works of St. Augustine of Hippo, a 4th century writer who was one of the leading pioneers of Christian philosophy and theology. He was also an evolutionist, which is why I am citing him as an example of evolutionary thought that existed in Judaeo-Christian thinking long before atheism came into existence.

quote AFJ:

First of all, please don’t be guilty of the arrogance of our generation.

I try not to. After all, I often find myself sickened by some of the ideas put forward in modern American culture! If you happen to catch me in such an act, however, please be so kind as to point it out so I can correct myself.

quote AFJ:

Science was birthed in the philosophy of the Greeks. If they had not built the foundation of scientific inquiry, we would not have the discoveries we have today.

There’s a lot of truth in this, since the Greeks contributed significantly to humanity’s intellectual development. However, the roots of science can be traced back even further than the Greeks, at least as far as the Babylonians and Egyptians. I know, I’m a history nerd!

quote AFJ:

And you again seem to lay evolutionary thought on the applied science of chemistry, as if to borrow from it’s credibility and scientific law. You err my friend in this.

Actually the biological sciences in general are heavily founded upon chemistry; this is why I have no choice but to take a minor in chemistry if I want to earn a BS in biology! So I don’t think I’ve erred in anything. As long as living organisms continue to be composed of carbon compounds undergoing all sorts of chemical reactions, then it will continue to be justifiable to look to concepts of chemistry to help explain certain phenomena of biology.

Now that I’m finished discussing my favorite theory, I’d like to hear you explain yours. You’ve already given a few indications of what you believe. Would you mind explaining it in detail and presenting some evidence for why you believe so?

[biohazard]

quote AFJ:

All of the power and order contained in creation can not be explained by current natural laws, but only by God who loves all of us, and who planned our salvation and the sending of His Word made flesh–His Son Jesus Christ to die for our sins–and to raise again to be Lord of Lords and Kings of Kings–and by Him all these things consist!

I saw a TV documentary several years ago where a small, that time about 10-year-old Tutsi girl from Rwanda was interviewed. The girl was attending a christian school near the capital Kigali. In the interview this girl told that her life-long dream had been to become a nurse. However, during the Rwanda massacre in 1994 Hutu invaders had raided her village and took her captive. The captors had cut off both of her hands with a machete, and thus, in the interview it became quite obvious that she had given up all hope of achieving her dreams.

That day I realised that despite God claims to love all of us, he lies. If one who is almighty does not intervene in such brutality as cutting off a small girl’s hands even if he could prevent it, it cannot be called love. If you loved your child, or anyone, you would never ever let anyone do things like that. But God, well, he apparently had better things to do. This is of course just one of the billions of horrors innocent people (such as little children) face on this planet, but it is all good as far as God is concerned. He just couldn’t be bothered.

You can argue that people have the freedom of choice, they are the ones who do these brutalities, but this girl had absolutely no chance, no way to choose her fate. She probably prayed before she was dismembered.

God, who is almighty, could have prevented this without any problems. But as it turned out, he chose to not to do anything. A little girl had to endure unimaginable pain and fear beyond our wildest nightmares, and saw all her dreams crushed. In this light, it seems pretty obvious that God doesn’t give a shit. Actually, it often looks like god is like a little boy with some sugar and a magnifying lens at an ant hill: with one hand he gives sugar to the ants who rush to the treat, thinking it’s their happy day – and then with the other hand he brings the lens, burning all the ants at the surgar piece under the blazing sun. To me, God seems like a sadistic person, much more so than vast majority of us humans. After all, unlike us humans, he could end all the misery, pain and sorrow in the world now.

Ok, by now you must be wondering what the hell does all this have to do with evolution and natural selection. It is this:

People who share this twisted and sick idea of love with their creator come here and try to argument their case by claiming that this sadistic, irrational, unpredictible supernatural entity that loves us by letting little girls get mutilated beyond recognition has also created all what is around us. Well, I say that if he creates like he loves, we’d be better off dead.

But luckily all the beautiful, interesting nature, though often perilous and brutal, can be explained by the laws of physics, chemistry and biology, and we do not need to invent any supernatural forces to explain things. Also luckily it looks like God is just imagination of some superstitious people, because no evidence of him or his doings can be found whatsoever. Were this vengeful and wicked entity really around, we’d be majorly screwed.

You can bring your gods into the conversation for all I care, but at least take a moment to reflect on how absurd and contradictory YOUR version of things is!

[alextemplet]

quote biohazard:

But luckily all the beautiful, interesting nature, though often perilous and brutal, can be explained by the laws of physics, chemistry and biology, and we do not need to invent any supernatural forces to explain things.

Actually, as I mentioned previously with my reference to p-orbitals, there is much in the natural sciences that cannot be explained. I’m not saying that we should revert to the supernatural by default, just pointing out that if you’re going to throw rocks about absurdity, you should make sure your own facts are straight first. People who live in glass houses . . .

quote biohazard:

Also luckily it looks like God is just imagination of some superstitious people, because no evidence of him or his doings can be found whatsoever.

Again if you really want to split hairs here, you’ll likely find yourself on the losing side of that debate. I’m hesitant to go there, as that’s a debate that really doesn’t belong in this forum. I’ll just repeat my previous warning, and point out that if you want anyone else to respect your own beliefs, it would be wise to likewise respect th beliefs of others.

Discussion about the presence of good or evil in the world is pointless, because those are subjective terms that depend not only on how we define them but also on the bias of the person making the argument. In fact, one could even argue that the presence of evil exists to make good even stronger. For example, would a life as inspiring as Martin Luther King, Ghandi, or Mother Theresa have been lived had the evil they fought against not existed? I don’t really intend to get too deeply into this discussion, just pointing out that the very nature of this subject means that almost anything you say can be legitimately interpreted another way and used against you. You would be wise to avoid this topic entirely.

[AFJ]

Alex, I don’t have alot of time during the week, so i really can’t do anything justice.

The only thing I can say is let’s define evolution. Rubber meets road there are two types. Micro evolution which is observable in the present which would be species changes in FAMILIES of fauna or animals. Example would be the interbreeding of dogs. Varied species in the same genus, order, or family, which have been OBSERVED to change. Creationists have no problem with this. Also some of the principles of NS are observable in the present, but research also has shown the return of disappearing traits when favorable environmental factors return. This could indicate that the DNA contains pre-programed material which allows variance in traits –or adaptation to environment. That is some traits may lie dormant in genetic material depending on environmental conditions.

Then there is macro-evolution which no scientist has ever observed. He has never seen a chimp evolve into the pilt-down man, which was diagrammed in the primate-to-man illustration and was based on the tooth of an extinct pig. No one has ever seen the genome mutate to ADD information and create a new family. The evolutionists take micro evolution and assumes that there will be no genetic boundaries, but God has them there and has always had them there. I know all about the theories of speciation and the separation of species from each other. And i’m talking about change in families not species. But may I say no one saw it–so one has to BELIEVE it.

Evolution takes faith Alex–bottom line. Alex, you’ve only heard one side of the story all your life, and there are always two sides of the story.

Where is the anti-matter from the big-bang? Energy transforming into matter produces anti-matter in the labratory. The universe shoud be full of antimatter which would in turn destroy it.

Why are there fossilized fish in the himalayas, and the upper layers of the grand canyon? Why are there severe bends in the multiple strata that is supposed to have been layed down over millions of years–should be cracked not bent? Because it was laid down quickly.

Have you seen how large canyons can be formed by floods? Or how large boulders are where they should not be?

Why is there so much buried material in the earth’s crust which has been oxidized? Because it was once wet sediment or material covered by water. Please– water rust things much quicker than air. Leave some water droplets on a hatchet and see how long it takes to oxidize where the droplets are sitting.

[alextemplet]

quote AFJ:

Alex, I don’t have alot of time during the week, so i really can’t do anything justice.

Welcome to my world. I’ve got four tests this week and then finals next week. Busy busy, but here’s a few brief thoughts:

There is only one type of evolution. The difference between micro and macro is meaningless; in fact, it’s not even a difference that is recognized by scientists! This is merely a creative tactic developed by the anti-evolution crowd to try to create uncertainty where there isn’t any. It’s a pretty neat idea, isn’t it? If you wish to attack an idea that is solidly supported by evidence, you can just change the idea itself until it no longer fits. If only science worked that way!

What makes this such an effective tactic for the anti-evolution crowd is that they have conveniently forgotten to define where the boundary lies between macro and micro, sort of like how they never bothered to define "kinds". Originally, macro was considered anything above the species level, until several cases of speciation were demonstrated. Then they moved the definition up to the genus level and then to family, because as long as they keep changing the definition they can keep claiming that it’s never been observed. I’m sure I don’t have to explain to you why this is a logical disaster as a debating tactic.

quote AFJ:

Evolution takes faith Alex–bottom line. Alex, you’ve only heard one side of the story all your life, and there are always two sides of the story.

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt here because you don’t know me, but I’d appreciate it if you’d not make any unnecessary assumptions about my faith life. I live in the south, where the religious right is the dominant force in politics, so I’ve had ample exposure to "both sides" during my lifetime. Not to mention the anti-global warming types in my church who are less than happy with my decision to major in environmental biology. One even went so far as to warn me that ecology is becoming the new religion. 🙄

quote AFJ:

Why are there fossilized fish in the himalayas, and the upper layers of the grand canyon? Why are there severe bends in the multiple strata that is supposed to have been layed down over millions of years–should be cracked not bent? Because it was laid down quickly.

No, because the rock that now forms the tops of mountains was once at the bottom of the sea, and was gradually pushed upwards as the mountains developed over millions of years. Look up plate tectonics.

quote AFJ:

Where is the anti-matter from the big-bang? Energy transforming into matter produces anti-matter in the labratory. The universe shoud be full of antimatter which would in turn destroy it.

Interesting you mention the big bang, one of my favorite little subjects of astrophysics, and I believe still one of the best pieces of evidence for the existence of a creator ever put forward. Pity so many people seem to associate it with atheism, when the theory was created by the Catholic Church in order to prove that the universe had a moment of creation as described in the Bible. But that’s getting a little too much into history, and I have a test tomorrow I should be studying for, so if you’re interested in discussing the topic some more I’m sure we can find time later in the week. 😉

[biohazard]

quote alextemplet:

quote biohazard:

But luckily all the beautiful, interesting nature, though often perilous and brutal, can be explained by the laws of physics, chemistry and biology, and we do not need to invent any supernatural forces to explain things.

Actually, as I mentioned previously with my reference to p-orbitals, there is much in the natural sciences that cannot be explained. I’m not saying that we should revert to the supernatural by default, just pointing out that if you’re going to throw rocks about absurdity, you should make sure your own facts are straight first. People who live in glass houses . . .

If we cannot explain something currently does not mean it cannot be explained. It is just our limits that prevent us from doing it, but it doesn’t mean something couldn’t be explained by the laws of nature. I know it’s been the way of the mankind for ages to explain all they don’t understand by calling it an act of god. Just take a lightning bolt as an example: not too long ago just about every civilization believed it to be a sign of god’s anger, the great overgod venting out his anger upon us puny mortals and so on – just look how often Zeus is portraited with a bundle of lightning bolts in his hand. But when our knowledge increased it became apparent that it could be easily explained by the laws of nature. Not so godly anymore?

Surely there are many difficult things to explain, some of which may remain unexplained for us forever. In this cases it is of course easy to just call it god’s doings and not confess that it is just our limitations that prevent us from seeing the real nature of certain phenomena.

quote biohazard:

Also luckily it looks like God is just imagination of some superstitious people, because no evidence of him or his doings can be found whatsoever.

quote alextemplet:

Again if you really want to split hairs here, you’ll likely find yourself on the losing side of that debate. I’m hesitant to go there, as that’s a debate that really doesn’t belong in this forum. I’ll just repeat my previous warning, and point out that if you want anyone else to respect your own beliefs, it would be wise to likewise respect th beliefs of others.

Discussion about the presence of good or evil in the world is pointless, because those are subjective terms that depend not only on how we define them but also on the bias of the person making the argument. In fact, one could even argue that the presence of evil exists to make good even stronger. For example, would a life as inspiring as Martin Luther King, Ghandi, or Mother Theresa have been lived had the evil they fought against not existed? I don’t really intend to get too deeply into this discussion, just pointing out that the very nature of this subject means that almost anything you say can be legitimately interpreted another way and used against you. You would be wise to avoid this topic entirely.

Nice evasive action. Yes, I know christians are good at twisting words, because that’s what you usually have to do to get even some tiny amount of logic in the bible’s promises about all-loving god and the complete lack of it in the actual world 🙂

No matter what definition of love in the world you choose to use, the fact that you choose not to act, when you can, if a small girl’s hands are being torn off is not love. If God had loved that little girl, he would have intervened. That is all I need to know about God.

Yes, I know that soon I hear something about God’s mighty plans that are too complex for us to understand and which probably involve a handless girl. And yes, I know that the same guy let also his son to be hammered onto a cross with nails piercing through his hands and legs because he loved him so much. Or was it so that he loved just us so much that he let us torture and kill his son? I wish I had as cool a father as Jesus had :/

When I was a kid and they taught us what happened to Jesus I remember thinking that "man, we really have an evil God", and that view surely hasn’t changed except that I’m starting to hope that there is no God.

You say this is off-topic, and maybe so, but as long as I keep bumping into god and religious dogmas as arguments in half of the scientific debates, and especially when it is not just an ethical argument but actually explaining how things are ("well, God just made it so!"), just proves that this is an important topic that should be addressed in order to prevent people from being completely mislead.

And I respect you Alex, as well as other people on this forum. You seem like an intelligent, well-educated person with good scientific skills. I have actually enjoyed reading most of your posts here, which are well-structured, clever and rarely miss the point. That probably also makes you a difficult opponent in this debate 😉

But religions in general, I can unfortunately only respect as interesting cultural and historical phenomena rich in tradition, which had their place in the past, but not in today.

To me it strongly looks that religions have formed to explain things we haven’t been able to explain and to alleviate our fear of death (ever-lasting life in the heaven sounds very nice and all when the true life is hard and bitchy, your crops fail and your son dies of pneumonia, or when the Black Death wipes out your village – or any such small joys the life offered to people in the past and still often offers today). Also, religions have always been excellent means of controlling people. You can still today see how the Chatolic Church and Islam suppress and manipulate their people. No wonder virtually none of the most developed and equal countries in the world are neither Catholic or Islamist. The apparent wealth of a few Arab countries is simply because of oil, if they had none of it they’d be developing countries like the rest of them.

[wbla3335]

Well, I have to side with biohazard on this one. Science has few final answers on anything, but at least it tries to find answers based on observation and testing the validity of those observations. Because hardcore atheists have no final answers, faith does enter the picture. Our faith, however, and this is the crux of the matter, is not a blind faith. It’s based on probability – the probability that what we observe and verify by testing is LIKELY to be true. We find it difficult to believe in gods of any sort because there is precious little evidence, or need, for doing so. We’ve learned a lot about ourselves and our world since the days of comparative ignorance when today’s religions were founded. We humans are what we are because of our brains, not our physical strength or speed or sensory acuity. We have survived and become dominant because we are good at figuring things out. Religions are attempts at explanation and served us well in the absence of anything better. But now there is something better at explaining the world we live in. Sure, there are plenty of unknowns and gaps and maybe’s, and some of our cherished notions will some day be shown to be inaccurate, but we are slowly ratcheting ourselves towards understanding. We are doing so by using what has got us this far, not by clinging to what we wish were true.

How many gods have we imagined there to be over the millenia? How many are independent of culture or geography? How many remain in contention? How many can vie for top spot? Which god is the one and only god? Why do we need gods? Why do we kill each other in their names? Why can’t we just move on? What is it about death that scares the **** out of us and turns us into blithering idiots? Why can we not become worthy of living up to our name and claim sapience?

Sorry if I’ve offended anyone, but sometimes a good smack in the head is useful.

[alextemplet]

quote biohazard:

If we cannot explain something currently does not mean it cannot be explained. . . . Surely there are many difficult things to explain, some of which may remain unexplained for us forever. In this cases it is of course easy to just call it god’s doings . . .

You are absolutely correct, but I think you missed my point. You said that the laws of biology, chemistry, and physics, are sufficient to explain the world around us. As it currently stands, they are not, because there is much that still baffles us. I’m not saying we should automatically invoke the supernatural for the unexplainable path of every single electron; I’m just pointing out that claiming that we can fully understand our universe through purely natural means is just a tad bit on the prideful side. Maybe one day we will, although I doubt it; today, we certainly cannot.

quote biohazard:

No matter what definition of love in the world you choose to use, the fact that you choose not to act, when you can, if a small girl’s hands are being torn off is not love. If God had loved that little girl, he would have intervened. That is all I need to know about God.

I understand where you’re coming from, but you’re still using a purely subjective definition. Based on my own understanding, I’m obviously going to disagree, and I feel confident that I can defend my position with just as much logic and reason as you claim is inherent in yours. But as I said before, that’s not a debate that’s going to lead anywhere other than possibly getting us all ticked off with each other, so we’d do better to stick to pure science.

And besides, let’s assume for a minute that you’re right, and God (if He exists) is really a sick, sadistic bastard. Does that prove that He doesn’t exist? Of course not! It just means that many people have a very inaccurate view of Him. This is why this topic is best left alone. Nothing you can say will ever disprove God’s existence, just as I stand an equally fleeting chance of proving that He does. All we can do is accept that some of us believe and some of us don’t, and some of us have different opinions about Him, and just agree to disagree.

quote biohazard:

To me it strongly looks that religions have formed to explain things we haven’t been able to explain and to alleviate our fear of death

Ok, I’m going to break my own rule and indulge this topic a bit, because I think it might help if I try to explain why I believe as I do. The spectrum of religious belief is so broad and diverse that it is probably wrong to make such sweeping generalizations about all believers. I can only answer this question for myself, but for me, belief in God has nothing to do with explaining mysteries of the universe or a happy place to go when I die. To be perfectly honest, I really don’t give a rat’s hind-end about what happens after I die; I simply believe to make my present life a bit more bearable. From what I’ve seen so far in my life, I am simply unable to convince myself that God does not exist. From the countless people in the Church who have reached out to help me when I was in need, to the equally countless happy coincidences (dare I say miracles?), to my own peace of mind that derives from encountering such an infinite and total love, I simply find myself unable to comprehend a world without God. Add in a few experiences of my own with the supernatural that convinces me that there must be more to the universe than what we can see, and I hope you can appreciate that there are at least some legitimate reasons why an educated, intelligent person would want to believe in God.

Also, if we’re going to be brutally honest, I’ve seen a few atheists on this forum who make even the most hard-core creationists seem downright logical by comparison. So maybe we’re all just a little bit crazy! 😉

[biohazard]

quote alextemplet:

…

Fair enough, at least for now I think I’m done with this topic (about God) and ready to switch back to the original one (natural selection) – I think at least there we mostly agree with one another 😉

I admit I sometimes get a bit agitated with this God-stuff, but believe me or not I’m actually quite a tolerant person – actually my sister is a priest and I’m okay with that, and she doesn’t even believe in evolution!

Once again I have to admire your patience and skill to produce a mature and reasonable answer on a topic as "hot" as religion – without going into personal insults and petty flaming. Especially when the opposing view is presented by such a sarcastic and cynical person as me (well, I’m not always like that!)

