Questioning Darwin

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: Questioning Darwin

#321  Postby questioner121 » Feb 23, 2014 6:36 pm

hackenslash wrote:
questioner121 wrote:Because evolution is bullshit? :ask:


Well since you've already accepted it, you're just admitting to accepting bullshit. Not that this is news to anybody here, given the bullshit you already accept.


Sorry it's not all bullshit. There is lots of it which is true and very good work. It's just certain parts which are used to manipulate the general public.
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#322  Postby campermon » Feb 23, 2014 6:38 pm

questioner121 wrote:
hackenslash wrote:
questioner121 wrote:Because evolution is bullshit? :ask:


Well since you've already accepted it, you're just admitting to accepting bullshit. Not that this is news to anybody here, given the bullshit you already accept.


Sorry it's not all bullshit. There is lots of it which is true and very good work. It's just certain parts which are used to manipulate the general public.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Most of the general public haven't got a clue how evolutions works!! That's one of the reasons I became a teacher!!

:cheers:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17438
Age: 51
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#323  Postby halucigenia » Feb 23, 2014 6:41 pm

questioner121 wrote:
halucigenia wrote:
questioner121 wrote:Here you have made an assertion that genetic difference leads to populations becoming so different that they become different species. Could you please clarify how much genetic diifference would lead to a population becoming a new species?
Merely sufficient for the two populations to no longer interbreed.
Once the populations no longer interbreed, then the differences are bound to keep on building up, unless you can come up with a mechanism to prevent this from happening.
What's so difficult with that as an explanation? :ask:


"Merely sufficient for the two populations to no longer interbreed." - sounds a bit like how they came up with the definition of species.

I'd just like to remind you that definition of evolution does not imply that differences/traits keep on building up. It's simply a change in allele frequency.

Change in allele frequency is difference. Any change in allele frequency between populations is differences building up.
questioner121 wrote:This means a population may also lose traits.
Even as loss of a trait is a difference, the more of these differences there are, whether traits are being gained or being lost the more likely it is that the populations will no longer interbreed. Though it may simply take just one to stop interbreeding altogether. It's not about volume. Once two populations no longer interbreed any change in allele frequencies between them is a step in the direction of divergence as the alleles no longer mix.

I have to ask again, what mechanisms are there to prevent this from happening? :ask:
User avatar
halucigenia
 
Posts: 1229

Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#324  Postby hackenslash » Feb 23, 2014 6:42 pm

questioner121 wrote:. It's just certain parts which are used to manipulate the general public.


Which parts are they, and what evidence can you bring to bear in determining that they're used to manipulate the public? Given that you repeatedly demonstrate that you haven't the first clue about it, from what do you derive the authority to assess it as bullshit?
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21914
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#325  Postby questioner121 » Feb 23, 2014 6:44 pm

hackenslash wrote:
questioner121 wrote:. It's just certain parts which are used to manipulate the general public.


Which parts are they, and what evidence can you bring to bear in determining that they're used to manipulate the public? Given that you repeatedly demonstrate that you haven't the first clue about it, from what do you derive the authority to assess it as bullshit?


I'll leave that for another thread.
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#326  Postby bert » Feb 23, 2014 6:47 pm

questioner121 wrote:
hackenslash wrote:It isn't even number of mutations, although number of differences does impact the outcome. It's more about the nature of the mutations. The point being, the question is framed as a gotcha, but it really only displays ignorance.


Please do expand on "It's more about the nature of the mutations".


Cali already told me not to do your homework but I'm defiant.

Say, a bird of the ring species is born with a mutation in its vitamin C gene. If the bird lives from fruits, it wouldn't make any difference for its survival or for its success at having off-spring.
If a bird is born with a mutation in a protein involved in the attachment of a sperm cell to an egg, then that could affect his fertility rate. If it is a fatal mutation (no attachment), the bird is infertile and there's no off-spring. If it affects the binding only in that it is a bit less strong, it can still have off-spring. But perhaps there are fewer eggs in the nest, and this bird with mutation is less successful. Important: the off-spring has that mutation too. But one of the off-spring happens to get a mate that has a mutation in the protein to which the sperm binds, off-setting the effect of the earlier mutation. They get a full load of eggs in the nest. If both mutations spread in part of the population, the earlier mutation is no longer detrimental for having off-spring, but a slightly different population has formed. Rinse and repeat.

So, some mutations won't matter a single bit for speciation. Others will.

Bert
Promote rational thought on religion by telling other people to download this free booklet. Read it yourself and you may well learn new arguments and a new approach to debunk religion
bert
 
Posts: 517
Male

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#327  Postby campermon » Feb 23, 2014 6:49 pm

questioner121 wrote:
hackenslash wrote:
questioner121 wrote:. It's just certain parts which are used to manipulate the general public.