Amen! 😉

[alextemplet]

quote biohazard:

I admit I sometimes get a bit agitated with this God-stuff, but believe me or not I’m actually quite a tolerant person – actually my sister is a priest and I’m okay with that, and she doesn’t even believe in evolution!

Oh goodness, you’re encamped with the enemy! 😉

Just kidding of course. Thanks for the compliments, and thanks for taking the time to listen to what I had to say. Very rare display of maturity, that is. 🙂

[AFJ]

Hi Alex,

Just wanted you to know that Im not religious either in the sense that I do not follow traditions of men and dogmas of certain denominations. I do go to church, but I may not agree with everything the preacher says, especially if I find no basis for it in the word of God. I’ve had my share of church politics, hypocrites and self righteous people in my 47 years. But there is a pure faith and it found only in Christ.

Do you then believe in a creator Alex? If you don’t mind me asking.

Are you deist–God wound up the clock and let it go–evolution works nicely with deism? Are you pantheist? God is everything and everything is God–I get the sense some evolutionists are neopantheist with the attitude that life will always find a way to create, so in a sense Life would be god. Or are you a Christian who believes in the gap theory or the day age theory?

By the way, you know that neither one of us, nor anyone else saw the Himalayas rise out of the ocean or saw how long they took to come up, so I guess we have to hold to our beliefs on that one. I know about plate tectonics. I guess if you assume that all natural processes have always proceeded at the same rate as today with little change or change in direction, then you could calculate the duration.

But I know there have been alot of catastrophes. I like the one where the scientist theorize that the dinosaurs were killed by an asteroid. And we know what evidence they have found also to come to this theory. Lots and lots of sediment put down very very quickly. Fossils only become fossils under sediment. Slow gradual build up of sediment like evolutionary geologists say will never make a dead organism a fossil–it will decay to elements.

And there are many animal graveyards that show that the animals were carried together–all different types–bones all mangled up and twisted–buried together! Well they have to assign something to these bones, so it was an asteroid. Or maybe…a flood? No! That’s religion! But sir what if that’s what happened–would it still be religion or the truth?

I mean does a scientist, even if hes gone to school for a hundred years, really know how much rubidium was already in these rocks he’s dating when the rock was formed. Its supposed to have evaporated all out but what if all of it doesn’t? Or does he know how much strontium has leaked out of the rock. It has not been in a lab, it has been in the elements for many years. What if a rock was formed 1000 years ago that had 1 lb of of strontium and 10 lbs of rubidium. Does that mean all the strontium has changed to rubidium. Maybe water has entered the rock to remove much strontium. This can by all means happen. This is why rocks of ages known less than a century have been dated to be millions of years old!

If you know the scriptures they show us we are in the last days before Christ’s return, and before Him will come the antichrist. Thessalonians says the God shall send them strong delusion because men received not the love of the TRUTH. I do not say this in a hateful or judgmental way, but with a heart that is saddened by America’s rejection of scripture. Jesus said if you continue in my word you shall know the TRUTH and the TRUTH shall make you free. Jesus loves you!

P.S. You didn’t answer my question about the antimatter of the big bang–whoever made it up is irrelevant–seems like alot of people liked the idea.

[alextemplet]

AFJ, I’ll hopefully find time to write a more detailed response this weekend; I’m afraid I’m still caught up in the middle of final exams. Sorry I forgot about your big bang question; I thought the answer was implied but I forgot to make it clear. I’m not really sure what happened before the big bang; there might have been something or there might have been nothing. Either way, I believe in a God who created the universe and everything in it. I’m Roman Catholic. That’s why I felt my need to go into my history lesson about how it was the Catholic Church that was responsible for the big bang theory; I’m rather proud of that one! 🙂

Anyway, this is about all I have the mental energy for right now. I’ll try to type some more later in the week or possibly over the weekend. Later!

[AFJ]

Alex I am glad that you are not an atheist, at least you leave the possibility for a supreme being, and you seem like a pretty good guy. Feel free to share with me what you are learning, and I hope you will let me share with you some things also.

I was puzzled about the creation evolution issue in my younger years, because I was taught as a child to have a personal relationship with God and trust in the authority of the scriptures. Later I was introduced to the day age theories, and the gap theory which as you might know are a "marrying" of scripture and evolution. I was always jealous for the scripture though and I never accepted or rejected those theories–just shelved them.

I had seen God answer prayer–sometimes with no other natural explanation–in other words I had felt and seen God work personally, and so it was hard to understand why there was so much alleged evidence coming out showing an old earth and that life had evolved.

Then I was able to meet and listen to some scientists and medical doctors, some who had actually obtained their PhDs from Harvard. They saw all the evidence, and all had sat under evolutionary professors, some had believed it in earlier life, and some were converted at college. They amazingly had no problem with a young earth as the scripture accounts and a worldwide flood–they showed much of their own evidence and research to show this–AND showed how worldview (your view of your own existence, origin, and purpose in life) will ultimately affect the way one conducts science, as well as the interpretation of the hard evidence. As can be said "fossils will not talk to you."

Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation. Im sure you can google these names to contact them if you need to verify. This of course would not count high school science teachers, or scientists of the past or just after Darwin’s time. This is a list of modern day creationists–those who have "come out."

* Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
* Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
* Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
* Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
* Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
* Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
* Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
* Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
* Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
* Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
* Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
* Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
* Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
* Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
* Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
* Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
* Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
* Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
* Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
* Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
* Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
* Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
* Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
* Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
* Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
* Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
* Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
* Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
* Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
* Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
* Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
* Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
* Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
* Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
* Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
* Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
* Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
* Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
* Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
* Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
* Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
* Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
* Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
* Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
* Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
* Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
* Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
* Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
* Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
* Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
* Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
* Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
* Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
* Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
* Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
* Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
* Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
* Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
* Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
* Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
* Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
* Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
* Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
* Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
* Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
* Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
* Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
* Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
* Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
* George T. Javor, Biochemistry
* Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
* Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
* Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
* Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
* Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
* Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
* Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
* Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
* Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
* Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
* Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
* Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
* Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
* Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
* Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
* Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
* Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
* Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
* Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
* Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
* Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry
* Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
* Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
* Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
* Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
* Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
* Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
* Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
* Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
* Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
* Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
* Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
* Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
* Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
* Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
* Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
* Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
* Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
* Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
* Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
* Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
* Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
* Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
* Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
* Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
* Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
* Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
* Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
* Prof. Richard Porter
* Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
* Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
* Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
* Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
* Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
* Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
* Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
* Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
* Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
* Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
* Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
* Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
* Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
* Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
* Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
* Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
* Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
* Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
* Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
* Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
* Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
* Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
* Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
* Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
* Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
* Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
* Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
* Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
* Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
* Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
* Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
* Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
* Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
* Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
* Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
* Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
* Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
* Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
* Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
* Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
* Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
* Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
* Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
* Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
* Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
* Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
* Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology

I

[alextemplet]

I was privileged to attend a Catholic high school, and during my time there I wrote a theology paper arguing that young-earth creationism is actually a heretical belief system without any sound basis in scripture; I was able to support this argument using scriptural and other evidence. Last semester, in a college-level English class, I wrote a paper arguing the American religious right, composed mostly of capitalists and war-hawks, is equally deceived and that a true Christian would be a socialist and a pacifist, and again I supported this with evidence from scripture. I’m not going to go into any detailed discussion on those points here, since this is supposed to be a science forum and we’ve had probably too much religious debate already; although if you’d like to pursue that conversation in a different venue, like e-mail, I’d be more than willing. I’m just mentioning it here as examples to hopefully encourage you to at least be open to the idea that the Bible might not necessarily say what you seem to be taking for granted it says.

Anyway, I owe you a more detailed description of radioisotope dating. I believe the question you asked was how one can know the original amounts of the isotopes in question. In short, the answer is that some isotopes of certain elements occur naturally, whereas others occur only as part of a decay process; this means that those that occur as part of a decay process can be indicated as having once been a different element, and thus how much of those there are can tell what the original amounts were.

I’ll use the rubidium-strontium dating method as an example. The natural form of strontium is Sr86, but Rb87 decays to produce Sr87, and Sr87 is only produced as part of the decay process of Rb87. Because of this, if a geologist wanted to estimate the age of a rock, all he has to do is examine how much of each of these three isotopes occur in proportion to each other. The ratio of Rb87 and Sr87 to Sr86 can tell him what was the original ratio of Rb87 to Sr86, and the amount of Rb87 that has decayed to Sr87 allows him to approximate the age of the sample.

That’s a good brief description and probably the best I’m going to do since I’m a biochemistry major and not a trained geologist, but you can find more info on the internet or, if you find time, a particularly good book I would recommend is Finding Darwin’s God by Kenneth Miller, which is discusses this as well as other topics related to the issue. Also, here’s a good article, not about isotope dating, but you might find it useful food for thought nonetheless:

http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=2708&canal=Life%20%26%20Family&grupo=Life%20and%20Bioethics

[AFJ]

How interesting Alex that you use scripture to "prove" that scripture is not literal. That a literal interpretation of it is heretical. How can you use scripture against scripture–either you have not read Genesis or you believe it is some kind of symbolic allegory. If such is the case then how do the scriptures you used in your paper have any authority as they may just be symbolic and not meaning what they seem to say.

And yet you believe wholeheartedly with millions of atheists, like Richard Dawkins, in evolution. Seems confusing to me. I also will not go into a detailed explanation for you are correct in saying this is a science forum. Email is fine.

I would like to say that most of the people on this forum are gracious, but I would ask for the liberty of speaking my opinion about supposedly deviating from the forum. First of all, the subject of evolution is about origins, and there are only two ways we got here–by completely natural forces working in our universe–or something or someone outside our universe. To expect that evolution is going to get a free ticket to the inner conviction of every person without question or contest is not realistic. Especially when their are(though they may be in the minority–a large minority nonetheless) many people who believe otherwise.

Secondly, evolution was brought to us to an unconverted man, Charles Darwin, and is followed by millions of atheists–even if it is held to by believers it is rudimentally atheistic. It’s principles are independent of interaction with the Creator so He becomes irrelevant.

Thirdly, evolution flies not only in the face of the Creator but also in the face of one of the most universally observable principles in our world–namely that all designed objects have a designer. If I bring you a globe and tell you it formed itself you would laugh and then tell me that the earth we stand on is the result of chemical reactions, and physics. Can’t buy it sorry. Logistically impossible– and we can not account for all the forces that brought it together by the models offered by scientists. We can’t even define a photon and we think we can understand how the world and the life on it was formed?

[alextemplet]

The crucial detail here is that this is a science forum and thus we are here to seek scientific explanations of natural phenomenon, not religious ones. Your religious beliefs are all well and good, but we live in a world full of thousands of different religions, each one claiming some sort of legitimacy, so unless you’re able to back up your beliefs with scientific evidence then you have no more merit than the ancient Babylonians who thought the world sat on the back of a giant tortoise. There are plenty of religious discussion forums to debate varying forms of belief if that is your desire, but here it would be best to try to stick to science and leave the religious topic untouched. Sorry if I sound harsh but so far I haven’t seen much in the way of real science in your posts, just religious doctrine.

I’ll be the first to admit that science cannot explain everything, but the explanations it can offer are probably a lot more advanced than you seem to be giving them credit for, especially compared to young-earth creationist views that are mere fiction. Sorry to be harsh again, but there is much that young-earth types claim as truth that is blatantly false. After all, if the earth were only a few thousand years old, we shouldn’t be able to see stars at night; and yet we do.

If you wish to pursue a religious/doctrinal discussion, feel free to drop me an e-mail:

[email protected]

If you wish to pursue a scientific debate, then I hope you don’t mind if I take the liberty to suggest an opening question of discussion. Would you mind explaining to me how, if the earth is only a few thousand years old, we are able to see stars at night?

[biohazard]

quote AFJ:

We can’t even define a photon and we think we can understand how the world and the life on it was formed?

Good grief…

You make it sound like particle physics is something people do in kindergarten! A civilization that is even able to study photons with more precise methods than a lens and a prism is already an extremely advanced one. When you are as close to understanding the basic essence of matter that you can even try to define what a photon is you should also be well capable of contemplating on the origins of life.

And like I’ve said a thousand times, just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean it was just made by god. For Pete’s sake, if we used such a method we’d be still in stone age, telling our children that lightning bolts are thrown at us by an angy god. With evolution it is exactly the same thing: you cannot figure out how life has originated, you use fairy tales to explain it. You guys are the ones who wanted to burn Galileo Galilei alive (or whatever it is you do with people who oppose your views) for suggesting that the Earth may actually revolve around the Sun, not the other way round.

You all probably know what happened next: Galileo was naturally wrong and his absurd, heretic theories about heliocentricism were just scientific theories, no match for the Holy Book, and the Earth naturally was and is the centre of all universe. Luckily nobody listened to the scientist and believed the holy men, because otherwise we’d believe in such an absurd concept as heliocentric world! Phew, that was close. Thank God and thank Christianity, once again they saved us from science!

[gamila]

NS is talking about traits not genes not mutations but traits
traits are an organisms physical characteristics

quote :

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005

thus

quote :

NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with traits [physical characteristics] already present and cant deal with the generation of new species ie new physical characteristics not seen before

A new species has completely new traits[physical characteristics] which were not in an antecedent so the antecedent species could not have passed them on
NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits [physical characteristics]
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits [physical characteristics] not seen before and are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation

quote :

Consider another example: “vertebrates evolved from invertebrates.” But invertebrate by definition means “not a vertebrate.” Evolve means to change, and a changed thing is not what it once was, by definition. Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not. The end result of the phrase is merely an assumption, not a demonstration. Evolution in this way assumes itself, cloaked in logical fallacy.”

[futurezoologist]

Just flicked my eyes down the page and noticed…

quote :

If I bring you a globe and tell you it formed itself you would laugh and then tell me that the earth we stand on is the result of chemical reactions, and physics. Can’t buy it sorry. Logistically impossible– and we can not account for all the forces that brought it together by the models offered by scientists. We can’t even define a photon and we think we can understand how the world and the life on it was formed?

Logistically impossible? There is a vast difference between logic and beliefs, i think you are getting them confused, the physics we have now can easily account for 99% of the processes which brought this rock into place, and that 1%? Well we have only been studying these processes for a few hundred years. And what do you mean we cant even define a photon, you speak of it as something simple, even so, its not that we cant define a photon its that it doesn’t fit into our classification and a little time will fix that. Now, something that IS LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE is the world being created in six days by a being that is nothing and has existed as nothing for all eternity, what would be logically possible would be that someone a few thousand years ago thought very hard and concluded that energy (and therefore matter) cannot have existed for all eternity and that an invisible allpowerful spirit would seem a much more appropriate device for the explanation of existence.

[gamila]

quote :

Logistically impossible? There is a vast difference between logic and beliefs

well natural selection being the cause of new species sure looks like and impossiblity

quote :

NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with traits [physical characteristics] already present and cant deal with the generation of new species ie new physical characteristics not seen before

A new species has completely new traits[physical characteristics] which were not in an antecedent so the antecedent species could not have passed them on
NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits [physical characteristics]
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits [physical characteristics] not seen before and are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation

quote :

Consider another example: “vertebrates evolved from invertebrates.” But invertebrate by definition means “not a vertebrate.” Evolve means to change, and a changed thing is not what it once was, by definition. Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not. The end result of the phrase is merely an assumption, not a demonstration. Evolution in this way assumes itself, cloaked in logical fallacy.”

[futurezoologist]

quote :

well natural selection being the cause of new species sure looks like and impossiblity

“Appearances often are deceiving.”
– Aesop

[gamila]

quote :

Appearances often are deceiving.”
– Aesop

just follow the logic
it points to the impossibility of natural selection to generate new species

quote :

NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with traits [physical characteristics] already present and cant deal with the generation of new species ie new physical characteristics not seen before

A new species has completely new traits[physical characteristics] which were not in an antecedent so the antecedent species could not have passed them on
NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits [physical characteristics]
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits [physical characteristics] not seen before and are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation

quote :

Consider another example: “vertebrates evolved from invertebrates.” But invertebrate by definition means “not a vertebrate.” Evolve means to change, and a changed thing is not what it once was, by definition. Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not. The end result of the phrase is merely an assumption, not a demonstration. Evolution in this way assumes itself, cloaked in logical fallacy.”

[alextemplet]

quote gamila:

just follow the logic
it points to the impossibility of natural selection to generate new species

Logic has already disproven your arguments, and yet you still refuse to listen to reason.

[futurezoologist]

quote :

NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with traits [physical characteristics] already present and cant deal with the generation of new species ie new physical characteristics not seen before

Whoever wrote that either made a very big mistake or had not even read the definition of natural selection.

quote :

NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits [physical characteristics]
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits [physical characteristics] not seen before and are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation

May i ask who wrote this? I can now see that this is definitely not a mistake.

quote :

Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes.

NS has nothing to do with the mutation of genes, it puts pressure on certain traits in a population.

quote :

Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not.

You cannot beat scientific evidence with word games. Of course it evolved from something it was not, if it evolved from something it was already then it wouldn’t be evolution.

[gamila]

quote :

May i ask who wrote this?

colin leslie dean
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … ection.pdf

‘THE REFUTATION. EVOLUTIONARY THEORY: NATURAL SELECTION SHOWN TO BE WRONG’

you say

quote :

Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes.

quote :

You cannot beat scientific evidence with word game

note traits are physical characteristics

logic says IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR NS TO GENERATE NEW SPECIES-with new physical characteristics

quote :

NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits [physical characteristics]
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits [physical characteristics] not seen before and are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation

NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with traits [physical characteristics] already present and cant deal with the generation of new species ie new physical characteristics not seen before

Consider another example: “vertebrates evolved from invertebrates.” But invertebrate by definition means “not a vertebrate.” Evolve means to change, and a changed thing is not what it once was, by definition. Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not. The end result of the phrase is merely an assumption, not a demonstration. Evolution in this way assumes itself, cloaked in logical fallacy.”

[gamila]

quote :

You cannot beat scientific evidence with word games

so where is the evidence of precambrian fossil that link up with the cambrian organsism
you have none
thus the precambrian explosion shows Natural selection is wrong
based on your own criteria of science based on evidence

[futurezoologist]

quote :

logic says IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR NS TO GENERATE NEW SPECIES-with new physical characteristics

Who is this logic you speak of? I totally agree with ‘logic’ – NS never tried to account for the mutation of genes(if infact NS were sentient) thats what the mutation theory is for.

quote :

quote :

if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits [physical characteristics] not seen before and are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation

This philosopher should have at least read the defintion of Natural Selection before he went about writing an essay to disprove it.

[gamila]

quote :

This philosopher should have at least read the defintion of Natural Selection before he went about writing an essay to disprove it.

quote :

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005
Bowler, Peter. Evolution: the hisotry of an idea)

and

quote :

NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits [physical characteristics]
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits [physical characteristics] not seen before and are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation

NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with traits [physical characteristics] already present and cant deal with the generation of new species ie new physical characteristics not seen before

Consider another example: “vertebrates evolved from invertebrates.” But invertebrate by definition means “not a vertebrate.” Evolve means to change, and a changed thing is not what it once was, by definition. Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not. The end result of the phrase is merely an assumption, not a demonstration. Evolution in this way assumes itself, cloaked in logical fallacy.”

[futurezoologist]

OK, i should have said >>> Colin Leslie Dean should have read and understood it before we went about writing an essay to disprove it.

I am seriously considering whether you are a bot that has been written by genesispark or something… You keep quoting:

quote :

NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits [physical characteristics]
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits [physical characteristics] not seen before and are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation

Natural Selection describes the selective pressure on certain traits, causing disadvantageous traits to be bred out of the population and the traits which give organisms a better chance of passing on their genes to become more common. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PROCESS OF MUTATION. Mutation is how these new traits come into play, mutations are essentially mistakes which cause a change in the organisms genetic code.

Here is Natural Selection<<——————————————————————–>>Here is Mutation

Note the distance between them. Natural Selection is separate from mutation. The philosopher that you are quoting does not know this. Please tell him. Also please tell him not to get evidence from genesispark to put in his essays, all persuasion is lost at the sight of its reference.

[gamila]

quote :

Note the distance between them. Natural Selection is separate from mutation

quote :

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005
Bowler, Peter. Evolution: the hisotry of an idea)

as colin leslie dean says
logic is logic

quote :

NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits [physical characteristics]
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits [physical characteristics] not seen before and are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation

[futurezoologist]

By the looks of your reply either: 1) You didn’t read my post or 2) You read it and decided to dismiss its and quote from your friend Colin again.

Please read over my above post and comment on the points made there because I’m not about to go and reiterate it all over again.

[gamila]

quote :

By the looks of your reply either: 1) You didn’t read my post or 2) You read it and decided to dismiss its and quote from your friend Colin again.

Please read over my above post and comment on the points made there because I’m not about to go and reiterate it all over again

just use your logic and you might get it

[wbla3335]

futurezoologist, and anyone else who wants to reason with gamila, don’t waste your time. He/she/it isn’t interested in reason. He/she/it has been banned from other forums and is infecting this forum because there seems to be no moderators to apply a disinfectant. There is no hope for a rational discussion here. DON’T WASTE YOUR TIME.

IF YOU DON’T FEED IT, IT WILL GO AWAY. JUST DON’T POST REPLIES.

If you enjoy serious discussions about things evolutionary, go to http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=4
This is a well moderated forum that does not tolerate the likes of what is happening here. I’ve just about had my fill of this nonsense and am seriously considering just leaving this forum behind because I don’t like wasting my time. Let’s try to get back to talking about things and helping those who have questions.

[gamila]

quote :

There is no hope for a rational discussion here. DON’T WASTE YOUR TIME.

you say not rational
then
lets start with just on one point
all you have to do is give the fossill evidence that links the precambrian organisms with the major organisms of the cambrian
you say science is based on evidence well then give it – not some half baked explanation which really just begs the question
it is really very simple

[alextemplet]

quote wbla3335:

futurezoologist, and anyone else who wants to reason with gamila, don’t waste your time. He/she/it isn’t interested in reason. He/she/it has been banned from other forums and is infecting this forum because there seems to be no moderators to apply a disinfectant. There is no hope for a rational discussion here. DON’T WASTE YOUR TIME.

IF YOU DON’T FEED IT, IT WILL GO AWAY. JUST DON’T POST REPLIES.

If you enjoy serious discussions about things evolutionary, go to http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=4
This is a well moderated forum that does not tolerate the likes of what is happening here. I’ve just about had my fill of this nonsense and am seriously considering just leaving this forum behind because I don’t like wasting my time. Let’s try to get back to talking about things and helping those who have questions.

I have just addressed this question in the site suggestions forum:
about15973.html

[wbla3335]

Alex, I contacted honee_v, who is supposed to be the group leader of the moderators, some days ago with no response. I don’t know where the moderators have gone, or maybe honee_v is gamila. Maybe they only check in here every few months. Anyway, it’s good I’m not alone in this revolt against irrationality. What I am doing here is against the rules of the forum, but if the cops aren’t looking, hey, I’m going for it.

[gamila]

all you have to do is start with point 1
and give us fossil evidence of precambrian fossils linking the cambrian major organsims
you say science is based on evidence so just give us the evidence
we do have THE EVIDENCE of the cambrain explosion and unless you can give us your evidence then the evidence we have of the cambrain explosion shows Natural selection is wrong-even Darwin saw this 160 yeqars ago

[MichaelXY]

quote gamila:

all you have to do is start with point 1
and give us fossil evidence of precambrian fossils linking the cambrian major organsims
you say science is based on evidence so just give us the evidence
we do have THE EVIDENCE of the cambrain explosion and unless you can give us your evidence then the evidence we have of the cambrain explosion shows Natural selection is wrong-even Darwin saw this 160 yeqars ago

I just started reading this thread, and I find your argument full of nonsense. You have neither defended your argument with facts or supporting documents, rather your arugument is repleat with erroneous statements and comments.

Your argument seems soley based on circular thinking and non-linear reasoning. Around and around we go with your logic, yet you have failed to make a point.

Many of your points seem untrue, please offer citations for you claims, as your credability has quickly raised doubt. For example; where did you get this from? Natural selection is wrong-even Darwin saw this 160 yeqars ago

Please be more precise in your claims, give supporting data to back your statements.

[gamila]

quote :

I just started reading this thread, and I find your argument full of nonsense.

all you have to do is start with point 1
and give us fossil evidence of precambrian fossils linking the cambrian major organsims
you say science is based on evidence so just give us the evidence
we do have THE EVIDENCE of the cambrain explosion and unless you can give us your evidence then the evidence we have of the cambrain explosion shows Natural selection is wrong-even Darwin saw this 160 yeqars ago

[AstusAleator]

Gamila – while I’ve been largely ignoring everything you say; I couldn’t help but notice you continue to emphasize the Cambrian explosion.
With no other intention than to get you to shut up, I’ve found something for you to read.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
please note that every point is supported by literature citation. Have doubts? Check the source.

Please read it all before deciding whether or not to continue spamming about the Cambrian explosion.

[alextemplet]

quote AstusAleator:

With no other intention than to get you to shut up, I’ve found something for you to read.

Dang it, now you’re making me wish we still had the Member Quotes thread! 🙂

[gamila]

quote :

I’ve found something for you to read.

all it says is there was an CAMBRIAN explosion
and then goes on with some half baked explanation about how it
MIGHT be explianed

quote :

There are some plausible explanations for why diversification may have been relatively sudden:

i could say it might be explianed by aliens doing genetic experiments
GIVE US FOSSIL EVIDENCE OF PRECAMBRIAN ORGANISMS LINKING THE CAMBRIAN ORGANISMS

[AstusAleator]

http://jpaleontol.geoscienceworld.org/c … t/83/2/161
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/ … 18/12/1199
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/s … /5430/1025
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di … ne&aid=623
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/4457.full
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1099213
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a … /5381/1342
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a … 8/5467/841
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/13/6947.full

[wbla3335]

Slow learners.

[gamila]

quote :

* Report this post
* Reply with quote

New postby AstusAleator » Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:02 am
http://jpaleontol.geoscienceworld.org/c … t/83/2/161
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/ … 18/12/1199
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/s … /5430/1025
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di … ne&aid=623
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/4457.full
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1099213
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a … /5381/1342
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a … 8/5467/841
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/13/6947.full

your answer shows me 2 things
1) you have not read deans paper
2) you dont know what the cambrian explosion is
it is a massif explosion of organisms with no evolutionary history
as dawkins note

quote :

For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.” (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker,” 1986, p.229).

you are really just trying to be diengenious
i did not ask for precambrain fossil evidence but
precambrian fossil evidence linking the cambrian organsisms- with a evolutionary history

none of those site give fossil evidence linking the major cambrian organsim

no one denies there are fossils in precamrian strata

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

quote :

Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies

none of those site give fossil evidence linking the major cambrian organsim
your list only talk about micro fossills Ediacaran remains, but not fossils linking the cambrian fossils

Gouild note

quote :

The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. …not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion

(Gould, Stephen J., Nature, vol. 377, October 1995, p.682.)

and dawkins note the organisms in the camvrian explosion have no evolutionary history
so i ask again dont give us precambrian micro fossils give us the fossils that link the cambrian organism with an evolutionary history

quote :

And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.” (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker,” 1986, p.229).

one heading says
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/ … 18/12/1199
[quote]Ediacaran remains from intertillite beds in northwestern Canada[/quote
Ediacaran remains are not fossil linking the cambrian organsims

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di … ne&aid=623
[quote]It has long been assumed that the extant bilaterian phyla generally have their origin in the Cambrian explosion, when they appear in an essentially modern form. Both these assumptions are questionable. A strict application of stem- and crown-group concepts to phyla shows that although the branching points of many clades may have occurred in the Early Cambrian or before, the appearance of the modern body plans was in most cases later:

[futurezoologist]

Run for your lives!!! ITS GROWING!!!!

[gamila]

quote :

The general public seems to be largely unaware that there is a serious “species problem” in the biological community.

students you are being fed ideological data
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v6i6f.htm

quote :

The species problem isn’t well known by the general public because it isn’t mentioned in public school high school biology classes. The presentation of facts like these are opposed by groups like the National Center for Science Education, whose goal is to censor scientific information so as not to confuse the students with the facts.

quote :

The second thing you can learn from this paragraph is that nobody else has solved the species problem. If anybody had, Schwartz would not have tried to solve it. Or, Szathmáry would have criticized Schwartz for trying to solve a problem that has already been solved. But the origin of species is still a mystery, so evolutionary scientists are still looking for an answer.

quote :

Notice, he did not say, “Schwartz shares a distrust of selection with creationists.” He said, “Schwartz shares a distrust of selection with some contemporary biologists.” He knows there are evolutionary biologists who distrust selection. Presumably, these evolutionary biologists are not distrustful of selection because of their fanatical Christian beliefs. They distrust selection for good, scientific reasons. Despite what you might read in the popular press, or hear in school, natural selection is not universally accepted by professional biologists, and is not rejected for purely religious reasons.

quote :

In the scientific community there is no consensus as to how speciation occurs. Few, if any, modern scientists still hold the Darwinian belief that species acquire characteristics from exercise, nutrition, and the environment, and that these acquired characteristics are inherited. Some modern scientists still hold the neo-Darwinian belief that random mutations can produce new genetic information which can be filtered by natural selection to create a species with new characteristics, but that number seems to be dwindling. As Szathmáry so clearly says, there is distrust of selection, and recognition that macromutation can’t produce new information. There really is no good explanation for how speciation occurs. That’s one part of the problem.

colin leslie dean simlarly argues that natural selection cannot account for new species

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … ection.pdf
‘THE REFUTATION. EVOLUTIONARY THEORY: NATURAL SELECTION SHOWN TO BE WRONG’

quote :

Now NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with triats already present and cant deal with the generation of new species
genetics might be able to account for the generation of new species [ see below where it is shown genetics cannot account for the generation of new species] but NS cant as the generation of new species it not part of its remit as it only deals with traits already present . A new species has completely new traits which were not in an antecedent so the antecedent species could not have passed them on
NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation

note

quote :

Linnaeus, who first proposed this system, did not believe in evolution. He merely categorized similar things to make them easier to study. Later, when the scientific community was largely misled by the theory of evolution, many scientists believed that the classification system should reflect the evolutionary history of biological development. In other words, “evolutionary groups” should match “named categories.” Part of the persistent, and well known (in professional scientific circles) “species problem”, is that they don’t match.

[AstusAleator]

If you can’t understand the logic in the talkorigins link, then I’m done trying. I feel like I should try to explain more, but your response to the link makes it clear you’re more interested in spamming poor logic than actually thinking.

happy wbla?

[gamila]

quote :

If you can’t understand the logic in the talkorigins link

i have asked a simple question
just give the fossil evidence from the precambrian which links the cambrian organsims to a evolutionary history
not precambrain fossils
but
the fossil evidence from the precambrian which links the cambrian organsims to a evolutionary history
since as dawkins notes
in the cambrian period we get an explosion of new organism with no evolutionary history

quote :

. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.” (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker,” 1986, p.229).

[alextemplet]

quote futurezoologist:

Run for your lives!!! ITS GROWING!!!!

Don’t look it in the eyes! It’ll turn you into a creationist! 😯

Ok, bad joke! 😆

[futurezoologist]

quote :

Don’t look it in the eyes! It’ll turn you into a creationist!

Haha

But seriously(sorry wbla, can’t help it) gamila, Astus just gave you the evidence and you threw it off, we have found fossil evidence from billions of years ago already, that is what you wanted from the beginning.

[gamila]

quote :

Astus just gave you the evidence and you threw it off, we have found fossil evidence from billions of years ago already, that is what you wanted from the beginning.[/quote
i did not ask for fossil precambrian fossil evidence
what i asked for
is precambrian fossil evidence that links the cambrian organisms with an evolutionary history

since as dawkins notes
in the cambrian period we get an explosion of new organism with no evolutionary history

quote :

And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.” (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker,” 1986, p.229).

[futurezoologist]

quote :

gamila quoted from (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker,” 1986, p.229):
Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists

And you are quite delighted aren’t you?.. You shouldn’t be, that quote is from 1986, biologist(and archeologists) found Western Australia(Go Western Australia!) and thanks to it sitting smack in the middle of a techtonic plate we have found fossil evidence now from well before then. As for you linking of species pre and post Cambrian i will quote my reply to that exact question on one f your other topics…

quote :

FutureZoologist said:
gamila, you seem to think that it is easy to find a match of species hundreds of millions of years ago(600mil=189216000000000 seconds!) that have had millions of years to evolve, and who’s generations are hundreds of times faster than ours(therefore hundreds of times faster evolution). It is not easy. As AFJ said we find it hard to profile DNA after a few weeks let alone match two organisms which lived hundreds of millions of years ago. When we have the tools to do such a thing, i assure you, we will do it.

[gamila]

i have asked a simple question
just give the fossil evidence from the precambrian which links the cambrian organsims to a evolutionary history
not precambrain fossils
but
the fossil evidence from the precambrian which links the cambrian organsims to a evolutionary history
since as dawkins notes
in the cambrian period we get an explosion of new organism with no evolutionary history

LOOK IT IS SIMPLE JUST GIVING THE LINKING FOSSILS EVIDENCE WHICH SHOWS AN EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY FOR THE CAMBRIAN ORGANISMS

quote :

You shouldn’t be, that quote is from 1986,

here is gould quote 1999

quote :

Contrary to Darwin’s expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event…” (Gould, Stephen J., Nature, vol. 377, October 1995, p.682.) “The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.” (Gould, Stephen J., “The Evolution of Life,” in Schopf, Evolution: Facts and Fallacies, 1999, p. 9.)”

[Gavin]

Hi Colin. Remember me? We’ve met before. I see you have found another forum to pollute. I came across this forum quite by accident but quickly recognised you. Same old stuff, I see.

A note to the members of this forum: Colin (aka gamila) has been doing this sort of thing for years. He invariably gets banned, then moves on. You’re just the latest. The guy’s not stupid, just not quite all there, if you get my meaning. You’re certainly free to continue with these "discussions" if:

1) you’re stupid
2) not quite all there
3) have nothing better to do
4) am having fun

Back to you Colin: I’ll be posting this message in all the threads you have started just to make sure that everyone knows what they are dealing with.

Till we meet again.

Gavin

[futurezoologist]

Yes Darwin was not perfect in his predictions, what did you intent to prove by those quotes? What evidence do you have that the Cambrian explosion was impossible in evolutionary terms?

[gamila]

quote :

What evidence do you have that the Cambrian explosion was impossible in evolutionary terms?

as dawkins notes organisms appeared with no evolutionary history

[futurezoologist]

That’s not evidence. And now we have found that they do have an evolutionary history.

[gamila]

quote :

And now we have found that they do have an evolutionary history.

http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/Paleontology/CamExp.html

quote :

Few of the known late Precambrian animals have been closely related to Cambrian organisms,

quote :

the earliest unequivocal paleontological evidence of metazoan life is no more than 600 Ma

as dawkins noted

quote :

It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.” (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker,” 1986, p.229

now give us the fossils that link precambrian organisms with the cambrian oranisms with a evolutionary history

http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/Paleontology/CamExp.html
15 Apr 2006

quote :

In the strict sense, the explosion refers to a geologically abrupt appearance of fossils representing all except two of the living [animal] phylathat had durable (easily fossilizable) skeletons. One of those two phyla is the Porifera (sponges), which was present in the fossil record at an earlier time. The other is the Bryozoa, a phylum that contains some soft-bodied groups and may well have been present but not yet skeletonized.

quote :

[b]There is little doubt that disparity – that is, the range of different organism “designs” or “ways of life” – rose sharply in the early Cambrian

quote :

Regardless of when the principal metazoan (and other) lineages diverged, early or late, a major radiation certainly did occur in the Cambrian.

quote :

Few of the known late Precambrian animals have been closely related to Cambrian organisms,

as dawkins noted

quote :

It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.” (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker,” 1986, p.229

quote :

paleontological evidence does not generally corroborate molecular clock studies which almost invariably indicate animal origins lying very deep within the Proterozoic

quote :

[b]There is little doubt that disparity – that is, the range of different organism “designs” or “ways of life” – rose sharply in the early Cambrian

quote :

Few of the known late Precambrian animals have been closely related to Cambrian organisms, and none of the associated or coeval trace fossils has been thought to have been produced by the animals observed more directly. … What the trace fossil record does tell us, is that there were few large, mobile, bottom-dwelling animals before the end of the [Vendian].

quote :

Nevertheless, although recent discoveries have greatly extended the record of sponges and bilateral animals, the earliest unequivocal paleontological evidence of metazoan life is no more than 600 Ma(Bromham et al. 1998, p. 12386).

quote :

The nature of the last common P-D ancestor (PDA) is explored in Erwin & Davidson 2002 which concludes that the last PDA must have been an extremely simple organism because there is no fossil trace evidence of complex bilaterians prior to 555 Ma, yet the mollusc interpretation of Kimberella requires the PDA to be older than this (though see de Robertis & Sasai 1996 and Holland 2002 for other perspectives).

quote :

* The very early evolution of life generally (> 3,500 Ma), and eukaryote life in particular (> 1,200 Ma);

* Molecular and microfossil evidence for an ancient (~ 1,000 Ma) diversification of eukaryotes;

*Our failure to find convincing fossil evidence of advanced, megascopic eukaryotes, especially animals, until after ~600 Ma;

*The apparently rapid origin of very many crown group metazoans in the ~35 million year interval from ~565 Ma to ~530 Ma (the misnamed Cambrian Explosion);

* The observation that few fundamentally new metazoan body plans (some would say none) have arisen since.

now give us the fossils that link precambrian organisms with the cambrian oranisms with a evolutionary history

quote :

Few of the known late Precambrian animals have been closely related to Cambrian organisms,

[/quote]

[futurezoologist]

quote :

gamila Said
Few of the known late Precambrian animals have been closely related to Cambrian organisms

Done.

That’s evidence from you, "Few" suggests that there were some found.

<<Game Over>>

[gamila]

quote :

That’s evidence from you, “Few” suggests that there were some found.

quote :

you dont read do you
it says

the cambrian explosion was an

quote :

abrupt appearance of fossils representing all except two of the living animal phyla

quote :

abrupt appearance of fossils representing all except two of the living animal

phyla

One of those two phyla is the Porifera (sponges), which was present in the fossil record at an earlier time.

quote :

Few of the known late Precambrian animals have been closely related to Cambrian organisms, and none of the associated or coeval trace fossils has been thought to have been produced by the animals observed more directly

quote :

there is no fossil trace evidence of complex bilaterians prior to 555 Ma

quote]*Our failure to find convincing fossil evidence of advanced, megascopic eukaryotes, especially animals, until after ~600 Ma;

*The apparently rapid[b] origin[b] of very many crown group metazoans in the ~35 million year interval from ~565 Ma to ~530 Ma (the misnamed Cambrian Explosion);

now give us the fossils that link precambrian organisms with the cambrian organisms with a evolutionary history

the cambrian explosion was an

quote :

abrupt appearance of fossils representing all except two of the living animal phyla

[quote]The observation that few fundamentally new metazoan body plans (some would say none) have arisen since.[quote]

[futurezoologist]

quote :

One of those two phyla is the Porifera (sponges), which was present in the fossil record at an earlier time.

There you have it again, i assume you have got this from a reliable source, we have found links, in my opinion its only a matter of time before we find more.

[alextemplet]

quote futurezoologist:

quote :

gamila Said
Few of the known late Precambrian animals have been closely related to Cambrian organisms

Done.

That’s evidence from you, “Few” suggests that there were some found.

<>

Trapped by his own logic (or lack thereof)! Classy, FZ, downright classy! 😉

[gamila]

fact is
no one denies precambriam life
what is it you dont understand

in the cambrian explosion ALLL but two of the current phylum suddenly abruptly appeared
so we have a situation where we get most of the current phylum appearing without any precambrian atteccendents ie with no evolutionary history

quote :

then, apparently very suddenly, starting at the beginning of the Tommotian Age (~530 Ma), almost all of the animal phyla known today appear in the fossil reocrd in rapid succession.

he explosion refers to a geologically abrupt appearance of fossils representing all except two of the living [animal] phylathat had durable (easily fossilizable) skeletons

no one denies precambriam life
but

quote :

[there is no]fossil evidence of advanced, megascopic eukaryotes, especially animals, until after ~600

and

quote :

there is no fossil trace evidence of complex bilaterians prior to 555 Ma

and

quote :

and none of the associated or coeval trace fossils has been thought to have been produced by the animals observed more directly

quote :

In the strict sense, the explosion refers to a geologically abrupt appearance of fossils representing all except two of the living [animal] phylathat had durable (easily fossilizable) skeletons. One of those two phyla is the Porifera (sponges), which was present in the fossil record at an earlier time. The other is the Bryozoa, a phylum that contains some soft-bodied groups and may well have been present but not yet skeletonized.

very suddenly, starting at the beginning of the Tommotian Age (~530 Ma), almost all of the animal phyla known today appear in the fossil reocrd in rapid succession

Few of the known late Precambrian animals have been closely related to Cambrian organisms, and none of the associated or coeval trace fossils has been thought to have been produced by the animals observed more directly

there is no fossil trace evidence of complex bilaterians prior to 555 Ma

Our failure to find convincing fossil evidence of advanced, megascopic eukaryotes, especially animals, until after ~600 Ma;

now give us the fossils that link precambrian organisms with the major cambrian organisms with a evolutionary history

[AstusAleator]

Here’s a quote, from your link, that you neglected to post:

quote gamila’s link:

However, despite the rapid proliferation of evolutionary novelties which undoubtedly occurred at this time, at least some of the phenomenon is attributable to the acquisition of preservational characteristics – ‘hard parts’ – and multiple lines of evidence reveal that life was already highly diversified prior to the Tommotian.

"link" fossils are a straw-man argument. Even if we didn’t have any definitive links, the theory would still stand.

PS – learn how to use quotes

[gamila]

quote :

Even if we didn’t have any definitive links, the theory would still stand.

the theory is shown to be wrong by the cambrian explosion where all but two of all the known phylum just suddenly appeared with no evolutionary history

quote :

then, apparently very suddenly, starting at the beginning of the Tommotian Age (~530 Ma), almost all of the animal phyla known today appear in the fossil reocrd in rapid succession.

he explosion refers to a geologically abrupt appearance of fossils representing all except two of the living [animal] phylathat had durable (easily fossilizable) skeletons

even darwin saw that such an explosion of new organisms with no evolutionary history destroyed his theory

quote :

.The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” (Darwin, C., The Origin of Species, 1872, pp. 316-317.)

dawlins go so far as to even say it could support creationism

[/quote]Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker," 1986, p.229).[/quote]

and gould noted

quote :

Contrary to Darwin’s expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event…” (Gould, Stephen J., Nature, vol. 377, October 1995, p.682.)

[AstusAleator]

gamila I’m curious about how you think those fossils got there – and what process other than natural selection is to blame for them?

This is a genuine curiosity – since from what I’ve seen, you’re not necessarily a creationist, you just want to disprove NS.

Please, please please please stop posting the same quotes over and over? I’ve read them each at least 5 times. Does that satisfy you?

[alextemplet]

Astus, I don’t think he has a clue how they got there. If he does, he’d be welcomed to post any legitimate theories of his in my "Alternative Theories" thread, but he hasn’t done that so I assume his only goal is to spam.

[gamila]

quote :

gamila I’m curious about how you think those fossils got there – and what process other than natural selection is to blame for them?

quote :

I’m curious about how you think those fossils got there

i dont know
but i think the extra oxygen present due to the cynobacteria gave a big boost

as for NS I think it may work alright in some cases within species but i dont think -for reasons given in other threads -that it cannot account for new species generation

[alextemplet]

Wow. Gamila actually gave an intelligent answer instead of just posting the same quotes again. Could it be that people can change?

[AstusAleator]

Thank you for a straightforward answer, and thank you thank you thank you for not spamming more quotes.

[futurezoologist]

You’re getting better gamila. 😉

The key point I don’t think that you understand about the generation of new species is that a group of the original species has to become isolated from the main population(besides some asexually reproducing bacteria etc.), for example, a species of rat may be distributed all over a low lying island with a few hills, if the sea levels were to rise so that only the hills protruded from the sea then the populations would be separate, this event now allows for mutations of genes which will not affect the original populations. So the isolated rats will slowly become different from the originals through mutation, for example one rat may have mutated and gain spots which help it to camouflage better and have a lower chance of being taken by eagles, so the spotted rats would become more common. Through mutations like these the rats would eventually become so different that we could recognise them as different species (i.e. they couldn’t breed—that’s the most accepted definition anyway). I hope that helps.

[gamila]

quote :

Through mutations like these the rats would eventually become so different that we could recognise them as different species (i.e. they couldn’t breed—that’s the most accepted definition anyway). I hope that helps.

your statement is meaningless nonsense
as colin leslie dean has shown biologists dont know what a species is

quote :

scientists cannot tell us what a species or phylum is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
“However, the exact definition of the term “species” is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[2] and this is called the species problem.[3″
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum
“Although a phylum is often spoken of as if it were a hard and fast entity, no satisfactory definition of a phylum exists”
With out a definition of these terms then biologists are really talking nonsense for with out definitions to locate and identify the things they talk about they are really not talking about anything at all If the biologist talks about say speciation or this species proving natural selection but cant tell you what a species or phylum is then he is talking meaningless nonsense. He could as easily said certain gibbles prove natural selection but with out knowing what a gibble is the claim is meaningless

[AFJ]

quote :

Futurezoo wrote:
The key point I don’t think that you understand about the generation of new species is that a group of the original species has to become isolated from the main population(besides some asexually reproducing bacteria etc.)

FZ, those who do not go along with this are aware of the theory of speciation. The weakness of this theory is logistics and mechanics.

1) You were speaking in context of one adaptive variation within one genus or species. In contrast, to isolate every species–there is not enough space upon the earth to account for the multitude of species.

What would be the supposed means of seperation?

Why would it just happen to seperate along lines of common organisms? There is much mixing of all the varied kinds of organisms now–they are not all going to "naturally" seperate from one another.

2) Look at the example of isolation in breeding. They have more recently bred small cattle which are more cost effective for the farmer. If you introduced larger cattle back into the population of these cattle there would be large and small cattle in a few generations, and eventually all large again because the larger bulls would dominate. New traits in a separated population are not a closed door for interbreeding with the original species. It only takes one of the original to bring the trait back.

3) Wherever the mutation took place there would be originals around no matter which population the mutation was in. Though variations could happen, mutations would tend to stay on the periphery as they do today, unless they give an environmental advantage. Today many variations within a genus are neutral as far as environmental advantage.

4) How do you explain speciation of immobile plants ? They do not have legs, and please do not say that insects and/or wind did this. Cross-pollination does not apply as an example, because it will only work within a common genus like irises or related genus within a family.

5) Please do not misunderstand me, there are cases where variations arise within a genus by apparent isolation. This is truly a discovery that Darwin made. But the problem is that with little evidence he jumped to a conclusion and attributed this as a means of all species.

[futurezoologist]

quote :

there is not enough space upon the earth to account for the multitude of species.

If there were no lack of room then evolution would not happen, species would not be out competed so we would still have just about every mutant species whether it was beneficial or not — competition leads to evolution.

quote :

they are not all going to “naturally” seperate from one another.

yes they are. One common example is geographic isolation.

quote :

It only takes one of the original to bring the trait back.

Isolation…

quote :

Today many variations within a genus are neutral as far as environmental advantage.

Almost impossible to get a 100% neutral mutation, please enlighten me to these ‘neutral mutations’.

quote :

How do you explain speciation of immobile plants ? They do not have legs, and please do not say that insects and/or wind did this.

Wow, AFJ please think a liitle harder before posting next time. Loads of possible circumstances. One example is the large land which turns into lots of smaller islands due to sea level rise, i hope i dont need to explain further.

quote :

But the problem is that with little evidence he jumped to a conclusion and attributed this as a means of all species.

Nope, Darwin had all the evidence in the world. I believe that is what you are doing right now– jumping to conclusions with no evidence or thought.

quote :

FZ, those who do not go along with this are aware of the theory of speciation.

I believe that i could reasonably conclude with you above comments and those of gamila in other topics that you both are an exception to this rule you have made, but don’t feel bad almost all creationists think they understand these processes fully — 90%, i have found do not.

[gamila]

quote :

If there were no lack of room then evolution would not happen, species would not be out competed so we would still have just about every mutant species whether it was beneficial or not — competition leads to evolution.

it has been pointed out by colin leslie dean
that biologists dont know what a species is
so
all this talk of species this species that speciation is meaningless nonsense
from your classification ie species you cant locate a species to investigate
as you dont even know what a species is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

quote :

Since the 1990s articles have appeared that make the case that species concepts, particularly those that specify how species should be identified, have not been very helpful in resolving the species problem. [22] [23][20][24][25]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

quote :

However, the exact definition of the term “species” is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[2] and this is called the species problem.[3

[Jesse2504]

A species is an evolutionarily independent population or group of populations

These populations can be categorized generally in three ways:

Biological: Reproductive isolation between populations, this includes prezygotic and postzygotic isolation.

Morphospecies: Morphologically distinct populations

Phylogenetic: Smallest monophyletic group on phylogenetic tree

This makes it difficult to always describe a species or judge the validity of a new species, but the same problem is analogous to mental health. We can define depression as having symptoms of x and y but deciding whether an individual is effected is difficult, not to say that term depression is meaningless.

[gamila]

quote :

This makes it difficult to always describe a species or judge the validity of a new species,

fact is
biologists dont know what a species or phylum are

[biomom]

What an interesting topic! I look forward to reading more of these to prepare for some grad school discussions 🙂

I do agree that as far as the modern human race is concerned, natural selection has been greatly altered with advances in medicine. For instance, the rise in the occurrence of children with peanut and other food allergies does not follow a NS model. But, without medical intervention, we’d see natural selection occurring with the unfortunate deaths of many children.

[gamila]

quote :

But, without medical intervention,

the so called medical intervention has only really been around in a sophisticated form for about 60 years
as the post points out there are heaps of genetic disorders and heaps of harmful genes in the human gene pool
which must have been in the gene pool long before medical intervention could have intervened

ie breast cancer genes have been in the gene pool long before the rise of modern medicine women have been dying from it for a very long time

[ptera9]

aagghhhh so frustrating! please dont even consider this person’s post! he/shes obviously a creationist!! none of her claims are founded

nat.selection, more importantly evolution, cannot be wrong! it has shown itself to be correct over and over again!

1)the cambrian explosion as darwin saw invalidates his theory
no! READ ABOUT PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM!

2)NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with traits already present and cant deal with the generation of new species COMPLETELY WRONG! new traits arise gradually through mutations! these traits eventually are what separates species!

3)genetics cannot account for the generation of new species-ie the cambrian explosion
again, see punctuated equilibrium

dont let creationists spam these forums, dont allow ignorance to permeate!

[gamila]

quote :

he/shes obviously a creationist!!

colin leslie dean is not a creationists
he believe all view religious and scientific end in meaninglessness ie contradiction

quote :

1)the cambrian explosion as darwin saw invalidates his theory
no! READ ABOUT PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM!

quote :

)NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with traits already present and cant deal with the generation of new species COMPLETELY WRONG! new traits arise gradually through mutations! these traits eventually are what separates species!

quote :

“Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common,”

It is claimed that Goulds intention with PE was to be compatible with NS. Goulds intentions are irrelevant. As the consequence of PE is that it invalidates NS
Now NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with triats already present and cant deal with the generation of new species
A new species has completely new traits which were not in an antecedent so the antecedent species could not have passed them on
NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation

Consider another example: “vertebrates evolved from invertebrates.” But invertebrate by definition means “not a vertebrate.” Evolve means to change, and a changed thing is not what it once was, by definition. Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not. The end result of the phrase is merely an assumption, not a demonstration. Evolution in this way assumes itself, cloaked in logical fallacy.”

[papa1983]

ptera9, do not try to reason with someone who believes reason is meaningless-nonsense. Gamila is an ID automaton.

[AstusAleator]

gam-gam is neither ID or creationist, just annoying.

[robsabba]

quote gamila:

It is claimed that Goulds intention with PE was to be compatible with NS. Goulds intentions are irrelevant. As the consequence of PE is that it invalidates NS

Gould’s intentions may indeed be irrelevant, but PE nevertheless only deals with the rate of evolutioary change, not its mechanism(s).

quote gamila:

Now NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with triats already present and cant deal with the generation of new species

Speciation has always been seen as the basic step of evolution. One can evolve new traits without genetic mutation (eg quantitative traits); nevertheless most individuals have a few mutations anyway. Let me give you an example from the 1950s (if I recall correctly). It was shown that two populations of Drosophila could be selected to have either more or less bristle hairs than the range of bristle hairs in the original population. In other words, a completelty new trait, not seen in the original population.

quote gamila:

A new species has completely new traits which were not in an antecedent so the antecedent species could not have passed them on

Again wrong, for the reasons I gave above.

quote gamila:

NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation

You keep referring to traits.. it is genetic material that is passed on (ie genes, promoters, etc) NOT traits.

quote gamila:

Consider another example: “vertebrates evolved from invertebrates.” But invertebrate by definition means “not a vertebrate.”

Semantics. This is equivalent to claiming that starfish must have evolved from stars since their name has "star" in it.

quote gamila:

Evolve means to change, and a changed thing is not what it once was, by definition. Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not. The end result of the phrase is merely an assumption, not a demonstration. Evolution in this way assumes itself, cloaked in logical fallacy.”

A new species will have only a few differences from its parent species. They may even look be difficult to tell apart. Yes, "something evolved from what it was not," but it is something very similiar to what it was. You have yet to explain what is wrong with this. I think you need to study up on basic genetics.

[gamila]

quote :

Speciation has always been seen as the basic step of evolution.

how can you talk about speciation when biologist dont even know what a species is

quote :

scientists cannot tell us what a species or phylum is

quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

“However, the exact definition of the term “species” is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[2] and this is called the species problem.[3″

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum

“Although a phylum is often spoken of as if it were a hard and fast entity, no satisfactory definition of a phylum exists”

with out a definition of these terms then biologists are really talking nonsense for with out definitions to locate the things they talk about they are really not talking about anything at all If the biologist talks about say speciation or this species proving natural selection but cant tell you what a species is then he is talking meaningless nonsense

one notion of species ends in self contradiction

Many on here seem to think biologists know what species are
some argue that
species can interbreed with each other
yet this definition is shown to end in meaningless nonsense
take the Bactrian and dromardary camales

quote :

quote :

Wild camels have three more genes than domestic camels and so they have concluded that they are a completely different species.

yet these two different species can interbreed and have fertile off spring
http://www.geocities.com/plin9k/limiting-species.htm

this demonstrates colin leslie deans point that biologiy is not a science as its classifatory system ie species ends in meaningless nonsense
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … ection.pdf

thus we have the contradiction
ie bactrian and dromadry camels are different species thus they cant bread together

but
they can breed which means they must be the same species

so much for your speciation which leads into meaningless nonsence as you cant tell us what a species is
or
when you do ie different species cant interbreed you end in contradiction

quote :

You keep referring to traits.. it is genetic material that is passed on (ie genes, promoters, etc) NOT traits.

wrong
as this forum dictionary shows

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionar … _selection

quote :

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism.

and

quote :

”natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005

you contradict yourself

quote :

gamila wrote:A new species has completely new traits which were not in an antecedent so the antecedent species could not have passed them on

Again wrong, for the reasons I gave above.

then admit that something – ie with new traits- can evolve from something it is not ie it does not have the traits

quote :

Yes, “something evolved from what it was not,

[GaryGaulin]

Gamila, how would you define species? I need to define it for the theory and was wondering how you would scientifically explain it.

[gamila]

quote :

Gamila, how would you define species? I need to define it for the theory and was wondering how you would scientifically explain it.

i tell you what
i will show you just what the problem is ie the belief in essences and thus a static logic
go read colin leslie deans books

DONT THINK OF SPECIES AS A NOUN BUT THINK OF IT AS A VERB
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … ssence.pdf
Essence the metaphysical ground of logic and language: a reason for the bankruptcy of logic, the stultification of reason and the
meaninglessness of all views

and
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … smbook.pdf

Aristotelian logic as an epistemic condition of truth, the grand narrative of western philosophy: logic-centrism, the limitations of Aristotelian logic, the end of Aristotelian logic, logic/essence and language lead to the meaningless of all views

and you will see you are looking in the wrong place
life is a process
species/essence are static concepts indicating a static world
you must move from the static to process
whitehead ie he wrote principa mathematica with russell
advocated a process theory

[robsabba]

quote gamila:

how can you talk about speciation when biologist dont even know what a species is

Species are not static enteties, as some of your quote-mining explains. Populations and species change over time. This hardly means they do not exist. The species is a static concept we use to represent a more fluid natural reality. If, however, you accept that species change over time, how can you claim evolution does not occur?

quote gamila:

you contradict yourself
then admit that something – ie with new traits- can evolve from something it is not ie it does not have the traits

What I meant is that traits are not inherited as a unit. One does not either inherit a trait as manifested in a parent or not inherit a trait. Genes are what is inherited and it is they that dictate what traits an organism with manifest. Even without mutation, traits can be different in an offspring compared to its parents.

Let me ask you a question and see if you can answer it without a long quote mine. Is it possible for a parent with bloodtype A and a parent with bloodtype B to produce an offspring with bloodtype o without any mutation occurring in the offspring?

[gamila]

quote :

The species is a static concept we use to represent a more fluid natural reality

you can keep ignoring the fact but it want go away
ie as colin leslie dean has shown you biologist dont know what species are
or when they tell us it ends in self contradiction

quote :

What I meant is

but what you said was

quote :

Yes, “something evolved from what it was not,

hence

quote :

Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not. The end result of the phrase is merely an assumption, not a demonstration. Evolution in this way assumes itself, cloaked in logical fallacy.”

quote :

One does not either inherit a trait as manifested in a parent or not inherit a trait. Genes are what is inherited and it is they that dictate what traits an organism with manifest.

and as was pointed out
from this site

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionar … _selection

note it talks about heritable traits

quote :

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism.

quote :

Let me ask you a question and see if you can answer it without a long quote mine. Is it possible for a parent with bloodtype A and a parent with bloodtype B to produce an offspring with bloodtype o without any mutation occurring in the offspring?

fact is a colin leslie dean has shown

NS
is

quote :

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism.

and again

note it talks about traits

quote :

natural selection, a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare” (Ref: Futuyma, Douglas Evolution 2005
Bowler, Peter. Evolution: the hisotry of an idea)

thus

quote :

NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation
Note Gould talks about speciation ie the appearance of new species And below Gould talks about phylum BUT scientists cannot tell us what a species or phylum is
Consider another example: “vertebrates evolved from invertebrates.” But invertebrate by definition means “not a vertebrate.” Evolve means to change, and a changed thing is not what it once was, by definition. Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not. The end result of the phrase is merely an assumption, not a demonstration. Evolution in this way assumes itself, cloaked in logical fallacy.”

[robsabba]

quote gamila:

you can keep ignoring the fact but it want go away
ie as colin leslie dean has shown you biologist dont know what species are
or when they tell us it ends in self contradiction

1. If you have a better definition for species please share it with us.

2. Are Tigers and Lions different? If so, how would you caetgorize them?

3. Traits are the result of gene expression. It is the genes that are inherited, not specific traits. You can quote mine all you like, it doesn’t change that fact.

4. Please answer the question I asked. Can parents that exhibit the traits of blood type A and blood type B produce offspring that have the trait of blood type o? If so, then you are wrong about the inheritance of traits.

5. Please do not answer with quotes mines separated by "thus" or "hence." I will not bother to read them. Can you answer in your own words?

[GaryGaulin]

quote gamila:

quote :

Gamila, how would you define species? I need to define it for the theory and was wondering how you would scientifically explain it.

i tell you what
i will show you just what the problem is ie the belief in essences and thus a static logic

Gamila, I am seriously writing a theory that is presented at http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/ and have already spent many hours in other forums stuck in arguments over the definition of speciation. I am now trying to finish this before I become homeless over it!

Do you have a better definition? If no, then please tell me you do not have one.

[gamila]

quote :

Do you have a better definition? If no, then please tell me you do not have one.

i dont have one

quote :

You can quote mine all you like, it doesn’t change that fact.

fact is as this site notes

note it says heritable traits

quote :

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism.

quote :

Can parents that exhibit the traits of blood type A and blood type B produce offspring that have the trait of blood type o? If so, then you are wrong about the inheritance of traits.

ns is about traits already being present being passed on as the quote above shows
if a trait appears in an off spring which is not present in its parents then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on

quote :

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism.

[GaryGaulin]

quote gamila:

quote :

Do you have a better definition? If no, then please tell me you do not have one.

i dont have one

Thanks Gamila for being so honest! 😀

I’m now wondering what you think of this explanation. With any definition being difficult to word I expect you might find something wrong with it too but your honest opinion of it would be helpful.

Speciation

Speciation is a process where a population so much changes from the population they once were that they have gone their separate ways. Where still able to have offspring the entire population no longer chooses to pair-up together. Or a population that became isolated from another can experience genetic drift that forces them forever apart.

In some cases speciation happens very slowly by taking small learning steps, one gene or epigentic switching change at a time. In other cases it is immediate, with no transitional fossils possible.

How long it would take an isolated genome to slowly speciate depends on its learning rate (how fast it gains or changes new information/genes). Sexual reproduction has a good amount of crossover exchange which greatly accelerates the ability to adapt and change. Asexual reproducers such as E. coli produce clones of itself which are identical to the parent. Fast responses to environment is then from exchanging plasmids but these are separate transient genomes, not the primary genome that accomplishes cell growth and reproduction.

There are "living fossils" that have changed so little it seems to us that they should have become a new species by now or at least new morphology. But this change is relative to how fast our genome changes in comparison to theirs. So it is not time alone that matters, we must also consider the genome learning rate in our consideration of how long it takes for a given genome to speciate.

[gamila]

quote :

Speciation is a process where a population so much changes from the population they once were that they have gone their separate ways. Where still able to have offspring the entire population no longer chooses to pair-up together. Or a population that became isolated from another can experience genetic drift that forces them forever apart.

quote :

Speciation is a process where a population so much changes from the population they once were that they have gone their separate ways. Where still able to have offspring the entire population no longer chooses to pair-up together.

1) so is the new population the same as or different to the antecendant population

2} if the populations can still breed fertile offspring what makes them different species

quote :

Or a population that became isolated from another can experience genetic drift that forces them forever apart..

can the different populations have fertile offspring
if yes then what makes them different species
or
if they cant what makes your definition different from those who say different species cant breed fertile of spring

from the look of your definition you are saying two things
1_ different species can breed
2 the same species can breed

we are left wondering just what a species is

[robsabba]

quote gamila:

quote :

You can quote mine all you like, it doesn’t change that fact.

fact is as this site notes

note it says heritable traits

quote :

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism.

quote :

Can parents that exhibit the traits of blood type A and blood type B produce offspring that have the trait of blood type o? If so, then you are wrong about the inheritance of traits.

ns is about traits already being present being passed on as the quote above shows
if a trait appears in an off spring which is not present in its parents then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on

quote :

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism.

OK, now I think I understand your problem with NS. First off, natural slection does not require all traits, or even all traits under selective pressure, to be one inheritable as a discret unit. Quantitative traits, (under multiple gene control, like height in humans) can be put under selective pressure, just as qualitative traits that are under the control of a single gene.

Let’s look at an example of how this works. I told you already about the fruit fly experiment, where after a number of generations, two populations were selected for that fell outside the original population’s range for bristle hair number. This is a quanitative trait, determined by multiple genes. Another example which is from a natural situation is beak size in birds. In particular, Darwin’s finches in the Galapagos islands. During a period of drought, small-seed plants began to dominate the flora and there was selective pressure for reduced beak size in the finches living there who depended on those seeds. As a result, the finches evolved to have smaller beaks. Keep in mind, that beak size is represented by a range of sizes. The result of evolution was that that range was shifted to the smaller end.

Another example would be the peppered moths famous in England. Most were white because they could blend in with the lichens growing on the trees which camoflauged them from hunting birds. However, there were always a small number of dark colored moths. These moths were kept down in number due to the fact they were easier to hunt. With industrialization, the lichens died on the trees and smut covered the trees making them dark. Now, the dark colored moths had the advantage over the white ones, and the populations evolved to be mostly black. This inheritance is more stright foward, under the control of one or two genes. Thus, you are either white or black, but not inbetween (unlike beak size).

Neither of these examples resulted in speciation. It normally takes multiple such events to make a population different enough from the mother population to stop mating with that mother population. The creation of a population that either cannot or will not bred with the original is the definition of speciation in species that unergo sexual reproduction. How can such changes result in reproductive isolation as I just defined it? One interesting example is changes in bird beak size brought on by changes in diet. In songbirds, the size of the beak affects the song that the birds sing. It has been documented that changes in beak size brought on by changes in diet can alter the song that birds sing to find mates. This can then result in the reproductive isolation of a population from its original population. Keep in mind this type of change is gradual, and that populations evolve, not indiviuals. That is just one example.

[robsabba]

quote gamila:

can the different populations have fertile offspring
if yes then what makes them different species
or
if they cant what makes your definition different from those who say different species cant breed fertile of spring

from the look of your definition you are saying two things
1_ different species can breed
2 the same species can breed

we are left wondering just what a species is

Let’s look at lions and tigers. Lions and tigers do not interbred in nature, yet can be made to under artificial (human controlled) conditions. Because they do not interbred under natural conditions, they are considered separate species. This does leave us with a question, however. If they do not have a common ancestor, why are they able to interbred under artificial situations?

[gamila]

quote :

OK, now I think I understand your problem with NS. First off, natural slection does not require all traits, or even all traits under selective pressure, to be one inheritable as a discret unit

as i said

quote :

ns is about traits already being present being passed on as the quote above shows
if a trait appears in an off spring which is not present in its parents then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on

quote :

Because they do not interbred under natural conditions, they are considered separate species.

self contradiction
you say they are different species but they can breed which means they are the same species
just look at deans example of the bactrian and dromardy camels
your qualification of artifical is just sophism
fact is speciation shows ns is wrong

to quote

quote :

NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation

But invertebrate by definition means “not a vertebrate.” Evolve means to change, and a changed thing is not what it once was, by definition. Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not. The end result of the phrase is merely an assumption, not a demonstration. Evolution in this way assumes itself, cloaked in logical fallacy.”

[robsabba]

quote gamila:

quote :

OK, now I think I understand your problem with NS. First off, natural slection does not require all traits, or even all traits under selective pressure, to be one inheritable as a discret unit

as i said

quote :

ns is about traits already being present being passed on as the quote above shows
if a trait appears in an off spring which is not present in its parents then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on

Look. I put some effort into trying to explain how NS actually works, rather than your stawman version. You are just ignoring my previous post and repeating yourself.

quote gamila:

quote :

Because they do not interbred under natural conditions, they are considered separate species.

self contradiction
you say they are different species but they can breed which means they are the same species
just look at deans example of the bactrian and dromardy camels
your qualification of artifical is just sophism
fact is speciation shows ns is wrong

There is no contradiction. I gave you the definition as it is actually used in the real world. You did not answer my question, which is why these different animals are able to interbred if they do not have a common ancestor. How about answering my question now?

quote gamila:

to quote

quote :

NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation

But invertebrate by definition means “not a vertebrate.” Evolve means to change, and a changed thing is not what it once was, by definition. Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not. The end result of the phrase is merely an assumption, not a demonstration. Evolution in this way assumes itself, cloaked in logical fallacy.”

Now you are just repeating yourself and ignoring my responses. I think you are just wasting my time. Hopefully a few lurkers got something out of this, at least..

One last time: Populations Evolve Not Individuals!

[gamila]

quote :

Look. I put some effort into trying to explain how NS actually works, rather than your stawman version. You are just ignoring my previous post and repeating yourself.

ignoring nothing

your talk of moths and your blood example as has been pointed out shows ns is wrong

quote :

if a trait appears in an off spring which is not present in its parents then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on

you said

quote :

Neither of these examples resulted in speciation.

but we are talking about speciation
and as such speciation shows ns is wrong
you have even said

quote :

Yes, “something evolved from what it was not,

thus

quote :

. Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not. The end result of the phrase is merely an assumption, not a demonstration. Evolution in this way assumes itself, cloaked in logical fallacy.”

fact is ns is about the passing on of already present traits
speciation show ns is wrong

ns is

quote :

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism

as i have already said

quote :

ns is about traits already being present being passed on as the quote above shows
if a trait appears in an off spring which is not present in its parents then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on

quote :

NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation

you say

quote :

There is no contradiction.

i gave you the bactrian and dromadry camel example

the bactrian and dromardry camels can breed which means they are the same species but they are different species
thus a contradiction

your qualification of artifical is just sophism .

quote :

One last time: Populations Evolve Not Individuals!

perhaps you might like to reply to this thread
the colin leslie dean species paradox
about15986.html

[robsabba]

quote gamila:

quote :

Look. I put some effort into trying to explain how NS actually works, rather than your stawman version. You are just ignoring my previous post and repeating yourself.

ignoring nothing

I wrote three paragraphs, and you just repeated your previous posts.

quote gamila:

your talk of moths and your blood example as has been pointed out shows ns is wrong

quote :

if a trait appears in an off spring which is not present in its parents then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on

Please listen. One more time. Populations Evolve Not Individuals. Evolution is a Change in Gene Frequency In A Population, not an individual and its offspring alone.

quote gamila:

you said

quote :

Neither of these examples resulted in speciation.

but we are talking about speciation
and as such speciation shows ns is wrong
you have even said

quote gamila:

quote :

Yes, “something evolved from what it was not,

thus

quote :

. Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not. The end result of the phrase is merely an assumption, not a demonstration. Evolution in this way assumes itself, cloaked in logical fallacy.”

I gave you an example of a reproductive isolation mechanism from the real world– songbirds– and you ignored it.

quote gamila:

fact is ns is about the passing on of already present traits
speciation show ns is wrong

ns is

quote :

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism

Populations Evolve Not Individuals

quote gamila:

as i have already said

quote :

ns is about traits already being present being passed on as the quote above shows
if a trait appears in an off spring which is not present in its parents then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on

quote :

NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation

See above

quote gamila:

you say

quote :

There is no contradiction.

i gave you the bactrian and dromadry camel example

the bactrian and dromardry camels can breed which means they are the same species but they are different species
thus a contradiction

I asked you to explain why animals that are different can interbred. Can you answer my question now?

quote gamila:

your qualification of artifical is just sophism .

No. The difference betweeen Artifical and Natural is real. Look them up in a dictionary.

quote gamila:

quote :

One last time: Populations Evolve Not Individuals!

perhaps you might like to reply to this thread
the colin leslie dean species paradox
about15986.htm

Why would I reply to another thread where you are repeating yourself over and over and not paying attention to anyone’s responses?

[gamila]

quote :

No. The difference betweeen Artifical and Natural is real. Look them up in a dictionary.

the fact is that the off spring from the bactrian and dromardy camels is real -they did mate in a natural setting

quote :

the bactrian and dromardry camels can breed which means they are the same species but they are different species
thus a contradiction

quote :

Populations Evolve Not Individuals

fact is populations are made up of individuals
and
if a trait appears in an off spring which is not present in its parents then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on
because ns is

quote :

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism

you say

quote :

Populations Evolve Not Individuals

so lets try this tack- i am not happy with it
if the new species population has traits that are not present in its parent population then this shows ns is wrong as ns is about the transmission of already present triats
In other words the new species population has new triats not seen before so where did they come from, they could not have come from the parent population as they are new triats and thus not present in the parent population
now if they did not come from the parent population they could not have happened due to natural selection as ns is about the parent population passing on already present ie not new triats

quote :

I asked you to explain why animals that are different can interbred. Can you answer my question now?

no idea
but
the problem may not be with the animals but be with the classificatory system used
which is based on an essentialism

[robsabba]

quote gamila:

[you say

quote :

Populations Evolve Not Individuals

so lets try this tack- i am not happy with it
if the new species population has traits that are not present in its parent population then this shows ns is wrong as ns is about the transmission of already present triats
In other words the new species population has new triats not seen before so where did they come from, they could not have come from the parent population as they are new triats and thus not present in the parent population
now if they did not come from the parent population they could not have happened due to natural selection as ns is about the parent population passing on already present ie not new triats

Let’s look at how Darwin defined Natural Selection (paraphrasing)
1. There is variation among indiviuals in a popualtion.
2. That variation is inheritable
3. More offspring are produced than can survive long enough to reproduce.
4. Those indivduals that are better adapted to their environment with preferentially survive to reproduce and pass their traits on.

Notice anything? The explanation for (1) variation, is not mentioned. This is because Natural Selection does not explain where the variation it acts on comes from. This is where genetics comes in. One source is assortive mating, and another is mutation.

Now, what happens during evolution, is there is a shift in the frequency of genes in a population (not individuals!). Individuals which survive to reproduce will pass on their genetic material to offspring, but the genetics of the population is what changes. In the peppered moth example, black moths survived to reproduce which in turn shifted the population from mostly white to mostly black. With the finch example, those birds with smaller beaks survived to reproduce which in turn shifted the population to a ditribution of beak sizes which were smaller. Over many generations, this can potentially shift the population to a size distribution outside the original range! If two populations undergo a different line of evolutionary change long enough, they will no longer be able (or willing) to interbred. Then they are considered different species. Normally, this requires a series of evolutionary changes over time, not just one or two. Often a specific change in reproduction or mating behavior will occur to result in what is called an isolating mechanism. The songbird example I gave is a case in point.

quote gamila:

quote :

I asked you to explain why animals that are different can interbred. Can you answer my question now?

no idea
but
the problem may not be with the animals but be with the classificatory system used
which is based on an essentialism

You mentioned bactrian and dromardry camels. Do they look different? Yes. What possible explanation is there for their ability to interbred? There is only one. They have a Common Ancestor. Why do they look different now? Evolution. Natural Selection is one mechanism of evolution, and others (such as genetic drift) could also be part of that mechanism for evolutionary change from their common ancestor.

[gamila]

quote :

Let’s look at how Darwin defined Natural Selection (paraphrasing)

the definition of ns is very clear
it is very clear from this site

quote :

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism

and as has been pointed out

quote :

if a trait appears in an off spring which is not present in its parents then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on
because ns is

quote :

What possible explanation is there for their ability to interbred?

fact is they do interbreed which should mean they are the same speciies
but
they are not the same species
thus a contradiction

[GaryGaulin]

Gamila, this explanation of species was recommended to me by a science teacher who uses it a resource. Since it’s not all that bad I’m considering using this one to help form my explanation. It shows why speciation is sometimes so hard to define:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e … cept.shtml

What do you think?

[robsabba]

quote gamila:

quote :

Let’s look at how Darwin defined Natural Selection (paraphrasing)

the definition of ns is very clear
it is very clear from this site

quote :

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism

and as has been pointed out

quote :

if a trait appears in an off spring which is not present in its parents then that shows ns is wrong as ns is about traits already present i being passed on
because ns is

quote :

What possible explanation is there for their ability to interbred?

fact is they do interbreed which should mean they are the same speciies
but
they are not the same species
thus a contradiction

OK.. we’re done. I am just wasting my time with you. Go ahead and continue repeating yourself if you like. You won’t learn anything new, but clearly you don’t want to.

[gamila]

quote :

What do you think?

the resource says

quote :

The biological species concept defines a species as members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature,

with this definition you get the contradiction colin leslie dean pointed put
the bactrian and dromardry camles interbreed so they must be the same species
but
thery are different specis
thus a contradiction

http://www.camelphotos.com/camel_breeds.html

quote :

Studies suggest a significant DNA difference. Wild camels have three more genes than domestic camels and so they have concluded that they are a completely different species.

F1 Camel
Is the result of cross breeding of Dromedary and Bactrian camel. This method of mating is prevalent in Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, and Turkey. Crossbreeding generally produces a bigger and heavier offspring than either parent. For example; they get up to 7.6 feet shoulder height and 2000 to 2200 lb. That is why they are often used as draft animals for carrying loads and plowing. They are easier to work, more patient and tolerant. Furthermore, these hybrid camels mature faster than the Dromedary and Bactrian camels… In Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan they are called; Tulu, Majen, Iver and Bertuar. In Iran the males are called Boghor and the females are called Hachamaia.

[GaryGaulin]

quote gamila:

quote :

What do you think?

the resource says

quote :

The biological species concept defines a species as members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature,

with this definition you get the contradiction colin leslie dean pointed put
the bactrian and dromardry camles interbreed so they must be the same species
but
thery are different specis
thus a contradiction

http://www.camelphotos.com/camel_breeds.html

quote :

Studies suggest a significant DNA difference. Wild camels have three more genes than domestic camels and so they have concluded that they are a completely different species.

F1 Camel
Is the result of cross breeding of Dromedary and Bactrian camel. This method of mating is prevalent in Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, and Turkey. Crossbreeding generally produces a bigger and heavier offspring than either parent. For example; they get up to 7.6 feet shoulder height and 2000 to 2200 lb. That is why they are often used as draft animals for carrying loads and plowing. They are easier to work, more patient and tolerant. Furthermore, these hybrid camels mature faster than the Dromedary and Bactrian camels… In Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan they are called; Tulu, Majen, Iver and Bertuar. In Iran the males are called Boghor and the females are called Hachamaia.

From what I can see it is the farmers who first considered them another kind of camel, not scientists who are documenting them. In either case: Would you consider them the exact same species or a crossbreed "hybrid species" as scientists did?

[GaryGaulin]

I’m done! This should be a much better definition that any you have seen elsewhere. Or I hope so anyway.

———————————————————————————-
Theory Of Intelligent Design

Speciation

Speciation is a process that causes enough change in genotype or phenotype that they branch off from the lineage they once were to become a new "subspecies" that with further change becomes a new "species". In farming there are "breeds" of plants, camels and cows that are still able to interbreed with each other but farmers consider them a new breed. In science different breeds of cows would be considered a new subspecies so they can be given a unique scientific name. Therefore we can say that all cows are the same species and all camels are the same species, but there are subspecies of different kinds of cows and subspecies of different kinds of camels.

In the wild there is what are called "ring species" that slowly extended their territory in a direction that in time brings them back to where they started, forming a ring. By the time the ring forms a complete circle back again they are no longer able or no longer choose to breed with each other. In this case it is obvious that speciation occurred but there is no one place along the way where they suddenly changed, which then makes it impossible to find one single point along the way that they became a new subspecies (or possibly new species).

To further complicate the defining of a species some are different colors or are born with unique markings, yet they are all the same species and subspecies. Ants and bees are a good example where members of the same colony look entirely different depending on what they do.

Although it is sometimes very difficult or impossible to determine exactly where and when a "speciation event" occurred, the mechanisms that cause speciation can be listed as the following. In some cases speciation happens very slowly. In other cases it is immediate in which case there are no transitional forms, and there can be no transitional fossils.

Behavioral Speciation (very slow)

Speciation is in part guided by what the organism itself finds desirable in the variety available to select as a mate. This includes extreme examples such as peacocks where females selecting the largest most attractive tail design has led to males with giant brilliant displays, even though this makes it more difficult to fly from predators.

Although not a product of behavioral speciation, humans display this same mate selection preference behavior. In magazine advertising the looks of "sex symbols" are sometimes computer enhanced to represent the conscious ideals not yet common in our morphology. What is added or removed from the picture helps show what human intelligence finds most desireable.

In behavioral speciation there is no one day and time that a pivotal event occurred, no single genome change resulted in a "speciation event" that created a new species. And the genome must first be already drifting in that direction or else such morphological change is impossible. In the peacock example we can say that the peacocks are aroused by the direction their genome is already set to go, anyway. Therefore what they in their mind find desirable is the same as what the genome finds desirable at the molecular level being expressed at the level of the emergent peacock brain. What they find desirable is not here hard-wired into neurons as an image or picture of what it should find desireable in a mate, it is an expression of the molecular genome itself that even responds chemically with hormones that cause physiological change where in humans just a picture of a desireable mate causes this molecular "arousal" to be produced.

We can to some degree predict where a species is drifting towards, by how it idealizes itself. For our species there is all of art and culture where we find exaggerations of real life where the size of Betty Boops pupil alone is the size of her whole mouth yet we still recognize this image as being human and sexy. What produces this may be that it is epigenetically possible to drift in that direction, or already are.

How long it would take an isolated genome to speciate depends on its genetic learning rate (how fast it gains or changes new information/genes). Sexual reproduction has a good amount of crossover exchange which greatly accelerates the ability to adapt and change. Asexual reproducers such as E. coli produce clones of itself which are identical to the parent. Fast responses to environment is then from exchanging plasmids but these are separate transient genomes, not the primary genome that accomplishes cell growth and reproduction.

There are "living fossils" that have changed so little it seems to us that they should have become a new species by now or at least new morphology. But this change is relative to how fast our genome changes in comparison to theirs. So it is not time alone that matters, we must also consider the genome learning rate in our consideration of how long it takes for a given genome to speciate.

Hybridization Speciation (immediate)

Common in plants and used in agriculture a hybrid species is produced when two species combine to form a new non-sterile species. In single cell organisms one species may retain all or part of its original form inside of the other (endosymbiosis). In complex animals hybridization can be more difficult. Horses and donkeys normally give birth to a sterile mule but on rare occasions a fertile mule is born.

Polyploid Speciation (immediate)

Polyploid speciation is the result of all chromosomes doubling, tripling or more in number. With twice or more of everything the cells are proportionately larger, resulting in a larger plant or animal. This is relatively common in self-reproducing plants. In animals reproducing the new genome structure requires a genome compatible mate, therefore surviving polyploidy species are less frequent but are still found in some insects, fishes, amphibians, reptiles and rat.[18]

Paleopolyploidy is the scientific study of prehistoric polyploid speciation events.

Chromosome Speciation (fast – Human, Fruit Fly, Mosquito)

Chromosome fusion speciation[17] is the result of two chromosomes joining to become a single one which in turn causes enough of a change in behavior and morphology a new species is produced. First the telomeres at each end of the 2 supercoiled chromosomes that fused became sticky by removal of the repeating code that forms a protective layer that makes the ends not-sticky. Then when not-sticky ends are in close enough proximity molecular forces of attraction take over then fusion occurs.

What causes telomeres to become not sticky to fuse like this, is not fully known. Phylogenetic evidence from the human genome indicates this has happened a number of times to increase chromosome complexity, along with extra copies of chromosomes being added to increase the number of chromosomes to increase total genome complexity. It is possible that through time an epigenetic mechanism has learned how to take good guesses this way, using an additional mechanism that when necessary prevents fusion by adding telomere repeat coding on ends to make not-sticky.

Fusion changes the locations of at least some of the chromosome territories that are formed upon uncoiling of the supercoiled chromosomes where each territory works as a single system, with neighboring specialized chromosome territory systems. The fusion event also scrambles some of the genes at each end as would be expected where there is a collision, and is evidenced at the fusion site of human chromosome number two where fragments from each side still embedded in the other. Even though there was not a significant amount of gene scrambling the rearranging of the chromosome territories may have already produced a noticeable morphological change. The mother of a child with this large a fusion might have been able to tell there was something unique about them but would be expected to still love them just the same, or more.

There is a small amount of random replication error that is always present that produces slow change. But in this case there must be a fast response to adapt a relatively large sudden genome arrangement through its metabolic epigenetic control systems that maintain cell chemistry through its life, and expresses itself in offspring (but here not DNA code changes).

The fused chromosome is in either allele (either mother or father) of the haploid (has one of two sets of chromosomes) germ cell (egg or sperm) that divides down to develop into a 47 chromosome heterozygote (alleles are different not homozygous where alleles the same) humanoid that has the human chromosome #2 being expressed along with copy of the two chromosomes with no fusion that provides all that the cell had before, with something new in the fused copy for epigenetic systems to control to meet the needs of the growing cell. The fusion now replicates in the population as follows:

48 and 48 parents produce a 48 offspring only.
48 and 47 parents produce a 48 or 47 offspring.
47 and 47 parents produce a 48 or 47 or 46 human offspring.
47 and 46 parents produce a 47 or 46 human offspring.
46 and 46 parents produce a 46 human offspring only.

The first 46 chromosome humans who were born to the existing 47 chromosome lineage may have right away been fertile, or at first had sterility problems in which case human chromosome #2 had to first learn to survive to replicate without the unfused chromosomes of the other allele there to help maintain proper cell functions. It would then become increasingly difficult for a 46 to reproduce with 48 and possibly 47 in part because along with the new genome design came a new self-image that made the 48’s look "apish" and 47’s relatively "unattractive" to 46’s.

Where "human" is defined as having the unique 46 chromosome genome design that separates us from 47 and 48 ancestors there was a first human couple in our ancestry that was already fully human. There is here a human man and a woman Chromosomal Adam and Eve who together could only produce 46 chromosome descendants whose children would prefer to be with their own kind as would their children’s children through time, all the way from them to us.

[gamila]

quote :

From what I can see it is the farmers who first considered them another kind of camel, not scientists who are documenting them. In either case: Would you consider them the exact same species or a crossbreed “hybrid species” as scientists did?

quote :

Studies suggest a significant DNA difference. Wild camels have three more genes than domestic camels and so they have concluded that they are a completely different species.

they are different species as their scientific names shows
Dromedary (C. dromedarius) · Bactrian Camel (C. bactrianus)

http://au.encarta.msn.com/media_1461504 … ution.html

quote :

Although the two species are often confused, the dromedary (or Arabian camel) and the Bactrian camel do differ

they interbreed so they should be the same species but they are different species
thus a contradiction
if you cant see that biology ends in meaningless nonsesnce as colin leslie dean has pointed out it classificatory systen is meaningless nonsense

[GaryGaulin]

quote gamila:

they interbreed so they should be the same species but they are different species
thus a contradiction
if you cant see that biology ends in meaningless nonsesnce as colin leslie dean has pointed out it classificatory systen is meaningless nonsense

That’s why I’m including a proper definition in the theory. The camel example I got from your thread would be like in different "breeds" of cows and only qualify as a new "subspecies" not an entirely new "species".

There might still be exceptions where species can interbreed, but at least this sets the record straight by including "subspecies".

[gamila]

quote :

Therefore we can say that all cows are the same species and all camels are the same species

at present scientist define the two species of camel as
Camelus bactrianus
Camelus dromedarius

so what do these names become under your new classification

bear in mind that this present classification makes biology a lot of meaningless nonsense

quote :

they interbreed so they should be the same species but they are different species
thus a contradiction
if you cant see that biology ends in meaningless nonsesnce as colin leslie dean has pointed out it classificatory systen is meaningless nonsense

quote :

There might still be exceptions where species can interbreed, but at least this sets the record straight by including “subspecies”.

darwin finches interbreed
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio … 7s_finches

quote :

Thus the two interbreeding species displayed somewhat different fitness patterns under … Unpredictable evolution in a 30-year study of Darwin’s finches

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Darwin%27s_Finches

quote :

biologists maintain now — such as the fact that the species of Darwin’s finches can interbreed,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canid_hybr … dog_hybrid

quote :

Canid hybrids are the result of interbreeding between different species of the canine (dog) family (Canidae).

for a whole list of interbreeding species
http://www.geocities.com/plin9k/limiting-species.htm

[GaryGaulin]

I have been studying camels and you are right about it being a classification disaster! I will have to update my section on speciation because of it.

First there is the wild species they came from, that were classified as two seperate "species", that have been bred together to form hybrid species. At first I thought it would be possible to group them into one but this is most unusual.

Thankfully I’m OK with cows where there is only one species but many breeds which are all subspecies.

I’m not sure what to do. So for now anyway, I will take out the camel and just go with the cow example. Perhaps I could then describe the camel problem in the paragraph after that.

What would you do? I could argue they can be considered the same species but I’m not sure whether that creates a second problem with the hybrids.

[GaryGaulin]

Gamila, here is an interesting wiki answers on the topic of cow species that I found, you might like. Three species of cows are now being grouped as one:

quote :

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_type_of_ … _are_there

What type of cow species are there?
In: Cows and Cattle

Cattle were originally identified by Carolus Linnaeus as three separate species. These were Bos taurus, the European cattle, including similar types from Africa and Asia; Bos indicus, the zebu; and the extinct Bos primigenius, the aurochs. The aurochs is ancestral to both zebu and European cattle. More recently these three have increasingly been grouped as one species, with Bos primigenius taurus, Bos primigenius indicus and Bos primigenius primigenius as the subspecies.

Complicating the matter is the ability of cattle to interbreed with other closely related species. Hybrid individuals and even breeds exist, not only between European cattle and zebu but also with yaks (called a dzo), banteng, gaur, and bison (“cattalo”), a cross-genera hybrid. For example, genetic testing of the Dwarf Lulu breed, the only humpless “Bos taurus-type” cattle in Nepal, found them to be a mix of European cattle, zebu and yak. Cattle cannot successfully be bred with water buffalo or African buffalo.

The aurochs was originally spread throughout Europe, North Africa, and much of Asia. In historical times, their range was restricted to Europe, and the last animals were killed by poachers in Masovia, Poland, in 1627. Breeders have attempted to recreate cattle of similar appearance to aurochs by careful crossing of domesticated cattle breeds, creating the Heck cattle breed.

I changed the first paragrph to read:

quote :

Speciation
Speciation is a process that causes enough change in genotype or phenotype that they branch off from the lineage they once were to become a new “subspecies” and with sufficient change become a new “species”. In farming there are “breeds” of cows which are still able to interbreed with each other (but not always) each a subspecies that can be given a unique scientific name. Therefore we can say that all cows are the same species, and each unique breed is a subspecies.

I will put camels back in when I find more information. If there is a scientist level discussion of reclassifying them as a single species then I can mention it in the theory. But at this point it’s hard to say which way that will go.

[LeoPol]

Yes, natural selection was always complemented by artificial selection in become. Besides, were see and other factors to breedings:

http://translate.google.ru/translate?hl … ge_id%3D49

[Sophyclese]

I must indefinietly agree: NS is a completely disprooven theory.
I must say that you could disproove evolution just off of your second reason. NS does not allow the increase of genetic information so as to creatre a new generation of species.
If so, where would the genetic information come from to advance a species so as to make it better? I mean, genetic information cannot just pop out of the blue by chance!!!

[MolecularBioFTW]

I love how people just flock to anyone whose opinions agree with their own. They’re so quick to defend even the most poorly written "science" article I have ever read. First off, the author of this article doesn’t even have degrees in science. Psychology is not a science no matter how much people in that field believe it is. To sum it up, this person is not qualified to write anything credible about evolution, much less anything about biology. Secondly, anyone who even remotely cares about credibility will list appropriate sources which does not include Wikipedia or www. genesispark .com. Anyone who visits that website will recognize the obvious bias it presents in refuting natural selection and promoting the ridiculous notion of intelligent design.

It’s also amazing how people can still argue against some basic principles of natural selection given the fact that wikipedia links were posted to those principles. Wikipedia may dumb it down a lot for the general population but apparently, people still have problems comprehending the material presented.

Natural selection is driven by primarily by sexual selection where those who live longer are more likely to have more offspring who inherits their genes, both good and bad. Bad genes are eliminated from the gene pool of a population when those with the bad gene cannot produce offspring to carry that gene to the next generation. In the case of breast cancer genes, cancer is not a condition that has limited the reproductive capabilities of individuals with those genes. Additionally, cancer has only been a problem that has arisen from people living much longer lives.

[MolecularBioFTW]

quote Sophyclese:

I must indefinietly agree: NS is a completely disprooven theory.
I must say that you could disproove evolution just off of your second reason. NS does not allow the increase of genetic information so as to creatre a new generation of species.
If so, where would the genetic information come from to advance a species so as to make it better? I mean, genetic information cannot just pop out of the blue by chance!!!

Hmmm I couldn’t resist just debunking another ignorant opinion. New genes are produced by several mechanisms which include gene duplication, random mutations, promoter mutations and etc. For example, hemoglobin and myoglobin are both proteins in our blood that carry oxygen but deliver that oxygen under different conditions. Hemoglobin delivers that oxygen as needed by normal functions of the cell but when the cell requires much more oxygen such as during exercise, the myoglobin delivers its oxygen when the oxygen concentration drops enough. These two proteins are coded by two genes that had a single ancestral gene which duplicated itself as a result of random chance. At first, the genes would’ve been exactly the same and coded for the same exact protein but as random mutations changed both genes over time, the resulting proteins became different. Hence "new" genetic information.

[gamila]

quote :

Anyone who visits that website will recognize the obvious bias it presents in refuting natural selection and promoting the ridiculous notion of intelligent design.

Dean is not a creationist and dos not believe in ID

but
Newton was religious
he believed in god
thus he was a creationist
does that make f=ma wrong

[gamila]

quote :

New genes are produced by several mechanisms which include gene duplication, random mutations, promoter mutations and etc.

but

as Sophyclese wrote:

quote :

NS does not allow the increase of genetic information so as to creatre a new generation of species.

and this sites definiton of NS shows NS is only about the passing on of already present traits

it is logically and definitionaly impossible for NS to generate new species ie with new traits never seen before as NS is only about the passing on of already present traits

quote :

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism

[canalon]

quote gamila:

as Sophyclese wrote:

quote :

NS does not allow the increase of genetic information so as to creatre a new generation of species.

and this sites definiton of NS shows NS is only about the passing on of already present traits

Using for support of your theory a quote by a poster that show such a blatant ignorance of biology as Sophyclese as can be deduced by a quick scan of his post history give your argument as much strength as this famous quote:

quote my 18 month daughter when she saw her mom this morning:

Mummy! Mummy! Mummy!

to my defense of Natural selection. And put you in a very similar level of understanding. In short your stupidity reached rock bottom, and then you kept digging…

[MolecularBioFTW]

quote gamila:

quote :

Anyone who visits that website will recognize the obvious bias it presents in refuting natural selection and promoting the ridiculous notion of intelligent design.

Dean is not a creationist and dos not believe in ID

but
Newton was religious
he believed in god
thus he was a creationist
does that make f=ma wrong

Believing in God doesn’t automatically make you a creationist. I’m a practicing Catholic and I have a degree in biology yet I think Genesis is full of crap. Why do creationists run to defend the material in the old testament? We borrowed it from the Jewish. There’s better ways to devote your time and energy like volunteering to help others or taking a science class and becoming less ignorant. At the very least, becoming more coherent in your arguments for defending your ignorance.

Using www. genesispark .com as support for his view points is pretty strong evidence that Dean is a creationist since the whole concept of the park is to promote intelligent design to Christian creationists. Besides the original reason for my criticism of www. genesispark .com is that it is a terrible source for any type of article especially a research article written by a pseudo-scientist. You don’t earn credibility by writing a half-assed article.

To Dean,

Go learn how to write a science article. You can find plenty of examples in reputable texts such as the Journal of Medicine. I’m sure you know several since you mailed your article there to be published and they pretty much laughed at you and told you to go away. Since I’m assuming you wouldn’t be able to pick out the structure from the journals given how you wrote your article, I’m going to list it here just for you. The structure goes as follows: Abstract, Background, Procedure, Results, Discussion, Sources. Abstract is where you list the general idea of what you did and what you found out from doing it. The other sections are pretty self-explanatory… I hope. Otherwise, it’s very sad and you deserve all the pity a lot of people are giving you.