Which parts are they, and what evidence can you bring to bear in determining that they're used to manipulate the public? Given that you repeatedly demonstrate that you haven't the first clue about it, from what do you derive the authority to assess it as bullshit?


I'll leave that for another thread.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Something that we are very excited about!

:thumbup:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17438
Age: 51
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#328  Postby hackenslash » Feb 23, 2014 6:53 pm

questioner121 wrote:I'll leave that for another thread.


How fucking cowardly is that? If your pathetic god does exist and is anything like described (he doesn't and isn't), you might find yourself consigned to eternal torture for such a low, spineless tactic. Sure, you'll go to paradise but your 72 virgins will be clones of Anne Widdecombe.

So, pony up or cowardly retreat. Which will it be?
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21914
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#329  Postby questioner121 » Feb 23, 2014 6:55 pm

campermon wrote:
questioner121 wrote:
An alternative to common ancestry is common design. This fits the observations and data far better.


Blasphemer!!

Dog would have designed life much more efficiently.

:cheers:


It's a common misconception among non believers that God makes everything perfect, that he can do no evil or that if there was a God there would be no evil in the world, or that he loves all of creation. Those believers who describe God like this haven't read the scriptures properly and/or are confused.
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#330  Postby hackenslash » Feb 23, 2014 6:58 pm

That's not a misconception held among non theists. Evolution isn't the only thing we know a fuck of a lot more about than you.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21914
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#331  Postby theropod » Feb 23, 2014 7:02 pm

Where have all the trilobites gone, long time passing...


RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 67
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#332  Postby campermon » Feb 23, 2014 7:08 pm

theropod wrote:Where have all the trilobites gone, long time passing...


RS


Already answered; time travel.

:whistle:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17438
Age: 51
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#333  Postby hackenslash » Feb 23, 2014 7:11 pm

User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21914
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#334  Postby Calilasseia » Feb 23, 2014 7:12 pm

questioner121 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Er, no. This is bullshit. Here is what actually happens:

[1] Organisms are observed reproducing, Those organisms are therefore considered to be part of the same species.

[2] Genetic data is collected from those organisms (and their offspring), allowing us to determine such details as inheritance mechanisms. A process that started back in the 19th century with Gregor Mendel.

[3] Given that we have hard evidence for inheritance in this manner, and zero evidence for other processes (such as magic conjuring tricks by an invisible magic man), it is natural to conclude that closely related species acquired their shared anatomical features from a common ancestor.

[4] At this point, we look for ways of testing this hypothesis. One such test being to observe speciation taking place. Which has been done. Documentation of speciation events is voluminous.

[5] At this point, we also ask whether or not the patterns of inheritance we see are consistent with the common ancestry hypothesis. This test has also been performed, not least by Douglas Theobald, who compared different ancestry models with the genetic data, and established in his paper on the subject, that the universal common ancestor model is a whopping 102,860 times more probable than other ancestry models.

In other words, the data says common ancestry is valid. Game over.


Please define "inheritance mechanisms". I'm assuming this means that it was observed that offspring inherit certain traits of their parents, thereby the by my understanding the mechanism is via reproduction.


Please, do build on this precedent. You'll find it most educational.

questioner121 wrote:All the observations used to determine the hypothesis of common ancestry is based from closely related species.


Wrong. Phylogenies have been constructed involving distant taxa. Which you would know if you had bothered to read any of the literature on the subject.

questioner121 wrote:The problem is that there is no observations of distant species


Wrong. You do realise that biologists have observed reproduction in everything from protists to primates? That's a pretty broad remit.

questioner121 wrote:or any evidence of speciation leading to very different species


All you're doing here is erecting the tiresome creationist canard known as "I've never seen a cat give birth to a dog". Which is a creationist caricature bearing no relation to actual evolutionary postulates. Apart from the fact that human taxonomic categories are principally brought into being for our convenience, in order to allow us to analyse the data within a systematic framework, and indeed I've covered the issue of older taxonomic practice in several previous posts of mine, evolutionary postulates don't erect the fatuous creationist assertion you're bringing here. What evolutionary postulates do state, is that any new species that arises, will necessarily be contained within the same clade as the ancestors that gave rise to it. You do know what a family tree is, don't you? Evolutionary postulates don't erect the fatuous claim that a new species will somehow jump across the family tree from one branch to another, this is a fantasy caricature creationists have erected, one that is in violation of even the pre-evolutionary Linnaean understanding of the biosphere.