[MolecularBioFTW]

quote gamila:

quote :

New genes are produced by several mechanisms which include gene duplication, random mutations, promoter mutations and etc.

but

as Sophyclese wrote:

quote :

NS does not allow the increase of genetic information so as to creatre a new generation of species.

and this sites definiton of NS shows NS is only about the passing on of already present traits

it is logically and definitionaly impossible for NS to generate new species ie with new traits never seen before as NS is only about the passing on of already present traits

quote :

It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism

It’s adorable how badly you put together your counter arguments. Of course Darwin didn’t write about how new genetic information is created in his "Origins of the Species" because the mechanism by how genetic information is archived by DNA and is passed to the next generation wasn’t discovered yet. What’s amazing is that Darwin figured out the concept of evolution and natural selection without that information. It’s akin to walking up to a Craps table in Vegas and walking away a winner with no clue how to play Craps.

The beauty of natural selection is that it is completely random how new genes are generated and which ones do get generated. When individuals who are the most fit pass on their genes to the next generation, they not only pass the genes that do get expressed but any other random mutations of their "in-progress" genes as well. At some point, a few of the descendants from that individual will mutate an "in-progress" gene to a functional gene that gets expressed. If the expression of that gene increases their ability to survive and have more offspring, it will become more prevalent in that population. If it decreases their ability to survive, then that functional gene will get phased out within several generations.

I also think you need a good lesson on how new species are generated. The first rule of species development is that no individual becomes a new species, only populations can become a new species. Another rule is that new species emerge from existing species which themselves may have become a new species as well depending on the circumstances. The most prevalent method to generate new species is population isolation where subsets of a population are cut off from the rest. This allows different random mutations to occur in both populations and given enough time, the two populations will develop into different species. A great example of this is the sea-life down in Panama. When North and South America connected millions of years ago, it created a divide between the Atlantic and Pacific ocean. This also divided large populations of many aquatic species into two. Researchers have found that for every species of fish, shrimp, etc. on the Pacific side, there is a related species on the Atlantic side. Genetic analysis shows the two corresponding species are related yet they are two different species because they cannot produce fertile offspring.

[gamila]

quote :

“Origins of the Species” because the mechanism by how genetic information is archived by DNA

fact is
this sites definiton of NS shows NS is only about the passing on of already present traits

it is logically and definitionaly impossible for NS to generate new species ie with new traits never seen before as NS is only about the passing on of already present traits

quote :

It is the process by which [b]heritable[b] traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism

[MolecularBioFTW]

quote gamila:

quote :

“Origins of the Species” because the mechanism by how genetic information is archived by DNA

fact is
this sites definiton of NS shows NS is only about the passing on of already present traits

it is logically and definitionaly impossible for NS to generate new species ie with new traits never seen before as NS is only about the passing on of already present traits

quote :

It is the process by which [b]heritable[b] traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism

Wow you again reiterate the same point about the site’s definition of natural selection. My original point is that not only do expressed genes get passed on but also "in-progress" genes which aren’t expressed yet. It is when these "in-progress" genes do get expressed that they either become selected for or against. By the way, genes that get expressed are what you would consider traits. Another thing I should point out to you is that traits aren’t always what the organism looks like. Most of the functional genes in any organism code for metabolic functions such as transporters, regulatory proteins, inhibitors, etc.

I think you’re too stupid to understand the concept of traits or the very nature of arguments and counter-points. If you’re going to quote me, at least quote a full sentence so people can read it in context. Sentence fragments make people think I’m an idiot like you.

[gamila]

quote :

Wow you again reiterate the same point about the site’s definition of natural selection. My original point is that not only do expressed genes get passed on but also “in-progress” genes which aren’t expressed yet.

but note these genes are already present

NS did not create the genes it only passess them on

fact is only traits already present are passed on by NS

NS does not create a new species it only passes on traits which are already present in a species

as Sophyclese wrote:

quote :

NS does not allow the increase of genetic information so as to creatre a new generation of species.

it is logically and definitionaly impossible for NS to generate new species ie with new traits never seen before as NS is only about the passing on of already present traits

quote :

It is the process by which [b]heritable[b] traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism

[MolecularBioFTW]

Wow gamila is like a broken record. The genome of most multi-cellular organisms consists of a lot more than just functional genes. New genetic information is created at random through many processes including mutation, gene duplication and etc. I’m gonna simplify this so that even you can understand it. Natural selection is a driving force for evolution because it eliminates individuals with harmful genes and the ones with helpful genes are left to pass on their genes to the next generation. When new genes emerge in the population (read my previous posts about how this is possible, you retard), they are then subjected to natural selection as well. If they are helpful, they’ll become common among members in that population within several generations. If they are harmful, individuals with that gene will be eliminated and thus not pass that gene to the subsequent generations.

Jump forward about a million years and the descendant population of that original species will be genetically different and might even be so genetically different that it could be classified as a different species. New species are not always splitting off from a common ancestor even though that is the norm in many cases. Sometimes a new species comes about as a progression from an old existing species that is "replaced."

[gamila]

quote :

When new genes emerge in the population (read my previous posts about how this is possible, you retard),

NS does not create new genes it only passes them on

quote :

It is the process by which [b]heritable[b] traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism

[MolecularBioFTW]

quote gamila:

quote :

When new genes emerge in the population (read my previous posts about how this is possible, you retard),

NS does not create new genes it only passes them on

quote :

It is the process by which [b]heritable[b] traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism

Well I agree with your statement that NS is not responsible for new genes given that NS has nothing to do with mutation rates or any other mechanism by which DNA is altered. I never actually stated at all that NS was itself generating new genes. To argue that NS can’t generate new species is absolutely ridiculous. Even if NS wasn’t a factor in evolution, the accumulation of random mutations itself will change the genetic makeup of a population (in this case, for the worst since the harmful genes aren’t eliminated) and over time, the descendant population of that species will be genetically different from the original species and will be classified as a new species.

[gamila]

quote :

Well I agree with your statement that NS is not responsible for new genes given that NS has nothing to do with mutation rates or any other mechanism by which DNA is altered.

Even if NS wasn’t a factor in evolution, the accumulation of random mutations itself will change the genetic makeup of a population (in this case, for the worst since the harmful genes aren’t eliminated) and over time, the descendant population of that species will be genetically different from the original species and will be classified as a new species.

this all seems like a capitualtion to deans point of view

you agree that NS cant generate new genes – how come Sophyclese saw that all those post back and you didnot till now

if NS cannt generate new genes then thus it cant generate new species

well that agrees with
s Sophyclese wrote:- so wipe the smirk of your face canolon

quote :

NS does not allow the increase of genetic information so as to creatre a new generation of species.

NS is only about the passing on of genes already present it has nothing to do with the generation of new genes
NS has nothing to do with random mutations
so NS from your own admission
cant generate new species ie which has new triats/genes

if there is speciation then NS is wrong as it cannot generate new species

NS has nothing to do with the origin of species ie with new genes/traits -you have admitted NS does not generate new genes thus it cant generate new species

it is logically and definitionaly impossible for NS to generate new species ie with new traits never seen before as NS is only about the passing on of already present traits
as you say

quote :

I agree with your statement that NS is not responsible for new genes

[MolecularBioFTW]

Wow gamila. You’re like Fox news with your narrow interpretation of basically what people say. If you had read any of my sentences and managed to comprehend them (you fail miserably at this), you would realize that what you think I wrote is the exact opposite of what I actually meant. Quoting a complete sentence of mines and then an obviously wrong interpretation brings a smile to my face. My friends have been getting a kick out of reading your responses. NS doesn’t have anything to do with the mechanism for the creation of new genes but it has everything to do with the emergence of new species. Are you sure you understand that NS is just a selection force? Just because it doesn’t make new genes doesn’t mean it can’t bring about new species.

Your persistence with quoting a moron like Sophyclese brings one question to mind. Who is the bigger retard? The one who writes that because NS isn’t directly responsible for new genes that it can’t generate new species or the one who believes it and actually uses it to support his own stupid point? I’m leaning towards the latter. By the way, you spelled capitulation wrong and I’m pretty sure you have no idea what it meant. Either that or you can’t comprehend complex sentences.

I’m going to state the obvious point I made in all my posts and I’m gonna put it in all caps so it attracts your eye. NATURAL SELECTION GENERATES NEW SPECIES!! (Direct counter to Dean’s argument) IT DOES NOT GENERATE NEW GENES BUT IT SELECTS FOR NEW HELPFUL ONES AND THAT RESULTS IN NEW SPECIES GIVEN ENOUGH TIME.

If you reiterate the same exact retarded argument that NS isn’t making new genes and thus NS can’t be responsible for new species, it would be very unreasonable but still more reasonable than your argument to conclude that you and Dean are having a sexual relationship and that you enjoy putting his dick in your mouth.

P.S. I am smirking. I’m completely amazed at how badly the primary education system fails in the US.

[MolecularBioFTW]

quote Sophyclese:

I must indefinietly agree: NS is a completely disprooven theory.
I must say that you could disproove evolution just off of your second reason. NS does not allow the increase of genetic information so as to creatre a new generation of species.
If so, where would the genetic information come from to advance a species so as to make it better? I mean, genetic information cannot just pop out of the blue by chance!!!

Here is the person gamila keeps using to support his "great" point (Quotation marks indicate sarcasm). I actually quoted his whole post so people can read it in context. His conclusion that NS cannot lead to new species is based on his ignorance of how new genetic information is generated. This is evident by him asking where new genetic information comes from. To answer his question, it does pop out of the blue by chance. The earliest functional genes such as those for protein transcription, membrane assembly, polymerases, energy metabolism all came about as random chance. The more recent genes in evolutionary time are more likely to be from a result of gene duplication and then extensive mutations to the duplicated copies. Either way, chance is the mechanism by which new genes are created.

I’m positive that if he read my posts on where new genetic information comes from (assuming he can comprehend better than gamila), he would come to understand that NS is a factor in the generation of new species. I’m going to write it in caps again just for gamila. NS IS A FACTOR IN THE GENERATION OF NEW SPECIES.

[gamila]

quote :

NATURAL SELECTION GENERATES NEW SPECIES!! (Direct counter to Dean’s argument) IT DOES NOT GENERATE NEW GENES

the logic is very simple

new species have new genes/traits
if NS does not generate new genes
then
NS cant generate new species

it is logically and definitionaly impossible for NS to generate new species ie with new /genestraits never seen before as NS is only about the passing on of already present genes/traits

definition of natural selection from this site
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionar … _selection

quote :

” It is the process by which heritable traits that increase an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction are favoured than less beneficial traits. Originally proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the process that results in the evolution of organism “

AS colin leslie dean says

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … ection.pdf

quote :

“Now NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with triats already present and cant deal with the generation of new species
. A new species has completely new traits which were not in an antecedent so the antecedent species could not have passed them on
NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation “

Natural Selection is not responsible for new genes there fore natural selection is wrong as an evolutionary theory for the generation/origin of new species as colin leslie dean has shown

NS does not generate new genes it only passes already present genes on
thus NS is wrong as an evolutionary theory for the origin of new species ie new genes/traits

[MolecularBioFTW]

Wow gamila you are a moron. The flaw with your argument is that you insist on natural selection being false because it doesn’t generate new genes. NS has always been stated as the method that new species are generated independent of the fact that it’s not responsible for the creation of new genes. Modern scientists have never asserted that NS was ever responsible for the creation of new genes; it’s just a selection force. It must be hard to be an uneducated failure in society. I would leave you alone but it’s dangerous to let morons spread false ideas.

If you really want to prove that evolution isn’t a valid theory, then attacking natural selection is a terrible way to go about it. There are so many examples of natural selection being a factor in the progression of many species existing today that disproving natural selection is an impossible task. By the way, saying it doesn’t generate new genes doesn’t disprove it at all. The emergence of new genes is not a defining characteristic of NS because it doesn’t rely on new genes to create new species; just a net change in population phenotype and enough random mutations to genetically differentiate it from the original population that existed millions of years earlier.

The art of debate is too complex for an ignorant failure like you gamila. You need the tact and education to counter any points I make with valid arguments, not half-assed conclusions I already countered too easily. You should consider more time training to be a burger-flipper at McDonalds. Being a man-whore to Dean isn’t a career despite how good he makes you feel. LOL

[gamila]

quote :

. NS has always been stated as the method that new species are generated independent of the fact that it’s not responsible for the creation of new genes.

so they have been wrong -for over 150 years no one has had seen the logical/definitional flaw untill now

it has taken a nobody -who according to you cant write and has no qualifications- to show the simple logical flaw in their own definition
you all know the in and out of the human genome
you are all so cleaver
you can clone sheep
but you all not bright enough
to see
the logic is very simple

quote :

new species have new genes/traits
if NS does not generate new genes
then
NS cant generate new species

it is logically and definitionaly impossible for NS to generate new species ie with new /genestraits never seen before as NS is only about the passing on of already present genes/traits

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … ection.pdf

quote :

AS colin leslie dean says

“Now NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with triats already present and cant deal with the generation of new species
. A new species has completely new traits which were not in an antecedent so the antecedent species could not have passed them on
NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation “

[MolecularBioFTW]

We are definitely not wrong. The "logic" that because NS can’t generate new genes, it cannot generate new species is FLAWED. You say it is simple but when in reality, it is wrong. Just plain and simple wrong. If you need evidence about why it is wrong, just read all my other posts. I’ve countered your "simple logic" about five different ways now yet you insist on remaining ignorant. Natural selection doesn’t need the emergence of new genes to pick the most fit individual. It exerts its effects on individuals in a population based on their individual variation. For example you and I are members of the same species which I reluctantly admit, yet our individual differences is what makes me vastly genetically superior blessed with intelligence and good looks which led to a high-paying job and my pick of the best mates. For you who stubbornly refuses to learn, losing the genetic lottery has resulted in being the laughingstock at my lab and my friends as well as the multitude of problems that you encounter in your life.

If you and I are the progenitors of two future species a million years from now, my descendants would be the ones to replace the homo sapien species we belong to and your descendants would be the servants to mines provided my descendants didn’t exterminate yours on a whim.

[gamila]

quote :

We are definitely not wrong. The “logic” that because NS can’t generate new genes, it cannot generate new species is FLAWED.

the logic is irrefutable

new species have new genes/traits
if NS does not generate new genes
then
NS cant generate new species

it is logically and definitionaly impossible for NS to generate new species ie with new genes/traits never seen before as NS is only about the passing on of already present genes/traits

[MichaelXY]

quote :

If you and I are the progenitors of two future species a million years from now, my descendants would be the ones to replace the homo sapien species we belong to and your descendants would be the servants to mines provided my descendants didn’t exterminate yours on a whim.

Well that is just not nice, and slavery is just wrong. I do not agree with Gamila but some of your comments are getting out of line, especially the one about the US education system.

Might I suggest you cool your temper a bit.

[pauljgrayson]

Yes, you’re right that natural selection does not and cannot explain the creation of new variation. Natural selection is about selecting between existing variation. But natural selection is only one part of the theory of evolution. New species are created when there is a source of variation (mutation), continuous selection on that variation (natural selection), and finally splitting into different species (speciation). Natural selection is the process that biologists think causes selection. The author seems to think that natural selection is the entire theory of evolution. It is not, which is why natural selection on its own can’t explain evolution. If natural selection were the whole theory it wouldn’t be possible to explain how new species are created. Darwin was in this position himself, since he had no knowledge of genetics and mutation. He thought natural selection took place, but didn’t know where the variation in organisms came from.

The theory of evolution is based on parts of many disciplines: genetics, biology, biochemistry, paleontology, geography, geology, chemistry, physics. Natural selection is only one part of the theory. Point 4) makes this mistake. New species are created by mutation, natural selection and speciation. Not just genetics, or natural selection, on their own.

[gamila]

quote :

Yes, you’re right that natural selection does not and cannot explain the creation of new variation. Natural selection is about selecting between existing variation. The author seems to think that natural selection is the entire theory of evolution. It is not

so is the smirk wiped of your face yet canolon

and you

MichaelXY

quote :

I do not agree with Gamila

we see you are now gone quite
who do you agree with now-waiting to see where the consensus is first i bet

and MolecularBioFTW you must look a bit silly now with this statement

quote :

NS has always been stated as the method that new species are generated independent of the fact that it’s not responsible for the creation of new genes.

why has it taken you all 6 momths of posts to finally see and admitt this
as colin leslie dean has said natural selection is wrong as it cannot generate new species -it is only about passing on traits/genes already present – as pauljgrayson notes above

quote :

Now NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with triats already present and cant deal with the generation of new species
. A new species has completely new traits which were not in an antecedent so the antecedent species could not have passed them on
NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation “

quote :

Darwin was in this position himself, since he had no knowledge of genetics and mutation. He thought natural selection took place, but didn’t know where the variation in organisms came from.

Darwin was wrong
his book was called
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,
and natural selection is not responsible for the generation of new species

[MichaelXY]

quote :

MichaelXY

I do not agree with Gamila

we see you are now gone quite
who do you agree with now-waiting to see where the consensus is first i bet

I have gone quiet as I find your assertions to be unfounded and without any data to back them. In fact you have no real argument other than saying Darwin is wrong. If he is wrong, then I welcome a alternate hypothesis which you have failed to provide.

I think you are being silly, and revel in the fact that you can create quite a stir. I am sure you sit at your monitor and enjoy the controversy that you create. At the end of the day, you have nothing valid to say, your claims are baseless and your argument is weak. This is why I choose to be silent as you do nothing more than make baseless statements and waste bandwidth with useless drivel.

[gamila]

quote :

If he is wrong, then I welcome a alternate hypothesis which you have failed to provide.

i have no alternative hypothesis
like colin leslie dean i am not a creationist and i dont believe in ID

Darwin seminal book was called

The Origin of Species. by Means of Natural Selection

but
natural selection only selects for genes/traits already present
Natural selection is not responsible for new genes

you dont need a PHD in genetics to see -any half wit can

the logic is irrefutable

new species have new genes/traits
if NS does not generate new genes
then
NS cant generate new species

as colin leslie dean says

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … ection.pdf

quote :

“Now NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with triats already present and cant deal with the generation of new species
. A new species has completely new traits which were not in an antecedent so the antecedent species could not have passed them on
NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation “

[MichaelXY]

quote :

the logic is irrefutable

new species have new genes/traits
if NS does not generate new genes
then
NS cant generate new species

as colin leslie dean says

Not irrefutable. Let me see if I can articulate my thinking.

The straight beaked booby has an offspring. This offspring has a mutation that causes it to have a curved beak. For some reason the curved beak booby survives and procreates, the offspring now have curved beaks, the curved beak boobies have trouble feeding as the other boobies do so they venture out to find plants that work for the them. Many miles away the curved beak booboies find a plant that has a curved shape where their beak fits perfectly. All the skinny curved beak boobies hear of this plant and they all flock to it to taste its nector.

Eventually all the curve beak boobies flock to this new location and stay there. They procreate and more mutations occur. Eventually genetic changes occur ever so slowly that the new curve beak boobies can no longer procreate with straight billed boobies.

End of story, new species

[gamila]

quote :

Not irrefutable. Let me see if I can articulate my thinking.

as pauljgrayson said

quote :

Yes, you’re right that natural selection does not and cannot explain the creation of new variation. Natural selection is about selecting between existing variation.

look it is very simple
we have 2 facts

1)natural selection only selects for genes/traits already present
2)Natural selection is not responsible for new genes

quote :

you dont need a PHD in genetics to see -any half wit can

the logic is irrefutable

new species have new genes/traits
if NS does not generate new genes
then
NS cant generate new species

[canalon]

Gamila is given 2 weeks of cooling time to rethink his arguments and provide something new to the discussion. And to learn that some trolling might be tolerated in limited threads, but that if it spreads, it becomes less tolerable.

[mith]

[biohazard]

Hihi 😛

[Peanutgal]

Everyone posting to this thread, and potentially even to this site, should take the time to read Richard Dawkins The Greatest Show on Earth. Perhaps, had some of the anti-NS posters above read this work instead of the drivel written by a PHILOSOPHER, there would have been less requirement for the pro-NS folks to repeat themselves again (and again). Natural selection is the real deal, and Dawkins outlines exactly how and why, with examples even a devout creationist will find hard to argue against (alas, I fear they will still try). With former Bishops, countless scientists and even a few creationists directly quoted in the work, Dawkins review of NS is brilliant. He discusses why the "Missing Link" argument doesn’t hold water, how natural selection for certain traits also brings with it other, unrelated but linked traits (as in silver foxes), and how we CAN see natural selection(micro-/macro-, who cares?), from start to finish, as a result of several ingenious ongoing studies with bacteria and fish.

So read up, and then come back online and post with some authority, well thought out arguments, and hopefully more concrete evidence than that provided by a philosophical "article" and Wikipedia "evidence".

[carbonbasedlifeform]

All I am going to say is nothing can be proven wrong or right, but we can view the smaller contradictions to base our beliefs on, a creationist simply states the universe is too complex to have just rearranged itself, so it was created by an intelligent being no questions asked. Natural selection however has LOADS of factual theories that have been tested, you can’t test the existence of a God so we do not know for sure, evolution may be disproved but it stands stronger than creationism in theoretical evidence, plain and simple.

[beabea]

I’m writing my mid-term paper on Bacon’s four idols.
I was in desperate need of good example for the Idol of the Cave, and this is perfect!
i want to thank Gamila for your inability to "see the bigger picture" 😆

bea*

[gamila]

quote :

Dawkins review of NS is brilliant.

he misss the important point

natural selection is not responsible for the generation of new species Thus wrong as a theory of origin of species

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo … ection.pdf

it is simple logic
the logic is irrefutable

1)natural selection only selects for genes/traits already present
2)Natural selection is not responsible for new genes

you dont need a PHD in genetics to see -any half wit can

the logic is irrefutable

new species have new genes/traits
if NS does not generate new genes
then
NS cant generate new species

[pauljgrayson]

Gamila, I’ve not sure what you’re arguing here. I don’t want to post something until I now what I’m responding to. Can you help me out? I think it might be one or more of the following:

a. Darwin’s "The Origin of Species" is not a complete description of evolution.

b. Darwin’s "The Origin of Species" is completely wrong: natural selection has nothing to do with evolution.

c. Natural selection as we now understand it is not a complete description of evolution

d. Natural selection as we now understand it has nothing to do with evolution

e. Natural selection as we now understand it does not exist: it does not happen.

Or feel free to offer your own sentences if these are not exactly what you’re trying to get at.

Regards,

Paul

[robsabba]

quote pauljgrayson:

Gamila, I’ve not sure what you’re arguing here. I don’t want to post something until I now what I’m responding to. Can you help me out? I think it might be one or more of the following:

a. Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” is not a complete description of evolution.

b. Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” is completely wrong: natural selection has nothing to do with evolution.

c. Natural selection as we now understand it is not a complete description of evolution

d. Natural selection as we now understand it has nothing to do with evolution

e. Natural selection as we now understand it does not exist: it does not happen.

Or feel free to offer your own sentences if these are not exactly what you’re trying to get at.

Regards,

Paul

FYI: Gamila is not going to respond… he has been banned (finally). One of his famous contentions was that all of biology was garbage and probably all of sciecne too because you cannot prove anything and all opinions are the same, or some such post-modernism nonsense. He was just aTroll.

[Asyncritus]

Gamila

The most effective and ruinous refutation of evolution theory comes in part from the Cambrian explosion, as you’ve shown.

The other part, in my opinion, comes from the phenomena of instinctive behaviour of all kinds, beginning with the processes required for life (such as eating in animals) and moving upwards to things like the annual arrival of the cliff swallows on March 18th (apart from leap years) and their departure on Oct 23.

Their journey is about 7,500 miles from Goya in Argentina to Capistrano in California, one way. The details beggar the imagination, and leave natural selection swallowing an awful lot of dust.

I’ve put a number of them up on my blog, and I invite you and other readers to visit for fuller details of this one and a number of incredible others.

http://www.got.to/belligerentdesign is the address.

Asyncritus

[jonboo]

ok, where to start. darwins origin of the species is not a complete description of evolution b/c they didnt have knowledge of genetics so he didnt know how variations were passed to offspring. natural selection is the means by which evolution is possible. nat sel. is based on genetic mutations that allow new traits to form and the individuals with those specific traits that are favorable are more likely to survive, reproduce and pass on the genes for that trait to their offspring. nat selection does select for genes that are also present, those genes are present and enter a pop through genetic drift. those new genes are due to MUTATIONS. through generations natural selection, along side with isolation of a sp. by geographic, ecological, or smypatric barriers does create new sp. i wish u werent such and idiot and i had more time to devote to this argument b/c evolution may not be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but nat sel is the means to which evolution does occur…..

[jumma]

this is a very interesting post

[BDDVM]

I’m curious about how, without selection, did drug resistant bacteria come to be so much more common than they used to be?
Incidentally if you are going to deny evolution you really should avoid new antibiotics for resistant infections if you are going to be intellectually honest.

[jumma]

Dean makes a very cogent point about the generation of new species

quote :

1) if the process is random then genetics cannot account for why a species appears for being random there can be no deterministic reason why it happens in a particular why- once the generation process has started genetics can account for how it unfolds-but genetics cannot account for its random starting point chaos theory might but genetics cant

2)if there is some plan programmed into the genes/DNA such that species unfold according to the plan
then
genetics cant account for the generation of new species- it can account for how the process might unfold
but
it cant account why the genes have been progammed that way- the idea of god might but genetics cant

[canalon]

Dean or Gamila never made a cogent point beyond that of proving their lack of understanding of molecular biology. By Resurrecting a dead thread and making pointless comment without bringing any new argument by yourself, you are proving that you are worse than them. I suggest you go an study biology now. Do not feel that you need to come back.

[jumma]

quote :

I suggest you go an study biology now. Do not feel that you need to come back

ok
but first please tell us
how genetics explains the starting process that starts the mutation=in the first place
we are told it is a random process due to such things as radiation chemical virus etc so please tell us how genetics explains why such things as radiation chemical virus etc got there in the first place to start the mutation process

or again
we are told that new species comes about due to random mutations
so tell us how genetics explains why the virus or radiation or chemical etc got there in the first place to start the mutation process

ok
so once the mutation has happened generics may explain the unfolding process
but
please tell us how genetics explains the process that starts the mutation in the first place

in other words tell us how genetics explains why the virus or radiation or chemical etc got there in the first place to start the mutation process

[OdinsRaven]

The Sun

[canalon]

Mutations are not a controlled process, they arise because of errors during the replication process because the enzyme are not perfect. Environmental damage to the DNA (UV, chemicals, etc ) are there and do damage DNA. Viruses do insert themselves in the DNA for their own purpose, they do not care about consequences for the host, and they can damage DNA.

None of that is controlled by genetics. Just like car accidents, cancer due to smoking and many other things that can nevertheless affect your life. As I said, go learn some biology, and stop making a fool of yourself.

[jumma]

quote :

Mutations are not a controlled processEnvironmental damage to the DNA (UV, chemicals, etc ) are there and do damage DNA. Viruses do insert themselves in the DNA for their own purpose, they do not care about consequences for the host, and they can damage DNA.

you are avoiding the question i will ask again

please tell us how genetics explains why how/the virus got there to insert themselves

quote :

so once the mutation has happened generics may explain the unfolding process
but
please tell us how genetics explains the process that starts the mutation in the first place

in other words tell us how genetics explains why the virus or radiation or chemical etc got there in the first place to start the mutation process

[ughaibu]

quote jumma:

you are avoiding the question i will ask again

Canalon didn’t avoid the question, the question was addressed by pointing out that its presuppositions are mistaken. In short, you didn’t ask a genuine question.

quote jumma:

please tell us how genetics explains why how/the virus got there to insert themselves

Personally, I’m quite interested in the nature of your mistake. You appear to think that "genetics", whatever you mean by that, is responsible for life. To clarify things, please specify:
1) what you mean by "genetics"
2) what manner of set of statements you consider to constitute an "explanation"
3) what statements and made by whom, espouse the claim that "genetics explains why how/the virus got there to insert themselves"
4) who the "us" you speak for are.

[jumma]

quote :

Canalon didn’t avoid the question, the question was addressed by pointing out that its presuppositions are mistaken. In short, you didn’t ask a genuine question.

canalon said

quote :

Viruses do insert themselves

so point out where he told us-
"how genetics explains why how/the virus got there to insert themselves"-which is a real question because they got there for some reason you must admit that

or are you admitting that genetics cant answer that question
in which case what dean says is very cogent-which canalon said was not cogent

quote :

the generation of new species

1) if the process is random then genetics cannot account for why a species appears for being random there can be no deterministic reason why it happens in a particular why- once the generation process has started genetics can account for how it unfolds-but genetics cannot account for its random starting point chaos theory might but genetics cant

2)if there is some plan programmed into the genes/DNA such that species unfold according to the plan
then
genetics cant account for the generation of new species- it can account for how the process might unfold
but
it cant account why the genes have been progammed that way- the idea of god might but genetics cant

[ughaibu]

quote jumma:

or are you admitting that genetics cant answer that question

I thought I’d made it quite clear that I don’t think that "genetics", whatever you mean by that, can answer the question.
Perhaps you will now answer my four questions.

[jumma]

quote :

I thought I’d made it quite clear that I don’t think that "genetics“, whatever you mean by that, can answer the question.

thank you
thus you are disagreeing with canalon when he says deans point is not cogent
by you admitting that genetics cant answer the question
thus deans point is cogent

quote :

the generation of new species

1) if the process is random then genetics cannot account for why a species appears for being random there can be no deterministic reason why it happens in a particular why- once the generation process has started genetics can account for how it unfolds-but genetics cannot account for its random starting point chaos theory might but genetics cant

2)if there is some plan programmed into the genes/DNA such that species unfold according to the plan
then
genetics cant account for the generation of new species- it can account for how the process might unfold
but
it cant account why the genes have been progammed that way- the idea of god might but genetics cant

[ughaibu]

quote jumma:

quote :

I thought I’d made it quite clear that I don’t think that "genetics“, whatever you mean by that, can answer the question.

you are disagreeing with canalon when he says deans point is not cogent

No, I am not disagreeing with Canalon, as Canalon has also made it clear that your question is outside the scope of "genetics", whatever you mean by that, and I have not commented on Dean’s point.
You have exactly one remaining opportunity to answer my questions.

[jumma]

quote :

No, I am not disagreeing with Canalon, as Canalon has also made it clear that your question is outside the scope of “genetics”

you disagree with canalon when he says deans point is not cogent

canalon said this point of dean was not cogent

quote :

if the process is random then genetics cannot account for why a species appears….

lets go all the way back
the question was

quote :

“tell us how genetics explains why how/the virus got there to insert themselves

you say

quote :

that I don’t think that “genetics”, … can answer the question

if genetics cant answer that question then it cant explain how/why new species appear as we are told that species come from mutations caused by radiation virus etc
but as you admit genetics cant tell us how/why the virus gets to the DNA in the first place
so it follows genetics cant tell us how/why new species appear

thus deans point is cogent

quote :

if the process is random then genetics cannot account for why a species appears….

or how/why the virus inserted itself in the DNA
now canalon says deans point is not cogent

so to simplify it even more
just answer yes or no
do you think this point of deans is cogent

quote :

if the process is random then genetics cannot account for why a species appears….

[ughaibu]

My final post to you on this subject.
I could ask Canalon to explain how genetics could control a chariot carrying the sun, and point out that if no such explanation is forthcoming, we still have the explanation of Apollo.
This is the form and cogency of you and Dean’s argument. Asking questions with invalid presuppositions, does not support realism about fictional entities.

[jumma]

quote :

This is the form and cogency of you and Dean’s argument. Asking questions with invalid presuppositions, does not support realism about fictional entities.

seeing you admit genetic cant answer the question as to why/how a virus gets to the DNA in the first place

can you just answer the simple question with a yes or no-
do you think this point of deans is cogent

quote :

if the process is random then genetics cannot account for why a species appears….

[ughaibu]

quote jumma:

can you just answer the simple question with a yes or no
do you think this point of deans is cogent

quote :

if the process is random then genetics cannot account for why a species appears….

In order to comment on that, I would need the answers to, at least, the first two of my questions. As you refused to answer those questions, the matter is now closed.

[jumma]

quote :

In order to comment on that, I would need the answers to, at least, the first two of my questions. As you refused to answer those questions, the matter is now closed

your two questions

quote :

1) what you mean by “genetics”
2) what manner of set of statements you consider to constitute an “explanation”

1
why not ask what people mean by
biology
science
i suggest you just go to a biology text book and look up a definition
one could simply say the science of genes
but the you can just ask
what is science
what are genes
species-well we do have the species controvosy ie just what it is is in debete

you can qibble over definitions
but if you want to deconstruct definitions/words go right ahead

2again go to some dictionary and look up a definition of "explanation"
but again

you can qibble over definitions
but if you want to deconstruct definitions/words go right ahead

i think my question is really very simple

do you a agree this point of deans is cogent
just yes or no

quote :

if the process is random then genetics cannot account for why a species appears….

just look up a dictionary to see what these term mean
random
genetics
species
account
appears

you can qibble over definitions
but if you want to deconstruct definitions/words go right ahead

[canalon]

Dean’s point is stupid beyond description.

There are genetic mechanisms for the insertion of viral DNA in an host DNA. The description of which can be found in a textbook (there are plenty available on the NCBI Bookshelf: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books)
You might also find how viruses do infect their hosts, That not all viruses do insert their DNA, That DNA insertion is a mechanism that is often used by some organisms in order to scavenge for genes of interest (naturally transformable) and that random insertion of DNA by a virus has nothing exceptional.
Generally all that would be described as molecular biology rather than genetics.
And in your case it will easily demonstrate that you are as ignorant of basic biology as Dean and that if you do not want to be called stupid, you better not try to assert knowingly your ignorance and misconceptions. In conclusion you are stupid.

[jumma]

quote :

There are genetic mechanisms for the insertion of viral DNA in an host DNA. The description of which can be found in a textbook (there are plenty available on the NCBI Bookshelf: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books)
You might also find how viruses do infect their hosts

look canalon

you just dont get what is being asked-perhaps you have not come across the idea in your biology text books
so i will be even more simple for you
i am not asking you to tell us genetic mechanisms for the insertion of viral DNA in an host DNA

what i am asking is
if the process of generating new species is random
just tells us

how genetics explains the random process that leads up to the start of the mutation-before the viral insertion

not what happens after the random process starts the mutation ie after the viral insertion
but
how genetics explains the random process that leads up to the start of the mutation-before the viral insertion

[JackBean]

there is nothing like "starting mutation". Mutation simply happens and that’s it 🙄

[jumma]

quote :

there is nothing like “starting mutation”. Mutation simply happens and that’s it

tart the

then you have point 2 of deans

quote :

the generation of new species

1) if the process is random then genetics cannot account for why a species appears for being random there can be no deterministic reason why it happens in a particular why- once the generation process has started genetics can account for how it unfolds-but genetics cannot account for its random starting point chaos theory might but genetics cant

2)if there is some plan programmed into the genes/DNA such that species unfold according to the plan
then
genetics cant account for the generation of new species- it can account for how the process might unfold
but
it cant account why the genes have been progammed that way- the idea of god might but genetics can

but for point 1
something needs to get to the gene to start the mutation ie virus radiation etc
so tell us the random process that gets the something ie virus radiation etc to the gene

[OdinsRaven]

Why aren’t any of you talking about the sun?

It was there before any life on this planet began. You asked why mutations started in the first place. How about the idea that mutations are a tool for adaptation. The sun changes, the weather changes, gravitational forces change, atmospheric content changes, there are many changes. It seems that DNA is also subject to change. Actually it seems that everything is subject to change. Is that not what a mutation is, just a change.

Without change, there is extinction.

The real question is why does life matter so much to keep it going? Changes happen, we know how they happen and even in many cases where they originated from, but whats the point of this continuous adaptation through generations of lifeforms?

[jumma]

quote :

The sun changes, the weather changes, gravitational forces change, atmospheric content changes, there are many changes

now that is some sort of explanation behind the random process that starts the mutation that leads to the generation of a new species

that is a lot more than canalon has offered – but then he want find explanations like that in his holy/sacred biology text books
all canalons books can tell us is what happen AFTER the starting process not BEFORE

[JackBean]

quote jumma:

quote :

The sun changes, the weather changes, gravitational forces change, atmospheric content changes, there are many changes

now that is some sort of explanation behind the random process that starts the mutation that leads to the generation of a new species

This is explanation??? 🙄 So what did we provide? 🙄

[jumma]

quote :

The sun changes, the weather changes, gravitational forces change, atmospheric content changes, there are many changes

you say

quote :

This is explanation??? 🙄 So what did we provide?

GEEEEEEEE

quote :

The sun changes, the weather changes, gravitational forces change, atmospheric content changes, there are many changes

all those changes could/can be part of the random process that start mutations that generate new species

ie a virus was blown onto a gene
sun spots might have caused a lonely neutron to fly onto a gene
chemicals in the atmosphere might have fallen onto a gene
etc
etc

quote :

that is a lot more than canalon has offered – but then he want find explanations like that in his holy/sacred biology text books
all canalons books can tell us is what happen AFTER the starting process not BEFORE

[canalon]

A mutation is a change in the genetic code. It does not start before the DNA is changed by chemical or other means. You do not make sense.
In fact the more you are trying to argue the more you are showing your complete ignorance of the subject at hand. I gave you a link to a place where you can go and instruct you for free. You chose instead to make a fool of yourself. Do not expect to be treated with any sort of respect. You deserved to be called an ignorant idiot, and you will be, you ignorant idiot.

[jumma]

quote :

A mutation is a change in the genetic code

a changed caused by ie a virus radiation via a random process a random process genetics cant explain
an example of such a random process which could start the mutation

quote :

The sun changes, the weather changes, gravitational forces change, atmospheric content changes, there are many changes

all those changes could/can be part of the random process that start mutations that generate new species

ie a virus was blown onto a gene
sun spots might have caused a lonely neutron to fly onto a gene
chemicals in the atmosphere might have fallen onto a gene
etc
etc

[david23]

"a virus was blown onto a gene" something is terribly odd with this statement

same with "sun spots might have caused a lonely neutron to fly onto a gene" well this one is just wrong. Neutrons cant move so freely without some kind of catastrophic effect

"chemicals in the atmosphere might have fallen onto a gene" why not, sounds pretty "ok"

[Author]

Posts