Of course, this doesn't mean that organisms taking part in this process, cannot acquire features seen in other organisms in other branches of the family tree. Such as whales acquiring body features resembling those of fishes, despite being a long way removed from fishes by 250 million years of prior development of the requisite subtrees on the grand family tree. The ancestors of whales were artiodactyl land mammals, which, once they moved into an aquatic niche full time, gradually accumulated body plan changes leading to the emergence of the whale body plan we see today - a nice example of convergent evolution also seen in ichthyosaurs. The original artiodactyl ancestors had terrestrial limbs inherited from their own terrestrial ancestors, but upon moving into an aquatic niche, a niche that was largely vacant after the extinction of the mosasaurs and similar organisms, they began acquiring limb features more suited to that aquatic niche, which, lo and behold, bear a resemblance to fish fins because that shape happens to work well in an aquatic environment, and the original Sarcopterygian transition from fins to terrestrial limbs almost certainly left behind it remnants of the genetic machinery facilitating limb plasticity of the sort observed. But, just because they happen to look very different from present day terrestrial artiodactyl mammals, doesn't stop them from being artiodactyl mammals, and indeed, they are artiodactyl mammals, because their ancestors were artiodactyls. The only reason Linnaeus placed them in their own Order back in 1758, is because he lacked the data linking them to artiodactyls, data which has since been alighted upon. Which also dovetails nicely with comments I've made in the past on taxonomic revision, but that's a separate issue.

Basically, all species are regarded as being contained within whatever ancestral clade gave rise to them. The reason we have the clades that we do, is because [1] back in the distant past, when less specialised organisms existed, more options were open to them with respect to the acquisition of new features, and [2] the clades that survive to the present were the ones whose features worked in their environments when those features appeared. Of course, this means that modern organisms are now under more constraints than Precambrian organisms with respect to major body plan changes, precisely because of inheritance: a mammal isn't going to undergo shedding of the entire bony skeleton, and replacement thereof with an arthropod exoskeleton, without [1] some extremely odd selection pressures in place, and [2] a very long time for the transition to take place. But even if the conditions were in place for such a gross transition to take place, the resulting organism would still be a mammal, because its ancestors were mammals. Just as, wait for it, all mammals are nested within the clade containing reptiles, because the ancestors of the first mammals were reptiles (specifically, therapsids), the therapsids in turn contained within the clade containing synapids (of which the therapsids were a subset), the synapsids themselves being contained within the Reptiliomorpha, which in turn is contained within the Tetrapoda (all terrestrial vertebrates), which in turn is contained within the Sarcopterygii (the clade of fishes whose members were ancestors of the tetrapods), which in turn is contained in the Osteichthyes (bony fishes), of which the Sarcopterygii were a subset, and the Osteichthyes in turn is contained in the Gnathostomata (jawed vertebrates), which is in turn contained within the Craniata (organisms with a defined head, and some form of internal skull casing for the head), which in turn is contained within the Cephalochordata (organisms with a spinal cord that persists throughout life), which in turn is nested within the Chordata (all organisms possessing a notochord), and in turn nested within the Deuterosomes (organisms with a specific pattern of embryonic development, in which the first digestive tract invagination in the embryo is the anus), which in turn are nested within the Bilateria (organisms with a definable front and rear end).

As a consequence of said nesting of clades, on the basis of ancestry, you are a Bilateran, a Desuterostome, a Chordate, a Cephalochordate, a Gnathostome, an Osteichthyan, a Sarcopterygian, a Tetrapodomorph, an Amniote, a Repitiliomorph, a Synapsid, a Therapsid, a Mammal, a Primate, and finally, a member of Homo sapiens. In exactly the same way as you are a member of whichever group of humans your more recent ancestors belonged to.

This should be telling you why the creationist "I've never seen a dog give birth to a cat" canard is precisely that - a canard.7

Moving on ...

questioner121 wrote:to confirm how far common ancestry can go.


It goes all the way back to single celled life forms.

questioner121 wrote:To assume that common ancestry went all way down to bacteria from humans or from birds to theropods is a huge assumption


Bullshit. Our cells share sufficient commonality of chemistry (not to mention a good number of genes) with organisms such as amoebae, to provide evidence for this. Plus, the variation in genes across different taxonomic groups, exhibits exactly the sort of pattern that would be expected to appear from common descent with modification. You really don't understand molecular phylogeny, do you?

questioner121 wrote:which is unproven.


The several thousand scientific papers on molecular phylogeny say otherwise, as does the vast body of genetic data the authors of those papers have analysed.

questioner121 wrote:To say that common ancestry is proven by observing speciation and/or simply by examining DNA is absolutely ludicrous.


No it isn't. Because, wait for it, we have evidence for organisms inheriting features via reproductive ancestry.

questioner121 wrote:By citing numerous studies on what we observe today does not in anyway confirm common ancestry beyond the level of which the observations were made for.


Poppycock. This is like saying that you can't tell who your great-great-grandfather was, because you weren't around to see him shag your great-great-grandmother.

:doh:

Here's an elementary concept for you to ponder. Physical processes leave behind them physical evidence of their having taken place. All that is needed is for that evidence to be persistent. When that process is a reproductive process, that evidence is persistent, in the form of the offspring, You are evidence that your great-great-grandfather had sex with your great-great-grandmother.

questioner121 wrote:If we take a look at the definition of species. It's changed many times due to new observations being made. This should tell you that the definition of species is limited to the observations we have made.


Oh wait, the data has driven the definition. It's called "learning from the real world". Try it sometime.

questioner121 wrote:To go beyond that is purely assumption.


Not when data tells us to do so.

questioner121 wrote:What I'm saying is that common ancestry should be treated the same. It's confirmed upto the point where we have the observations of populations being able reproduce with one another, either directly or via a successive chain.


Oh, so you're going to claim that you're not evidence of the horizontal jogging of your great-great-grandparents, are you?

questioner121 wrote:An alternative to common ancestry is common design.


Bullshit. Already covered that with my exposition on insulin.

questioner121 wrote:This fits the observations and data far better.


No it doesn't. Because [1] whilst countless thousands of genes possess sufficient sequence identity to regard them as belonging to the same class, they are not identical in a wide range of lineages (see my insulin exposition for a particularly compelling example), which fits exquisitely with the idea of common descent with modification, but drives a tank battalion through assertions of "common design" on the grounds of being needlessly wasteful; [2] supernaturalists don't know what would genuinely constitute evidence of "design", and have failed to provide the goods when challenged on this matter.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22139
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#335  Postby questioner121 » Feb 23, 2014 7:13 pm

campermon wrote:
questioner121 wrote:
hackenslash wrote:It isn't even number of mutations, although number of differences does impact the outcome. It's more about the nature of the mutations. The point being, the question is framed as a gotcha, but it really only displays ignorance.


Please do expand on "It's more about the nature of the mutations".


Why don't you research it?

:thumbup:


Not sure what it is so wouldn't know where to start. Besides what I come up may be totally unrelated to what the hack is referring to. May be I should keep on trying until I hit on the right one? :ask:
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#336  Postby Rumraket » Feb 23, 2014 7:23 pm

questioner121 wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Phylogenetics proves evolution beyond all reasonable doubt. Deal with it.


Rumraket wrote:The simplest and most probable explanation of the pattern is an evolutionary relationship. Deal with it.


So you're using something which is based off something unproven to prove it? :nono:

It is proven for fucks sake. Phylogenetic methods have been and are being directly tested on known relationships to assure that they give statisfically significantly correct results. That means we are justified in using them when we don't know the true relationship directly, to infer the relationship.

questioner121 wrote:C'mon please think some more about this.

No, you think about it. You obviously don't know anything about the subject.

questioner121 wrote:Edit: Please don't respond with the "speciation is proven", I'm not talking about observed speciation.

I'm not talking about speciation either, I'm talking about inferring phylogenies from molecular data. How these phylogenies prove that evolution by common descent took place, beyond all reasonable doubt.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13218
Age: 41

Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#337  Postby Calilasseia » Feb 23, 2014 7:26 pm

Indeed, if common descent with modification was false, then molecular phylogeny would be impossible by definition. Another of those inconvenient facts that drive a tank battalion through his apologetics.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22139
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#338  Postby The_Metatron » Feb 23, 2014 7:26 pm

questioner121 wrote:
campermon wrote:
questioner121 wrote:
hackenslash wrote:It isn't even number of mutations, although number of differences does impact the outcome. It's more about the nature of the mutations. The point being, the question is framed as a gotcha, but it really only displays ignorance.
Please do expand on "It's more about the nature of the mutations".
Why don't you research it?

:thumbup:
Not sure what it is so wouldn't know where to start. Besides what I come up may be totally unrelated to what the hack is referring to. May be I should keep on trying until I hit on the right one? :ask:

I'm not so sure I'd waste your time with it. Man, you've been spoon fed reality by some of the greatest minds I've known, only to summarily reject it in favor of your bronze age fables.

Go. Enjoy. I assess the likelihood of your mind changing at zero. Actually, about as likely as I assess the existence of your magic man.
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 21274
Age: 58
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#339  Postby Rumraket » Feb 23, 2014 7:32 pm

Calilasseia wrote:Indeed, if common descent with modification was false, then molecular phylogeny would be impossible by definition. Another of those inconvenient facts that drive a tank battalion through his apologetics.

In fact, the relationships thus inferred are highly significantly congruent with those inferred from comparative anatomy, embryology and development, and the fossil record. It simply fits at all expected levels.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13218
Age: 41

Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#340  Postby bert » Feb 23, 2014 7:36 pm

That's why science rules.

Bert
Promote rational thought on religion by telling other people to download this free booklet. Read it yourself and you may well learn new arguments and a new approach to debunk religion
bert
 
Posts: 517
Male

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest