Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 189

Thread: Why would evolution stop?

  1. #1 Why would evolution stop? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    England
    Posts
    26
    It seems that there is a consensus or near consensus view about human evolution that it stopped way back in prehistory.

    Seriously, why should anyone believe that? Evolution is supposedly the outcome of random mutations. Are we expected to believe that human beings have stopped randomly mutating? When did it happen? How did it happen? I'm baffled.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by ultimatesceptic View Post
    It seems that there is a consensus or near consensus view about human evolution that it stopped way back in prehistory.

    Seriously, why should anyone believe that? Evolution is supposedly the outcome of random mutations. Are we expected to believe that human beings have stopped randomly mutating? When did it happen? How did it happen? I'm baffled.
    Not quite. Evolution is driven by selection pressure acting on the distribution of differences in a population, whereby those best adapted to the pressure will have more offspring and so the adaptation becomes more prevalent in the population over time.

    If the selection pressures are either removed or no longer result in differences in reproductive success, then the motor of evolution stops.

    What factors influence reproductive success in mankind? It seems that poverty leads to increased reproduction but I'm not sure what else does. And I'm not at all sure that poverty correlates with any physical trait in mankind.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Err, ummm, SpongeBob Squarepants?

    The general public are poorly educated about evolution and even more poorly educated about randomness, probability or statistics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by ultimatesceptic View Post
    It seems that there is a consensus or near consensus view about human evolution that it stopped way back in prehistory.
    "A consensus or near consensus" by whom?

    Quote Originally Posted by ultimatesceptic View Post
    Seriously, why should anyone believe that?
    They shouldn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by ultimatesceptic View Post
    Evolution is supposedly the outcome of random mutations.
    Biological evolution is more of a process that populations of organisms (us included) goes through - one that wikipedia describes quite adequately as "change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations". Sure; there are finer points and details to the process, and there may be more that we may undercover later on, but that description does suffice for most lay people like myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by ultimatesceptic View Post
    Are we expected to believe that human beings have stopped randomly mutating?
    Who exactly is expecting anything from us?

    Quote Originally Posted by ultimatesceptic View Post
    When did it happen? How did it happen?
    It never did, if the presence of lactase and eye color is any indication.

    Quote Originally Posted by ultimatesceptic View Post
    I'm baffled.
    Understandably.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,827
    Quote Originally Posted by ultimatesceptic View Post
    It seems that there is a consensus or near consensus view about human evolution that it stopped way back in prehistory.

    Quite possibly.
    But it's not a consensus based on science.
    Ergo it's not a valid consensus.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    282
    Evolution marches on, but I see it as increasingly irrelevant to the human species. The slow changes wrought by the random mixing and mutation of our genes over many generations is far outpaced by the changes we are making in ourselves via medical science and other technologies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    In a sense, evolution did stop in prehistory. The sense in that it stopped is that it was never going very fast in the first place. It moves very very very very very slowly.

    However, human social progress moves very fast. Humanity appears to have gone all the way from caves and spears to skyscrapers and rifles in the course of about 50,000 years or less.

    So, compared to the rate of social and technological advancement, evolution doesn't move. Or well, it moves, but it moves so slowly that for all intents and purposes it could be thought of as stationary. It's like a race between a Lamborghini Diablo and a growing blade of grass. Will the grass grow fast enough to beat the sports car across the finish line? I don't think it will.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    England
    Posts
    26
    Exchemist your answer makes no sense at all. Selection pressure cannot account for a flat-footed primate becoming a human being or a land animal becoming a whale. Likewise it cannot account for at least four different creatures sprouting wings and learning to fly.

    Random mutations are what supposedly power evolution, and at least some of those random changed would need to add new coding into the genome.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by ultimatesceptic View Post
    Exchemist your answer makes no sense at all. Selection pressure cannot account for a flat-footed primate becoming a human being or a land animal becoming a whale. Likewise it cannot account for at least four different creatures sprouting wings and learning to fly.

    Random mutations are what supposedly power evolution, and at least some of those random changed would need to add new coding into the genome.
    Your response is revealing. I find it impossible to credit that anyone other than a creationist could be so ill-informed as not to know of the central role of natural selection in the mechanism of evolution.

    If you are indeed a creationist, I'd recommend you stick to reading your religious tracts and give up bothering rational people with disingenuous queries.

    If you honestly don't know how evolution works, read it up on Wiki or somewhere. There's no point in me or others here doing a job that thousands of sources already do perfectly well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by ultimatesceptic View Post
    Exchemist your answer makes no sense at all. Selection pressure cannot account for a flat-footed primate becoming a human being or a land animal becoming a whale. Likewise it cannot account for at least four different creatures sprouting wings and learning to fly.

    Random mutations are what supposedly power evolution, and at least some of those random changed would need to add new coding into the genome.
    Look up the thread that mentioned virolution. Search the forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    England
    Posts
    26
    exchemist, you do not impress me. I am on this site to learn, not to indulge in bickering.

    I do not deny that natural selection exists, but evolution requires random mutations, or so we are told. You obviously dislike creationism, but to believe in non-random mutations is not far removed from creationism.

    Please explain how evolution can happen if there are no mutations. After all, natural selection requires something to select.

    Please explain whether these mutations are random or non-random.

    Please explain how evolution can occur where no new coding is ever introduced to a genome.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by ultimatesceptic View Post
    Please explain how evolution can happen if there are no mutations. After all, natural selection requires something to select.

    Please explain whether these mutations are random or non-random.

    Please explain how evolution can occur where no new coding is ever introduced to a genome.
    Perhaps the following link will provide some clarification.

    Evolution 101: Mutations
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by ultimatesceptic View Post
    exchemist, you do not impress me. I am on this site to learn, not to indulge in bickering.

    I do not deny that natural selection exists, but evolution requires random mutations, or so we are told. You obviously dislike creationism, but to believe in non-random mutations is not far removed from creationism.

    Please explain how evolution can happen if there are no mutations. After all, natural selection requires something to select.

    Please explain whether these mutations are random or non-random.

    Please explain how evolution can occur where no new coding is ever introduced to a genome.
    Well I'm not out to impress you and I am, like most science form users, a bit twitchy about creationists: there are a lot of them about and their favoured modus operandi is to ask seemingly innocent questions when in fact they know in advance the answers they will get. I'm delighted to hear that you are not one, as it means we stand a chance of having a decent discussion.

    I never meant in my first response to imply no mutations occur: of course they do. That is one of the inputs to the variations in characteristics that we see in populations of creatures. All I meant is that mutations by themselves are not sufficient for evolution to occur. Take for example one of the species that has been largely unchanged for millions of years; the crocodile. We have no reason - so far as I know - to suppose that crocodiles have a lower incidence of mutation than other species and yet they do not seem to have evolved - or not much. Why not? Because they fit their niche so well that there is no selection pressure for them to change.

    As to whether mutations are "random", as far as I know they are. I am not sure how they could be non-random. But maybe a molecular biologist can step in here if the correct answer is more nuanced.

    As to coding changes, all mutation, and all cross-breeding between variants within a species, changes the DNA coding. Every individual has different coding. You have different coding from either of your parents.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    England
    Posts
    26
    To clarify, I have not stated that I either am or am not a creationist. Also, I did not start this post with the intention of sparking a debate about whether or not evolution is factual. I had read elsewhere that human evolution had stopped, and I felt that this was illogical. I wanted some second opinions. I now have them.

    exchemist, I accept that my coding is not identical to my parents' coding, but I believe I have half of my father's code mixed with half of my mother's. By contrast, surely evolution would need new coding at some point.

    For example, my parents do not have wings. Neither do I. If I marry a woman who also does not have wings, then surely the only way our children could have wings is if they acquire coding which neither I nor my wife possess. Therefore evolution presumably requires at some point or another for mutations to occur which introduce new, non-inherited coding.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by ultimatesceptic View Post
    ..... By contrast, surely evolution would need new coding at some point.

    For example, my parents do not have wings. Neither do I. If I marry a woman who also does not have wings, then surely the only way our children could have wings is if they acquire coding which neither I nor my wife possess. Therefore evolution presumably requires at some point or another for mutations to occur which introduce new, non-inherited coding.
    Which it does by the method you just managed to crudely describe. So what was your point?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by ultimatesceptic View Post
    To clarify, I have not stated that I either am or am not a creationist. Also, I did not start this post with the intention of sparking a debate about whether or not evolution is factual. I had read elsewhere that human evolution had stopped, and I felt that this was illogical. I wanted some second opinions. I now have them.

    exchemist, I accept that my coding is not identical to my parents' coding, but I believe I have half of my father's code mixed with half of my mother's. By contrast, surely evolution would need new coding at some point.

    For example, my parents do not have wings. Neither do I. If I marry a woman who also does not have wings, then surely the only way our children could have wings is if they acquire coding which neither I nor my wife possess. Therefore evolution presumably requires at some point or another for mutations to occur which introduce new, non-inherited coding.
    You have a mix of your parents codes plus probably one or two little mutations. If you have children, they will inherit your mixture of your parents' code plus any mutations you have picked up, and code from your spouse. They may also have a few mutations of their own. It is such changes that evolution uses, when selection pressure favours a trait.

    Wings do not arise from a single gross mutation, but by millions of tiny changes in code, over millions of years, selected for according to what may be a variety of different pressures, in different epochs. For instance it is now apparent that feathers, necessary for the wings of birds, came much earlier than wings and for another purpose than flight.

    P.S. I note you have now put on record that whether you are a creationist or not is something you have not disclosed. That you find this worth drawing our attention to is in itself interesting. Maybe the original signal I thought my antennae were giving me about you was not just noise after all. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now, though my suspicions have naturally returned.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    England
    Posts
    26
    Seriously, does it matter whether or not I am a creationist? Surely if I have a pertinent question then it should be answered with academic rigour regardless of my starting position.

    Also dan hunter, I was replying to a point made by exchemist about how evolution works.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,827
    Quote Originally Posted by ultimatesceptic View Post
    Seriously, does it matter whether or not I am a creationist?
    It matters because, generally, creationists aren't interested in a factual answer.

    Surely if I have a pertinent question then it should be answered with academic rigour regardless of my starting position.
    Yeah...
    As has been pointed out, your original premises are incorrect, see posts #2, #4, #5, #7 etc.
    Ergo you yourself (apparently) can't be bothered about "academic rigour" (or even actual facts).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by ultimatesceptic View Post
    Seriously, does it matter whether or not I am a creationist? Surely if I have a pertinent question then it should be answered with academic rigour regardless of my starting position.

    Also dan hunter, I was replying to a point made by exchemist about how evolution works.
    Yes, it does, for the the reasons I have already given. Creationists are for the most part disingenuous when they ask question on a science forum. They know what answers they will get and it is a waste of time "debating" with them as their minds are already made up, regardless of the facts or the strength of the arguments. Typically, they like to subscribe to a childish, silly and distorted view of the theory of evolution, so that they can poke fun at it while avoiding any attempt to understand what it really says. Now you, if you are a creationist, may, just possibly, be a noble exception. But I won't be holding my breath on that score. I've wasted far too much time in the past trying to argue with these self-deluded fools.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55° N, 3° W
    Posts
    1,086
    Quote Originally Posted by ultimatesceptic View Post
    It seems that there is a consensus or near consensus view about human evolution that it stopped way back in prehistory.

    Seriously, why should anyone believe that? Evolution is supposedly the outcome of random mutations. Are we expected to believe that human beings have stopped randomly mutating? When did it happen? How did it happen? I'm baffled.

    If you're genuinely baffled then this is simply because you have been misinformed about such a consensus. Many people - usually non-experts - have claimed that human evolution has stopped. Those making such a claim are probably thinking that natural selection is all that evolution entails. This false notion, together with thinking about advances in medicine and protection from many of the harsher aspects of our environments, probably fooled them in to reaching such a conclusion.

    Evolution has several main components:


    1) Mutation
    2) Selection
    3) Gene flow
    4) Drift
    5) Non-random mating
    6) Genetic hitchhiking

    Unless all these processes have ceased to operate, then evolution is still happening.


    DNA replication is not perfect. That is all you need to know to conclude that evolution has not stopped and can't be stopped. There is far more to evolution than DNA replication errors, but we can quit discussion of the end of human evolution just by making note of this one point alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Nothing says the selection pressure is constant either.
    See Stephen Jay Gould on Punctuated equilibrium.

    Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ultimatesceptic View Post
    exchemist, you do not impress me. I am on this site to learn, not to indulge in bickering.

    I do not deny that natural selection exists, but evolution requires random mutations, or so we are told. You obviously dislike creationism, but to believe in non-random mutations is not far removed from creationism.

    Please explain how evolution can happen if there are no mutations. After all, natural selection requires something to select.

    Please explain whether these mutations are random or non-random.

    Please explain how evolution can occur where no new coding is ever introduced to a genome.
    Well I'm not out to impress you and I am, like most science form users, a bit twitchy about creationists: there are a lot of them about and their favoured modus operandi is to ask seemingly innocent questions when in fact they know in advance the answers they will get. I'm delighted to hear that you are not one, as it means we stand a chance of having a decent discussion.

    I never meant in my first response to imply no mutations occur: of course they do. That is one of the inputs to the variations in characteristics that we see in populations of creatures. All I meant is that mutations by themselves are not sufficient for evolution to occur. Take for example one of the species that has been largely unchanged for millions of years; the crocodile. We have no reason - so far as I know - to suppose that crocodiles have a lower incidence of mutation than other species and yet they do not seem to have evolved - or not much. Why not? Because they fit their niche so well that there is no selection pressure for them to change.

    As to whether mutations are "random", as far as I know they are. I am not sure how they could be non-random. But maybe a molecular biologist can step in here if the correct answer is more nuanced.

    As to coding changes, all mutation, and all cross-breeding between variants within a species, changes the DNA coding. Every individual has different coding. You have different coding from either of your parents.
    If I may add ALL breeding where there are two or more parents changes the DNA coding, into a brandnew individual. In nature, the environment decides which organisms is best adapted and nourishes that variety and those who are not well adapted or malformed (mutation) will become extinct because they are more vilnerable. Although most mutations are not beneficial, occasionally a mutation creates a whole new offshoot. This is what happened between the common ancestor of man and modern apes.
    Introduction
    All great apes apart from man have 24 pairs of chromosomes. There is therefore a hypothesis that the common ancestor of all great apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and that the fusion of two of the ancestor's chromosomes created chromosome 2 in humans. The evidence for this hypothesis is very strong.
    Chromosome fusion

    If you are truly interested, you may also read this;
    Studying the origin of life

    The origin of life might seem like the ultimate cold case: no one was there to observe it and much of the relevant evidence has been lost in the intervening 3.5 billion years or so. Nonetheless, many separate lines of evidence do shed light on this event, and as biologists continue to investigate these data, they are slowly piecing together a picture of how life originated. Major lines of evidence include DNA, biochemistry, and experiments.
    Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman pzkpfw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    79
    I still want to know who claims "evolution has stopped".

    For that matter: CB928.2: Humans still evolving
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Nothing says the selection pressure is constant either.
    See Stephen Jay Gould on Punctuated equilibrium.


    Selective pressure does not cause evolution.


    Evidence shows that selective pressure does not drive out all heterozygosity on critical chromosome structures (taxa significant). This means that reversing the direction of selective pressure can also reverse most of the changes in an organism. As it stands only adaptation is observed. There are observable limits to changes in an organism. In particular I reference the EColi and Fruit fly experiments.


    About Gould and his ideas…


    “The idea grew out of their recognition of stasis (lack of gradual change) in the fossil record. That is, that species remain remarkably stable throughout their ‘history’, showing little change from when they appear in the fossil record to when they disappear.” Punctuated equilibrium: come of age? - creation.com

    The idea is contrary to the neo-Darwinian concept.

    Also, what is the mechanism for that leap if not gradual change? The answer may be the same as spontaneous generation (ridiculous).
    Gould’s punctuated evolution places it’s bet on the “hopeful monster” driven by unlikely probability.

    Punctuated equilibrium also needs time to "fix" changes in a population. The evolutionist has never been able to separate himself from “the long periods of time”. The very thing Gould was trying to avoid in the first place.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    I see, so since you are using Creation Ministries as your material source are you ready to come out of the closet and declare yourself to be a creationist and admit that your entire argument is based only on your religious convictions?
    Last edited by dan hunter; August 17th, 2014 at 02:44 AM. Reason: added question mark
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    GTCethos;
    Evidence shows that selective pressure does not drive out all heterozygosity on critical chromosome structures (taxa significant). This means that reversing the direction of selective pressure can also reverse most of the changes in an organism. As it stands only adaptation is observed. There are observable limits to changes in an organism. In particular I reference the EColi and Fruit fly experiments.
    IMO, fundamentally there are no limits to variety except where the environment does not allow for variety. You may want to have a peek at the "water bear" and marvel at its ability to survive.
    http://Absurd Creature of the Week: ...cience | WIRED

    Perhaps you are misinterpreting the term "selective pressure" as a causality for genetic change. This is not true. It is merely another term for "natural selection", but usually to extinctions at large scales, placing a survival pressure on the species as a whole.

    IMO, the Neanderthal was victim of "selective pressure" because Modern humans had a faster evolutionary development and more advantages than the Neanderthal and either killed or absorbed their small population. Most of us still do have Neanderthal DNA.
    A Dictionary of Biology,
    selection pressure,
    The extent to which organisms possessing a particular characteristic are either eliminated or favoured by environmental demands. It indicates the degree of intensity of natural selection.
    http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O6-...npressure.html

    Also, what is the mechanism for that leap if not gradual change? The answer may be the same as spontaneous generation (ridiculous).
    I hope you mean to say "creation as an irreducible complexity". In that I agree with your (ridiculous).

    Variety occurs primarily very gradually, again through natural selection of those best adapted to the environment. In the Galapagos lives a single species of field mouse, but it only exhibits two colors, dark grey and muddy brownish (note, mice usually come in many colors). The dark haired mouse lives in the rocks while the brown variety lives in the open field. One can readily see that these two colors offer the most protection for each in their particular environment, but the dark haired mouse did not become dark in order to hide better on the dark colored rocks, but are the only surviving color in that particular rocky area, because they were dark colored.

    Same with the lighter colored field mouse which blends better in the field and escapes notice from preying birds. These two colors are the remaining colors of that variety (same DNA) of field mouse, best suited to their local environment. All other hair colors disappeared as those parents were eaten before they could procreate and even if they did, their offspring would be eaten first. Ergo "environmental pressure".

    Punctuated equilibrium also needs time to "fix" changes in a population. The evolutionist has never been able to separate himself from “the long periods of time”.
    Let's define Punctuated Equilibrium;
    Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and rapid (on a geologic time scale) events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one.
    and

    Evolution;
    Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]
    Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Evolutionists count on "long periods of time" to affect even small changes and refinements in the organism, making it more adapted to its environment. However, there are organisms, which have barely changed in millions of years, because they live in a stable environment and are "well" adapted. In such a case any changes might make them more vulnerable and that variation would disappear quickly, where the old "tried and true" DNA would survive.

    However, some genetic mutations such as the fusion of chromosomes as I quoted before. Chromosome fusion do create an accelerated Cladogenesis. Chromosome fusion
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    I see, so since you are using Creation Ministries as your material source are you ready to come out of the closet and declare yourself to be a creationist and admit that your entire argument is based only on your religious convictions?
    Oh dear, here we go, another creationist, perhaps two if Ultimatesceptic's coyness about his or her views is indicative.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    England
    Posts
    26
    Time for me to leave this debate and move on. Thank you for all of the replies.

    It appears that the consensus view on this forum is that human evolution has not stopped.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    IMO, fundamentally there are no limits to variety except where the environment does not allow for variety. You may want to have a peek at the "water bear" and marvel at its ability to survive.

    You will have to explain the meaning of that first sentence.
    “no limits to variety except where the environment does not allow for variety”
    What?

    “water bear” I can just see the straw man developing here… there is variety therefore there is evolution. I could go on and on about the complexity of the eye or the Cambrian explosion… Where are you going with this?


    Variety occurs primarily very gradually, again through natural selection of those best adapted to the environment. In the Galapagos lives a single species of field mouse, but it only exhibits two colors, dark grey and muddy brownish (note, mice usually come in many colors). The dark haired mouse lives in the rocks while the brown variety lives in the open field. One can readily see that these two colors offer the most protection for each in their particular environment, but the dark haired mouse did not become dark in order to hide better on the dark colored rocks, but are the only surviving color in that particular rocky area, because they were dark colored.



    This is just adaptation to selective pressure. Light mouse get’s eaten on black rock. A concentration of alleles by Mendelian inheritance. What is your point?


    However, some genetic mutations such as the fusion of chromosomes as I quoted before. Chromosome fusion do create an accelerated Cladogenesis. Chromosome fusion



    “A gene fusion may be created when the translocation joins two otherwise-separated genes’
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromo...ole_in_disease



    This by the way is a form of genetic mutation “Chromosomal translocation” and is implicated in the following genetic disease… also from same wiki…


    Cancer: Several forms of cancer are caused by acquired translocations (as opposed to those present from conception); this has been described mainly in leukemia (acute myelogenous leukemia and chronic myelogenous leukemia). Translocations have also been described in solid malignancies such as Ewing's sarcoma.

    • Infertility: One of the would-be parents carries a balanced translocation, where the parent is asymptomatic but conceived fetuses are not viable.
    • Down syndrome is caused in a minority (5% or less) of cases by a Robertsonian translocation of the chromosome 21 long arm onto the long arm of chromosome 14.[5]


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromo...ole_in_disease


    In most cases it is of no benefit to the organism. What I think you are referring to is the fusion of Chromosome 2 in humans. By the way two hominids would have to have the exact mutation described in your article and successfully mate to produce a viable offspring. An individual with the mutation mating with a individual without the mutation would not produce an offspring. They do not mention the probability that two individuals (male and female) would have that exact mutation in the same population in the same place at the same time. Also the HOX d gene is located on chromosome number 2 in humans. This gene is highly sensitive to any damaging mutations because it is responsible for the location of extremities in humans.
    By the way I do not know of any similar ape mutation being recorded… I last checked 3 years ago.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Wait Wait…. we are just getting to the good stuff…


    And I have not finished shining a true light on the opposing arguments.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,827
    Quote Originally Posted by ultimatesceptic View Post
    It appears that the consensus view on this forum is that human evolution has not stopped.
    You've phrased that incorrectly.
    The consensus view in science is that it has not stopped.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by ultimatesceptic View Post
    Time for me to leave this debate and move on. Thank you for all of the replies.

    It appears that the consensus view on this forum is that human evolution has not stopped.
    Like rust evolution never sleeps. Bye for now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by ultimatesceptic View Post
    Time for me to leave this debate and move on. Thank you for all of the replies.

    It appears that the consensus view on this forum is that human evolution has not stopped.
    Correct. The one main difference is that humans carry their sick and wounded, similar to whales and elephants. Our advantage is that we use artificial methods to extend life, even for humans who would otherwise die from their disease. Example, diabetes. People with diabetes would surely die if no insulin was available. We are in fact "cheating natural selection", by passing on DNA which is vulnerable to the chemical imbalance of diabetes.
    Statistics:


    Key facts:

    347 million people worldwide have diabetes* (1).
    In 2004, an estimated 3.4 million people died from consequences of high fasting blood sugar (2).
    More than 80% of diabetes deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries (3).
    WHO projects that diabetes will be the 7th leading cause of death in 2030 (4).
    Healthy diet, regular physical activity, maintaining a normal body weight and avoiding tobacco use can prevent or delay the onset of type 2 diabetes.

    What is diabetes?

    Diabetes is a chronic disease that occurs either when the pancreas does not produce enough insulin or when the body cannot effectively use the insulin it produces. Insulin is a hormone that regulates blood sugar. Hyperglycaemia, or raised blood sugar, is a common effect of uncontrolled diabetes and over time leads to serious damage to many of the body's systems, especially the nerves and blood vessels.
    347 million people worldwide have diabetes. In 2004, an estimated 3.4 million people died from consequences of fasting high blood sugar. A similar number of deaths has been estimated for 2010. More than 80% of diabetes deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries.
    WHO | Diabetes

    Note that no animal other than humans have diabetes. Those who did are all extinct, by means of natural selection.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    @GTCethos; I was going to answer your post one pararagraph at the time, but then realized that all you said in that lenghty response is that evolution, mutation, natural selection, punctuated equilibrium, cladogenesis are all true and disprove "perfect creation", intelligent design, and "irreducible complexity".

    And yes, by all means let's discuss the development of the eye and why cave dwelling fishes are blind, while eagles have remarkably sharp vision. I should like to hear your explanation for these evolutionary proofs. An answer like, "They were made that way" just won't do!

    And lastly, it is you who is using straw man arguments, based on a (ridiculous) notion of a "supernatural, metaphysical, but motivated intelligent causality for which not a shred of evidence exists, and from what science knows, is IMPOSSIBLe in accordance with Natural laws.

    Your rejection of natural laws and functions discovered by science speaks volumes as to your singular mindset. I call it Divine Myopia. But as long as you do not engage in "holy war", you are welcome to your beliefs.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by ultimatesceptic View Post
    To clarify, I have not stated that I either am or am not a creationist. Also, I did not start this post with the intention of sparking a debate about whether or not evolution is factual. I had read elsewhere that human evolution had stopped, and I felt that this was illogical. I wanted some second opinions. I now have them.


    Creationist or not. It doesn't really matter.

    What we worry about on this forum is people with an agenda, because science is not supposed to have an agenda. It often gets accused of having an agenda, such as stamping out religion, or making the world conform to a liberal political structure.... but really those accusations are usually just paranoid. And perhaps a bit of projection of the accuser's own motives. (Those who distrust the most are often the ones who are lying themselves.)

    exchemist, I accept that my coding is not identical to my parents' coding, but I believe I have half of my father's code mixed with half of my mother's. By contrast, surely evolution would need new coding at some point.
    This is not exactly correct, but not totally wrong either. You inherit a lot of your genes from your parents' ancestors. Some traits may stay in your DNA but not manifest in you.

    By this, I mean you may inherit traits neither of your parents possess, but which a grandparent or great grand parent possessed. There is also a bit of random mutation, because it's impossible to make an absolutely perfect copy of something as complicated as a DNA strand.

    An example would be that one of my sisters and one of my brothers has blond hair. Neither of my parents have blond hair. However my grandmother on my mother's side of the family has blond hair.


    For example, my parents do not have wings. Neither do I. If I marry a woman who also does not have wings, then surely the only way our children could have wings is if they acquire coding which neither I nor my wife possess. Therefore evolution presumably requires at some point or another for mutations to occur which introduce new, non-inherited coding.
    Yeah. Even a creationist would have to concede that the sum of the traits present in the human race today are not just variations on the traits of Adam and Eve.

    There is no way two people could contain all of that variety.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    @Kojax,
    There is no way two people could contain all of that variety
    I have a problem with that statement. Forget Adam and Eve for the moment.

    a)
    All living organisms store genetic information using the same molecules — DNA and RNA. Written in the genetic code of these molecules is compelling evidence of the shared ancestry of all living things.
    Living things share common genes :: DNA from the Beginning

    b); The first modern human was created by a genetic mutation from a common hominid ancestor. This was not a result of inheritance, but a fortunate mistake in the copying process of "normal" chromosomes. (link provided previously).

    c); The Cuttlefish, one of the most sophisticated organisms on earth evolved from a simple mollusk (slug).

    d); The information for (near) infinite variety is contained in the DNA and RNA of all living things. Considering the possible exponential combinations possible, IMO. an almost infinite variety of results can be achieved, with the qualification that most mutative combinations do not yield viable offspring, but that does not negate the ability for almost limitless variety. Just look around and see the result of possibly a single mutation very early on in the development of living organisms. The tree of life (already recognized and illustrated by Darwin) is an pretty good analysis of how the process worked and continues to function.
    All living organisms are dependent on three types of very large molecules for essentially all of their biological functions. These molecules are DNA, RNA and proteins, and are classified as biological macromolecules.[1] Without DNA, RNA and proteins, no known forms of life could exist. This is because each molecule plays an indispensable role in biology.[2] DNA is an informational macromolecule that encodes the complete set of instructions (the genome) that are required to assemble, maintain, and reproduce every living organism.[3] Proteins are responsible for catalyzing the myriad biochemical reactions that are required to provide food and energy for every organism, and to carry out all of the additional functions of any given organism, for example movement, neural function, vision, or photosynthesis.[4] RNA is multifunctional, but its primary responsibility is to make proteins, according to the instructions encoded within a cell’s DNA. The simple summary is that DNA makes RNA, and then RNA makes proteins
    DNA, RNA and proteins: The three essential macromolecules of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    And to explain how difficult it is to duplicate cells with different functions without an occasional "drift" this might be of interest.
    Drew Berry: Animations of unseeable biology | Talk Video | TED.com
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Where have I stated anything about God in this post? I am only using the accepted science.

    This is not exactly correct, but not totally wrong either. You inherit a lot of your genes from your parents' ancestors. Some traits may stay in your DNA but not manifest in you.


    Actually there are about 60 mutations measured in every offspring. About 1/3 per generation of those needed to change a hominid into a human with a divergence of 1.23% of 5 million years. But of course that 1.23% should actually be more like 12% because most of the genetic difference is in the regulatory code of DNA (not mentioned in the chimp DNA mapping). So it is impossible to change a hominid into a man given a 5 million year split from a supposed common ancestor with the chimp. I have done the math myself and I calculated with the best case scenario that it would take about 33 million years (if you like I could post the calculations). At that point the paradigm of evolution falls apart just considering the secular science. But it seems no one here is interested in the details.


    Yeah. Even a creationist would have to concede that the sum of the traits present in the human race today are not just variations on the traits of Adam and Eve.



    Actually humanity has the calculated effective population of about 10 thousand given a total population of about 7 billion. That fact is remarkable and demonstrates a young genome and very close ties to recent common parents.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    By the way Write4u did anyone tell you that molecule to man is NOT part of the evolution paradigm. It is embarrassing sometimes that Creationists know more about evolution than evolutionists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Where have I stated anything about God in this post? I am only using the accepted science.

    This is not exactly correct, but not totally wrong either. You inherit a lot of your genes from your parents' ancestors. Some traits may stay in your DNA but not manifest in you.


    [COLOR=#323333][FONT=Arial]Actually there are about 60 mutations measured in every offspring. About 1/3 per generation of those needed to change a hominid into a human with a divergence of 1.23% from a chimp in 5 million years. But of course that 1.23% should actually be more like 12% because most of the genetic difference is in the regulatory code of DNA (not mentioned in the chimp DNA mapping). So it is impossible to change a hominid into a man given a 5 million year split from a supposed common ancestor with the chimp. I have done the math myself and I calculated with the best case scenario that it would take about 33 million years (if you like I could post the calculations). At that point the paradigm of evolution falls apart just considering the secular science. But it seems no one here is interested in the details.
    That is because you are leaving out a few minor details in the evolution of the earth and life on earth, which makes your math just an exercise in futility. Some 90% of all living things that have ever existed are now extinct and you want to make mathematically calculations?
    It would take a little more than the math you offered but DID NOT post. Why is that? I am sure the real scientists here would be very interested.

    And how long does it take for a "savant" (with some extraordinary trait) to evolve? And why do we still have unused non-human DNA?
    I should like to see the math on that.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Actually there are about 60 mutations measured in every offspring. ......
    Where, who by and how was this measured?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    By the way Write4u did anyone tell you that molecule to man is NOT part of the evolution paradigm. It is embarrassing sometimes that Creationists know more about evolution than evolutionists.
    Really, it is embarrassing to know that Evolutionists know more about current religious views on evolution than Creationists.
    Pope John Paul II, on the 23rd of October, 1996, while speaking to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences plenary session at the Vatican, declared the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin to be fact, tacitly acknowledging that man evolved from the apes, and reducing the biblical account of Genesis to that of mere fable!
    Pope John Paul II Declares Evolution to be Fact!

    Are you finally declaring yourself a Creationist? You should have no problem arguing that one on a Creationist site..

    As long as you cling to the notion of Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity, you will never understand the EVOLUTION of the universe and ALL that is in it, including humans.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Are you finally declaring yourself a Creationist? (did you finally figure that out?) You should have no problem arguing that one on a Creationist site..


    As long as you cling to the notion of Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity, you will never understand the EVOLUTION of the universe and ALL that is in it, including humans.


    Here is a link to help you out on evolution. It is from the NCSE defiantly not friendly to creationism.


    it is not a "theory of origins" about how life began
    http://ncse.com/evolution



    When did I ever “cling to the notion of Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity” anywhere in this thread. I only use the secular science principles to argue against evolution. Unfortunately some of this material is buried deep in the papers so on occasion I might quote some other resource that has uncovered it (sometimes creation web sites).


    Let me clue you into why I am on this forum. I wish to learn more… I as soon lose an argument than win one and learn nothing. Let’s talk verifiable science and learn together.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Where, who by and how was this measured?



    Here is the site:
    http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/06/hyper-human-mutations-60-new-mutations-in-each-genome.html


    In locating this site I ran across something…
    Apparently my basis of calculation for divergence time, I used over 3 years ago, is still very much in front of science. Given how fast science moves this was a surprise. I dusted off may calculations and still offer them up for what it is worth… Just ask.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Where, who by and how was this measured?



    Here is the site:
    http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/06/hyper-human-mutations-60-new-mutations-in-each-genome.html


    In locating this site I ran across something…
    Apparently my basis of calculation for divergence time, I used over 3 years ago, is still very much in front of science. Given how fast science moves this was a surprise. I dusted off may calculations and still offer them up for what it is worth… Just ask.
    That mutation rate still seems rather a lot. It could be right but unfortunately they are not revealing who did the study and how it was done. Was the experiment performed on flies and then multiplied up to the human genome?
    If you know where the original research comes from please let the forum know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Write4U,
    Are you finally declaring yourself a Creationist?
    GTCethos,
    (did you finally figure that out?)
    No, I figured that early on, but i was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
    W4U
    As long as you cling to the notion of Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity, you will never understand the EVOLUTION of the universe and ALL that is in it, including humans.
    GTCethos,
    Let me clue you into why I am on this forum. I wish to learn more… I as soon lose an argument than win one and learn nothing. Let’s talk verifiable science and learn together.
    As a layperson myself I am here also to learn. This why, when I make a statement I back it up with the source. This may still be incorrect but a "learned fellow" will most often respond.
    OTOH, you make statements and even invoke mathematics, without any reference to any source, or, if you have a novel idea about the subject, you have not given a shred of evidence of your personal views on this subject.

    I could understand your statements as probative, but when you start engaging in ad hominem, such as
    GTCethos,
    By the way Write4u did anyone tell you that molecule to man is NOT part of the evolution paradigm. It is embarrassing sometimes that Creationists know more about evolution than evolutionists.
    , you deserve my analogy calling you wrong.

    So, we have established that you ARE a Creationist. Perhaps you may not see the connection between Creationism and Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity, but by definition they are very much connected to the concept of Creationism.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    By the way Write4u did anyone tell you that molecule to man is NOT part of the evolution paradigm. It is embarrassing sometimes that Creationists know more about evolution than evolutionists.
    Where did Write4U mention "molecule to man"? Seems to me he or she was simply talking about common ancestry.

    "Molecule to man" seems to be a phrase that creationists like but is not much used by scientists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    By the way Write4u did anyone tell you that molecule to man is NOT part of the evolution paradigm. It is embarrassing sometimes that Creationists know more about evolution than evolutionists.
    Really, it is embarrassing to know that Evolutionists know more about current religious views on evolution than Creationists.
    Pope John Paul II, on the 23rd of October, 1996, while speaking to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences plenary session at the Vatican, declared the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin to be fact, tacitly acknowledging that man evolved from the apes, and reducing the biblical account of Genesis to that of mere fable!
    Pope John Paul II Declares Evolution to be Fact!

    Are you finally declaring yourself a Creationist? You should have no problem arguing that one on a Creationist site..

    As long as you cling to the notion of Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity, you will never understand the EVOLUTION of the universe and ALL that is in it, including humans.
    Yes, but quoting the Pope is unlikely to be persuasive, as if he's a creationist he is most unlikely to be a Catholic. Nearly all creationists are extreme Protestants who frequently view the Catholic Church as the "Antichrist", or at any rate not proper Christians.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    By the way Write4u did anyone tell you that molecule to man is NOT part of the evolution paradigm. It is embarrassing sometimes that Creationists know more about evolution than evolutionists.
    Really, it is embarrassing to know that Evolutionists know more about current religious views on evolution than Creationists.
    Pope John Paul II, on the 23rd of October, 1996, while speaking to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences plenary session at the Vatican, declared the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin to be fact, tacitly acknowledging that man evolved from the apes, and reducing the biblical account of Genesis to that of mere fable!
    Pope John Paul II Declares Evolution to be Fact!

    Are you finally declaring yourself a Creationist? You should have no problem arguing that one on a Creationist site..

    As long as you cling to the notion of Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity, you will never understand the EVOLUTION of the universe and ALL that is in it, including humans.
    Yes, but quoting the Pope is unlikely to be persuasive, as if he's a creationist he is most unlikely to be a Catholic. Nearly all creationists are extreme Protestants who frequently view the Catholic Church as the "Antichrist", or at any rate not proper Christians.
    I understand but ii was not the pope who came to this statement. The Holy See (Vatican) has a very advanced science department. But the facts forced them to advise the Pope that Evolution was fact. The evidence was just too overwhelming that furter resistance to science in this respect was futile.
    The implications of this admission turn entire sections of the bible on its head. Then to have science confirm the Pope's statement may not affect the average believer but must have a profound impact on the clergy itself.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    By the way Write4u did anyone tell you that molecule to man is NOT part of the evolution paradigm. It is embarrassing sometimes that Creationists know more about evolution than evolutionists.
    Really, it is embarrassing to know that Evolutionists know more about current religious views on evolution than Creationists.
    Pope John Paul II, on the 23rd of October, 1996, while speaking to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences plenary session at the Vatican, declared the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin to be fact, tacitly acknowledging that man evolved from the apes, and reducing the biblical account of Genesis to that of mere fable!
    Pope John Paul II Declares Evolution to be Fact!

    Are you finally declaring yourself a Creationist? You should have no problem arguing that one on a Creationist site..

    As long as you cling to the notion of Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity, you will never understand the EVOLUTION of the universe and ALL that is in it, including humans.
    Yes, but quoting the Pope is unlikely to be persuasive, as if he's a creationist he is most unlikely to be a Catholic. Nearly all creationists are extreme Protestants who frequently view the Catholic Church as the "Antichrist", or at any rate not proper Christians.
    I understand but ii was not the pope who came to this statement. The Holy See (Vatican) has a very advanced science department. But the facts forced them to advise the Pope that Evolution was fact. The evidence was just too overwhelming that furter resistance to science in this respect was futile.
    The implications of this admission turn entire sections of the bible on its head. Then to have science confirm the Pope's statement may not affect the average believer but must have a profound impact on the clergy itself.
    Not really. Educated Catholics, including the hierarchy, have long realised the likely validity of the theory of evolution. The Catholic Church has for centuries treated the Old and New Testaments differently. The New, being about the life and works of Christ, is pretty much taken verbatim but the Old has always been recognised as largely figurative and requiring interpretation. In fact, the interpretation of the Bible for the laity has been a large part of the raison d'etre of the hierarchy. Genesis has not been taken literally for ages. Even Augustine of Hippo in about 400AD realised the problems with it. Regarding c.19th and c.20th science, I have read some of the lectures given in Rome by Cardinal Wiseman, in the 1840s, about how to reconcile Genesis with the timescales put forward by the (then) new science of geology. This was some 20 years before Origin of Species. And don't forget that there have been flourishing theology departments at the major universities of Catholic Europe for far longer than there have been science departments. So the scientific ideas will not have come as a surprise and theology has evolved (as it were!) to accommodate them. So I don't think for a moment this would have been a shock to the clergy, or at any rate not to the educated ones. The same argument applies, more or less, to Anglican (Episcopalian), Methodists and Scots Presbyterians.

    With fundamentalist Protestants, however, the story is different. They threw out the hierarchical interpretation of the bible, in an attempt (understandable - given the corrupt state of the church at the Reformation) to get back to basics. The snag is that this forces them to derive all their beliefs directly from the words of the bible, without the benefit of any scholarship or specialist thinkers to interpret it sensibly. Each pastor is effectively in the position of reinventing the wheel himself. Often this is rather badly done, unsurprisingly. Creationism results from a doctrine of the Fall and the Atonement that is based on a literal reading of Genesis. It is essentially a fundamentalist Protestant phenomenon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Even in Darwin's time the idea of evolution was not a problem. If you check you will find evolution was well accepted. They were quite well aware of the effects of selective breeding.
    The problem was they could not figure out how evolution worked, what caused natural evolution to happen.
    What Darwin did was remove the idea of intentionality as the driving force of evolution and substituted random variations and natural selection instead.

    Edit: OK, maybe not really well accepted, but at least known.

    Early Concepts of Evolution: Jean Baptiste Lamarck
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Even in Darwin's time the idea of evolution was not a problem. If you check you will find evolution was well accepted. They were quite well aware of the effects of selective breeding.
    The problem was they could not figure out how evolution worked, what caused natural evolution to happen.
    What Darwin did was remove the idea of intentionality as the driving force of evolution and substituted random variations and natural selection instead.

    Edit: OK, maybe not really well accepted, but at least known.

    Early Concepts of Evolution: Jean Baptiste Lamarck
    Didn't he also introduce the idea of common ancestry, though? That came as an unpleasant - even insulting - shock to traditionalists who had been used to thinking of Man as being qualitatively different from the animals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Yes, but quoting the Pope is unlikely to be persuasive, as if he's a creationist he is most unlikely to be a Catholic. Nearly all creationists are extreme Protestants who frequently view the Catholic Church as the "Antichrist", or at any rate not proper Christians.



    You have captured me utterly… except the AntiChrist part.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    I could understand your statements as probative, but when you start engaging in ad hominem, such asW4U…



    My unconditional apology up front.


    Truthfully I have already learned from your posts (I do read them carefully and visit the links). kudos…


    I do speak sometimes in public places like schools and debate venues so I know all about ad hominem (up close and personal).


    Personally, I am not involved with “Intelligent design” and my coworkers are usually quick to divorce themselves of the movement. It might surprise you that many creationists are not comfortable with the proposition.


    I spend many hours in researching the material. I used to spend at least 20 hours a week reading the published science but I have lightened up.


    Asking up front if you would like to see the work is a consideration for the audience. I am always board to tears when others go on and on with dry equations that I could not care less about. I did not receive that request so consider yourself spared.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    That mutation rate still seems rather a lot. It could be right but unfortunately they are not revealing who did the study and how it was done. Was the experiment performed on flies and then multiplied up to the human genome?
    If you know where the original research comes from please let the forum know.


    Actually the number is several years old and updated between 60 and 85. Just google (it is all over the web)… The number was sought to verify a prediction.

    The evolutionists making the prediction actually calculated the divergent mutation rate (175 mutations per generation and 4.5 million years with a calculated “U” of 4.1 and loading the human genome to 99%) between chimps and humans. Here it is:
    Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans


    It did not turn out to be a reasonable expectation. Even worse now because the chimp human similarity is being downgraded with better research.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    @Kojax,
    There is no way two people could contain all of that variety
    I have a problem with that statement. Forget Adam and Eve for the moment.

    a)
    All living organisms store genetic information using the same molecules — DNA and RNA. Written in the genetic code of these molecules is compelling evidence of the shared ancestry of all living things.
    Living things share common genes :: DNA from the Beginning

    b); The first modern human was created by a genetic mutation from a common hominid ancestor. This was not a result of inheritance, but a fortunate mistake in the copying process of "normal" chromosomes. (link provided previously).


    Yeah. Clearly our DNA contains information beyond what our ancestors' DNA contained. The environment selects against some of the randomness - which actually amounts to imparting new information.

    It's kind of like how most stone statues start out as big blocks of uninteresting stone, but then a sculptor takes a chisel and chisels away a lot of that stone to carve out an image that looks like something interesting. The act of chiseling out (selecting against) some of the stone adds new information to the statue, to give it discernible features that weren't present when the sculptor started.

    Our DNA is like a statue that keeps growing new rock and keeps getting chiseled back into a statue again. The new information to keep up with decay isn't coming from nowhere. It is coming from the environment.

    So even if Adam and Eve were real, modern humans would still have a lot of DNA that doesn't come from them.


    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Where, who by and how was this measured?



    Here is the site:
    http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/06/hyper-human-mutations-60-new-mutations-in-each-genome.html


    In locating this site I ran across something…
    Apparently my basis of calculation for divergence time, I used over 3 years ago, is still very much in front of science. Given how fast science moves this was a surprise. I dusted off may calculations and still offer them up for what it is worth… Just ask.

    What makes you think that there would be a set speed?

    Drift happens fastest when the environment selects FOR a new trait, rather than only against. For example, if all animals were living in the water, but a large amount of plants were starting to flourish in shallow tide pools. The fish with fins that let it enter those tide pools to eat the plants, and then escape back out into the water is going to get access to a lot of food.

    If most of the fish out in the water are failing to reproduce 99% of the time (so the few who do reproduce just lay lots and lots of eggs, in hopes that one will mature and reproduce.) But the fish who can enter the tide pool and leave again has a 50% chance to mature and reproduce (still could get eaten by a predator). How long do you think it would take for a new breed of fish to emerge that has hooks in its frontal fins that enable it to crawl into and out of tide pools?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    I always understood that species are rated by their similarities, not their differences. This is why the hominid family contains 4 species (listed previously).
    Hominids have been around on Earth for about 7 million years. Around six million years ago, the evolutionary line which gave rise to humans separated from the chimpanzees. In order of genetic relatedness to humans: chimps are closest, followed by gorillas, then orangutans. All hominids have at least 97% genetic similarity to modern humans.
    What are Hominids? (with pictures)

    And I found this, but have not yet been able to draw any conclusions from the information, which I am not familiar with. But it may be pertinent to the discussion.
    Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    p.s. GTCethos, apology heartily accepted. Even as we seem to be at opposites in this thread, I also have learned from your contribution to the discussion.

    btw. Can you expand on your view of Creationism while denying Inteligent Design. How would that work? And there is still "Irreducible Complexity" Would the act of creation of an entire species (kinds), not automatically lead to the conclusion of Irreducible Complexity, which has been disproven in the famous court case of the Kitzmiller-Dover Trial. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohd5uqzlwsU
    Last edited by Write4U; August 19th, 2014 at 02:56 AM.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    As alittle aside, below is an extraordinary musical video of interaction between species which will touch your heart, I guarantee it.
    what a wonderful world - toots thielemans & kenny werner - YouTube
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I always understood that species are rated by their similarities, not their differences. This is why the hominid family contains 4 species (listed previously).
    Hominids have been around on Earth for about 7 million years. Around six million years ago, the evolutionary line which gave rise to humans separated from the chimpanzees. In order of genetic relatedness to humans: chimps are closest, followed by gorillas, then orangutans. All hominids have at least 97% genetic similarity to modern humans.
    What are Hominids? (with pictures)
    I always thought species was defined by the ability to produce viable offspring. If a human and a chimp attempt to mate, the female of the pair will not very likely get pregnant.

    I'm pretty sure that is all the criteria there is. Mules push the envelope. Male donkey + female horse = infertile mule.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I always understood that species are rated by their similarities, not their differences. This is why the hominid family contains 4 species (listed previously).
    Hominids have been around on Earth for about 7 million years. Around six million years ago, the evolutionary line which gave rise to humans separated from the chimpanzees. In order of genetic relatedness to humans: chimps are closest, followed by gorillas, then orangutans. All hominids have at least 97% genetic similarity to modern humans.
    What are Hominids? (with pictures)
    I always thought species was defined by the ability to produce viable offspring. If a human and a chimp attempt to mate, the female of the pair will not very likely get pregnant.

    I'm pretty sure that is all the criteria there is. Mules push the envelope. Male donkey + female horse = infertile mule.
    See also "ring species" :Ring species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    for an illustration of what happens at the boundary of single species vs. multiple species.

    But it is true that there are only 4 of these cases and some of these seem too complex to be fully understood.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    kojax…Yeah. Clearly our DNA contains information beyond what our ancestors' DNA contained. The environment selects against some of the randomness - which actually amounts to imparting new information.



    This statement is absolutely incorrect. Complex information cannot arise spontaneously from a random system (drift). All beneficial adaption that is seen in organisms is because of promoter activation or open reading frame change, not spontaneous new genes or proteins. This principle is described in a macro system by entropy (lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder (any dictionary).


    Our DNA is like a statue that keeps growing new rock and keeps getting chiseled back into a statue again. The new information to keep up with decay isn't coming from nowhere. It is coming from the environment.



    Anecdotal…


    What makes you think that there would be a set speed?



    Not me but scientists. Look up SNP (single-nucleotide polymorphism) in the genome. It is the backbone of a category of evolution paradigm.



    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,658
    [QUOTE=GTCethos;586915]
    kojax…Yeah. Clearly our DNA contains information beyond what our ancestors' DNA contained. The environment selects against some of the randomness - which actually amounts to imparting new information.



    This statement is absolutely incorrect. Complex information cannot arise spontaneously from a random system (drift). All beneficial adaption that is seen in organisms is because of promoter activation or open reading frame change, not spontaneous new genes or proteins. This principle is described in a macro system by entropy (lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder (any dictionary).

    [QUOTE=GTCethos;586915]


    I don't think you understand the thermodynamics of a population of living organisms. There is no reason why order cannot spontaneously increase in part of a thermodynamic system. If it could not, water could never freeze.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    [QUOTE=exchemist;586906]
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I always understood that species are rated by their similarities, not their differences. This is why the hominid family contains 4 species (listed previously).
    Hominids have been around on Earth for about 7 million years. Around six million years ago, the evolutionary line which gave rise to humans separated from the chimpanzees. In order of genetic relatedness to humans: chimps are closest, followed by gorillas, then orangutans. All hominids have at least 97% genetic similarity to modern humans.
    What are Hominids? (with pictures)
    I always thought species was defined by the ability to produce viable offspring. If a human and a chimp attempt to mate, the female of the pair will not very likely get pregnant.

    I'm pretty sure that is all the criteria there is. Mules push the envelope. Male donkey + female horse = infertile mule.
    You are right, what I should have said is "genus" which is based on "similarities" from which speciation is derived. Species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    From what I understand, the genus of an organism is the first word of the identifier and is Capitalised, while the actual species is the second word in the identifier and is always written in lower case letters (underlined when handwritten.
    See also "ring species" :Ring species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for an illustration of what happens at the boundary of single species vs. multiple species.
    Thanks for the link.

    Ring Species,
    Problem of definition[edit]
    Ring species also present an interesting case of the species problem, for those who seek to divide the living world into discrete species. After all, all that distinguishes a ring species from two separate species is the existence of the connecting populations - if enough of the connecting populations within the ring perish to sever the breeding connection, the ring species' distal populations will be recognized as two distinct species.

    The problem, then, is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours). Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often thought to be.
    Ring species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
    But it is true that there are only 4 of these cases (in hominids) and some of these seem too complex to be fully understood.
    Yes, the more I read about this the more complex the process seems to become.
    Hybrid (biology)

    From Wikipedia, Hybrid.

    In biology a hybrid is an offspring of two animals or plants of different races, breeds, varieties, species, or genera. Using genetics terminology, it may be defined as follows.[2]

    1.In general usage, hybrid is synonymous with heterozygous: any offspring resulting from the breeding of two genetically distinct individuals
    2.a genetic hybrid carries two different alleles of the same gene
    3.a structural hybrid results from the fusion of gametes that have differing structure in at least one chromosome, as a result of structural abnormalities
    4.a numerical hybrid results from the fusion of gametes having different haploid numbers of chromosomes
    5.a permanent hybrid is a situation where only the heterozygous genotype occurs, because all homozygous combinations are lethal.


    From a taxonomic perspective, hybrid refers to:

    1.Offspring resulting from the interbreeding between two animal species or plant species.[3] See also hybrid speciation.
    2.Hybrids between different subspecies within a species (such as between the Bengal tiger and Siberian tiger) are known as intra-specific hybrids. Hybrids between different species within the same genus (such as between lions and tigers) are sometimes known as interspecific hybrids or crosses. Hybrids between different genera (such as between sheep and goats) are known as intergeneric hybrids. Extremely rare interfamilial hybrids have been known to occur (such as the guineafowl hybrids).[4] No interordinal (between different orders) animal hybrids are known.
    3.The third type of hybrid consists of crosses between populations, breeds or cultivars within a single species. This meaning is often used in plant and animal breeding, where hybrids are commonly produced and selected because they have desirable characteristics not found or inconsistently present in the parent individuals or populations. This flow of genetic material between populations or races is often called hybridization.
    Hybrid (biology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It seems Nature tries to strive for variety in all possible ways. (dog humping a knee). While most offspring are not viable in larger complex organisms, hybridizationt seems to be a common practice in plant biology.

    Fascinating stuff.
    Last edited by Write4U; August 19th, 2014 at 06:01 PM.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    I don't think you understand the thermodynamics of a population of living organisms. There is no reason why order cannot spontaneously increase in part of a thermodynamic system. If it could not, water could never freeze.



    I am not being facetious here. What is the increase of information in the ice? Not to say it is not there but how would it be proven or calculated. My guess, off the cuff, is to show a reduction in Shannon entropy in the organization of water molecules. Seems reasonable but it is beyond my ambition.


    A good primer here (Shannon entropy) though I disagree with the conclushions of most of this site ( Shannon entropy applied - The Panda's Thumb).


    P.S. if anyone want’s to discuss anything from this site I will be happy to contribute.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,627
    The information increase is the formation of both order and additional molecular bonds between the individual water molecules resulting in a structured crystalline lattus that liquid water does not have.

    Similarly, transcription errors during meosis can result in new mutations, or genomic expressions in an organism, and if the mutation is not detrimental to the organism it can be passed on to the offspring and thorough future generations of a population.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Note that no animal other than humans have diabetes. Those who did are all extinct, by means of natural selection.
    Other animals get diabetes, including non human primates, sheep, pigs, dogs and cats
    Diabetes mellitus
    Diabetes Mellitus in Veterinary Medicine: Nonhuman Primates and Other Animal Models in Diabetes Research

    Vulnerability to diabetes is probably an example of a gene that can cause disease but has survived because it also has benefits in some circumstances.
    Perhaps we and other animals just don't have it as fine tuned as the dolphins:
    Dolphins could hold the key to diabetes (because they can switch condition on and off) | Mail Online


    "In bottlenose dolphins, the condition appears to have evolved as a useful way of coping with food shortages. When they are fasting, they make themselves-insulin resistant. Glucose is not removed from the blood and their brains continue to be supplied with vital energy. When food is available, they switch off their insulin resistance and blood sugar levels are controlled again."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Note that no animal other than humans have diabetes. Those who did are all extinct, by means of natural selection.
    Other animals get diabetes, including non human primates, sheep, pigs, dogs and cats
    Diabetes mellitus
    Diabetes Mellitus in Veterinary Medicine: Nonhuman Primates and Other Animal Models in Diabetes Research

    Vulnerability to diabetes is probably an example of a gene that can cause disease but has survived because it also has benefits in some circumstances.
    Perhaps we and other animals just don't have it as fine tuned as the dolphins:
    Dolphins could hold the key to diabetes (because they can switch condition on and off) | Mail Online


    "In bottlenose dolphins, the condition appears to have evolved as a useful way of coping with food shortages. When they are fasting, they make themselves-insulin resistant. Glucose is not removed from the blood and their brains continue to be supplied with vital energy. When food is available, they switch off their insulin resistance and blood sugar levels are controlled again."
    Thank you for that correction and the additional details. I am always eager to learn and realize I need to think a little deeper before making sweeping statements, as I did.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Similarly, transcription errors during meosis can result in new mutations, or genomic expressions in an organism, and if the mutation is not detrimental to the organism it can be passed on to the offspring and thorough future generations of a population.



    Haldane was an evolutionist who described mathematically the number of beneficial mutations fixed in a sexually reproducing population. If I recall it was 1 beneficial mutation per 300 generations. In the case of man since divergence it would only be about 1,660 beneficial mutation fixed in 4.5 million years. Doing the math I get about 1500 fixed mutations, maybe they assumed 5 million years?


    Do you think 1,660 mutations account for the difference between men and chimps?


    The order you claim in water to ice would be caused by hydrogen bonding? If so hydrogen bonding is the cause of increased order and not random processes?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Similarly, transcription errors during meosis can result in new mutations, or genomic expressions in an organism, and if the mutation is not detrimental to the organism it can be passed on to the offspring and thorough future generations of a population.



    Haldane was an evolutionist who described mathematically the number of beneficial mutations fixed in a sexually reproducing population. If I recall it was 1 beneficial mutation per 300 generations. In the case of man since divergence it would only be about 1,660 beneficial mutation fixed in 4.5 million years. Doing the math I get about 1500 fixed mutations, maybe they assumed 5 million years?


    Do you think 1,660 mutations account for the difference between men and chimps?


    The order you claim in water to ice would be caused by hydrogen bonding? If so hydrogen bonding is the cause of increased order and not random processes?
    The increase in order science "claims" (!) in ice is measured by the decrease in entropy of ice when water freezes (as per S = k logW). As you may know, when a substance freezes, it gives off its Latent Heat of Fusion, the substance loses energy to the environment and the molecules settle down in a more highly ordered state than they have in the chaotic molecular motion in a liquid. The overall entropy change for the process is still positive, because the low-temperature heat given off increases the entropy of the surroundings, which more than compensates for the decrease in entropy when the crystal lattice forms. This is fairly basic chemical thermodynamics.

    In the case of water, hydrogen bonds are certainly responsible for the anomalously high intermolecular attraction between water molecules, which explains - among other things - why even though water has a molecular weight of only 18, it is liquid at room temperature instead of being a gas. Hydrogen bonds however exist in both solid and liquid phases - it is just that they are transient (constantly forming, breaking and reforming) in the liquid state, whereas in the solid they form and stay fixed, locking the molecules in an ordered pattern in the crystal.

    But all crystalline solids have an ordered pattern of molecules in the solid and all have a Latent Heat of Fusion that is given off when the crystal forms, resulting in a reduction in entropy of the crystal, compared to the liquid, in all cases. Hydrogen bonding is but one of several forms of intermolecular attraction involved in the crystallisation of solids.

    The entropy reduction in living organisms occurs during their growth from a fertilised egg. During this process, the ordered body of the organism grows, as cells multiply, each with its ordered internal structures (including its own copies of its DNA). This decrease in entropy is possible because the metabolism of the organism takes in ordered forms of energy (light and/or chemical energy from its food) andreleases low-temperature (disordered, high entropy) heat into the environment. The total entropy of any closed system encompassing the organism and its surroundings will increase, but the entropy of the chemical structures of the organism itself decreases.

    The point here is that the organism by itself itself does not constitute a closed system, as energy (and hence entropy) is exchanged with the environment. While it is true that entropy always increases in any closed system, in an open system this is not so.

    When the organism dies, its entropy again increases, as all the order in it is lost.

    If it has reproduced, a very tiny portion of that order is preserved in a fertilised egg, which can grow into a next generation organism, by the above process. If a mutation has occurred in the DNA, then maybe this will make the infinitesimal bit of preserved order in the new fertilised egg ever so fractionally greater than in the egg from which its parent grew. But it is still minuscule compared to the order in the full-grown organism and in comparison to the increases in entropy of the thermodynamic system that accompany growth, metabolism and death.

    As I hope you can see, this occurrence is by no means forbidden by thermodynamics. The big swings in order and disorder occur during the growth and death of each generation of the organism, not in the extremely slow changes in DNA during the evolutionary process.

    So it makes no sense to claim that somehow evolution violates anything in thermodynamics.

    Aside from the thermodynamic considerations themselves, there is a common sense point about all this that any layman should be able to appreciate. Is it really credible that a theory which violated basic physics would not have been torn to shreds by the scientific community, years ago? One would have to resort to conspiracy theories on a colossal scale - involving collusion by the whole worldwide community of physics and chemistry, as well as biology - to account for such a thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    The increase in order science "claims" (!) in ice is measured by the decrease in entropy of ice when water freezes (as per S = k logW). As you may know, when a substance freezes, it gives off its Latent Heat of Fusion, the substance loses energy to the environment and the molecules settle down in a more highly ordered state than they have in the chaotic molecular motion in a liquid. The overall entropy change for the process is still positive, because the low-temperature heat given off increases the entropy of the surroundings, which more than compensates for the decrease in entropy when the crystal lattice forms. This is fairly basic chemical thermodynamics.



    I understand… You can probably can tell I am not a chemist. As I suspected Shannon’s entropy was a good place to start. In general the Shannon entropy is that very form only tailored to infomation…


    I am very familiar with Shannon from my engineering days. I did research a link between Shannon entropy and thermodynamic entropy (there is a conveyance by the way). Lot’s of proofs and authorities in the field to consider. I am too tired to dig them up now (maybe later).

    The point here is that the organism by itself itself does not constitute a closed system, as energy (and hence entropy) is exchanged with the environment. While it is true that entropy always increases in any closed system, in an open system this is not so. When the organism dies, its entropy again increases, as all the order in it is lost.



    Life always implies a reduction in entropy. Proof along these lines would be the use of the principle of “maximum entropy”. As you know “maximum entropy” can describe the existence of latent information without knowing a lot about the system being studied. In particular I have seen this used in analysis and comparison of DNA information in organisms.


    As I hope you can see, this occurrence is by no means forbidden by thermodynamics. The big swings in order and disorder occur during the growth and death of each generation of the organism, not in the extremely slow changes in DNA during the evolutionary process.



    By extrapolation: You would include the idea that no information is added by slow changes in DNA?


    Aside from the thermodynamic considerations themselves, there is a common sense point about all this that any layman should be able to appreciate. Is it really credible that a theory which violated basic physics would not have been torn to shreds by the scientific community, years ago? One would have to resort to conspiracy theories on a colossal scale - involving collusion by the whole worldwide community of physics and chemistry, as well as biology - to account for such a thing.



    Be carful those statements are ARGUMENTUM AD NUMERAM .

    By the way this Post is very good.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    The increase in order science "claims" (!) in ice is measured by the decrease in entropy of ice when water freezes (as per S = k logW). As you may know, when a substance freezes, it gives off its Latent Heat of Fusion, the substance loses energy to the environment and the molecules settle down in a more highly ordered state than they have in the chaotic molecular motion in a liquid. The overall entropy change for the process is still positive, because the low-temperature heat given off increases the entropy of the surroundings, which more than compensates for the decrease in entropy when the crystal lattice forms. This is fairly basic chemical thermodynamics.



    I understand… You can probably can tell I am not a chemist. As I suspected Shannon’s entropy was a good place to start. In general the Shannon entropy is that very form only tailored to infomation…


    I am very familiar with Shannon from my engineering days. I did research a link between Shannon entropy and thermodynamic entropy (there is a conveyance by the way). Lot’s of proofs and authorities in the field to consider. I am too tired to dig them up now (maybe later).

    The point here is that the organism by itself itself does not constitute a closed system, as energy (and hence entropy) is exchanged with the environment. While it is true that entropy always increases in any closed system, in an open system this is not so. When the organism dies, its entropy again increases, as all the order in it is lost.



    Life always implies a reduction in entropy. Proof along these lines would be the use of the principle of “maximum entropy”. As you know “maximum entropy” can describe the existence of latent information without knowing a lot about the system being studied. In particular I have seen this used in analysis and comparison of DNA information in organisms.


    As I hope you can see, this occurrence is by no means forbidden by thermodynamics. The big swings in order and disorder occur during the growth and death of each generation of the organism, not in the extremely slow changes in DNA during the evolutionary process.



    By extrapolation: You would include the idea that no information is added by slow changes in DNA?


    Aside from the thermodynamic considerations themselves, there is a common sense point about all this that any layman should be able to appreciate. Is it really credible that a theory which violated basic physics would not have been torn to shreds by the scientific community, years ago? One would have to resort to conspiracy theories on a colossal scale - involving collusion by the whole worldwide community of physics and chemistry, as well as biology - to account for such a thing.



    Be carful those statements are ARGUMENTUM AD NUMERAM .

    By the way this Post is very good.


    Thanks for the thoughtful response.

    To start at the end, I make no apology for "argumentum ad numeram". Science is a complex discipline in which no one person can master it all. So we do rely on the expertise of others - in fact building on each others' work (after suitable critical evaluation), is a basic process of scholarship in any field, for the same reason. Of course it is trivially true that in logic, what almost everyone in physics, chemistry and biology agrees with may be wrong, but it seems to me still perfectly reasonable to ask whether this is likely. Don't forget that science, like so much of the common sense we use in the real world, is based not on logical proof or certainty, but on probability, that is, on likelihood.

    Regarding entropy and information, I think one has to be extremely careful in relating the two ideas in a chemical system. Entropy is essentially a measure of the number of states molecules can explore: higher entropy demotes a larger number of similar possible arrangements. If you compare the building blocks of a large molecule with the large molecule itself, there are more states the building blocks can explore because they are free to move and not connected together. So the entropy of the building blocks is greater than that of the large molecule. One can say that the large molecule is more "ordered" than the building blocks - and indeed the idea of entropy as a measure of "disorder" is familiar and widely used. I would certainly say longer the DNA molecule, the bigger the entropy difference betwen it and its constitent building blocks and, in this sense, the more "order"it can be said to contain. So yes, living organisms are more ordered than the building blocks that make them up.

    However I think relating "order" to "information" is a lot trickier. "Information", after all, is the language of knowledge, intellectual comprehension (or comprehensibility by an intellect) and communication between intellects, and not the language of particulate matter. For example, in entropy terms, there is no difference between a DNA molecule that consists entirely of coding sequences used by the organism and a DNA molecule of the same size that is made only of non-coding "junk". But we would all tend to say - in everyday parlance - that the former contains a lot of "information", while the latter contains none. So the relationship between entropy and what we commonly think of as "information" is not that one is a simple inverse of the other.

    In fact Shannon's information entropy (in which I am not expert) seems to be a very different idea from entropy in thermodynamics, as it is all to do with communication theory, not physics. As I read it, there is a connection, via statistical thermodynamics, in that if one thinks of molecular disorder in terms of the amount of missing information that would need to be provided to describe the thermodynamic system fully at the molecular level, then the more of this there is, the greater the thermodynamic entropy will be found to be. This relates back to what I was saying at the start, about the number of states the molecules can explore (on each of which information would need to be provided, in order to specify everything about it).

    When you say "life always implies a reduction in entropy", you need to be more precise. Reduction where, exactly?

    "The molecules of which a living organism is made up have lower entropy than their constituent building blocks" would be a true statement.

    But, as I have pointed out, the entropy of any closed thermodynamic system containing living organisms will always increase as the organisms grow. And this is why living organisms don't violate thermodynamics as they grow, die and reproduce, whether with mutations or not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    The increase in order science "claims" (!) in ice is measured by the decrease in entropy of ice when water freezes (as per S = k logW). As you may know, when a substance freezes, it gives off its Latent Heat of Fusion, the substance loses energy to the environment and the molecules settle down in a more highly ordered state than they have in the chaotic molecular motion in a liquid. The overall entropy change for the process is still positive, because the low-temperature heat given off increases the entropy of the surroundings, which more than compensates for the decrease in entropy when the crystal lattice forms. This is fairly basic chemical thermodynamics.



    I understand… You can probably can tell I am not a chemist. As I suspected Shannon’s entropy was a good place to start. In general the Shannon entropy is that very form only tailored to infomation…


    I am very familiar with Shannon from my engineering days. I did research a link between Shannon entropy and thermodynamic entropy (there is a conveyance by the way). Lot’s of proofs and authorities in the field to consider. I am too tired to dig them up now (maybe later).

    The point here is that the organism by itself itself does not constitute a closed system, as energy (and hence entropy) is exchanged with the environment. While it is true that entropy always increases in any closed system, in an open system this is not so. When the organism dies, its entropy again increases, as all the order in it is lost.



    Life always implies a reduction in entropy. Proof along these lines would be the use of the principle of “maximum entropy”. As you know “maximum entropy” can describe the existence of latent information without knowing a lot about the system being studied. In particular I have seen this used in analysis and comparison of DNA information in organisms.


    As I hope you can see, this occurrence is by no means forbidden by thermodynamics. The big swings in order and disorder occur during the growth and death of each generation of the organism, not in the extremely slow changes in DNA during the evolutionary process.



    By extrapolation: You would include the idea that no information is added by slow changes in DNA?


    Aside from the thermodynamic considerations themselves, there is a common sense point about all this that any layman should be able to appreciate. Is it really credible that a theory which violated basic physics would not have been torn to shreds by the scientific community, years ago? One would have to resort to conspiracy theories on a colossal scale - involving collusion by the whole worldwide community of physics and chemistry, as well as biology - to account for such a thing.



    Be carful those statements are ARGUMENTUM AD NUMERAM .

    By the way this Post is very good.


    Thanks for the thoughtful response.

    To start at the end, I make no apology for "argumentum ad numeram". Science is a complex discipline in which no one person can master it all. So we do rely on the expertise of others - in fact building on each others' work (after suitable critical evaluation), is a basic process of scholarship in any field, for the same reason. Of course it is trivially true that in logic, what almost everyone in physics, chemistry and biology agrees with may be wrong, but it seems to me still perfectly reasonable to ask whether this is likely. Don't forget that science, like so much of the common sense we use in the real world, is based not on logical proof or certainty, but on probability, that is, on likelihood.

    Regarding entropy and information, I think one has to be extremely careful in relating the two ideas in a chemical system. Entropy is essentially a measure of the number of states molecules can explore: higher entropy denotes a larger number of similar possible arrangements. If you compare the building blocks of a large molecule with the large molecule itself, there are more states the building blocks can explore because they are free to move and not connected together. So the entropy of the building blocks is greater than that of the large molecule. One can say that the large molecule is more "ordered" than the building blocks - and indeed the idea of entropy as a measure of "disorder" is familiar and widely used. I would certainly say longer the DNA molecule, the bigger the entropy difference betwen it and its constitent building blocks and, in this sense, the more "order"it can be said to contain. So yes, living organisms are more ordered than the building blocks that make them up.

    However I think relating "order" to "information" is a lot trickier. "Information", after all, is the language of knowledge, intellectual comprehension (or comprehensibility by an intellect) and communication between intellects, and not the language of particulate matter. For example, in entropy terms, there is no difference between a DNA molecule that consists entirely of coding sequences used by the organism and a DNA molecule of the same size that is made only of non-coding "junk". But we would all tend to say - in everyday parlance - that the former contains a lot of "information", while the latter contains none. So the relationship between entropy and what we commonly think of as "information" is not that one is a simple inverse of the other.

    In fact Shannon's information entropy (in which I am not expert) seems to be a very different idea from entropy in thermodynamics, as it is all to do with communication theory, not physics. As I read it, there is a connection, via statistical thermodynamics, in that if one thinks of molecular disorder in terms of the amount of missing information that would need to be provided to describe the thermodynamic system fully at the molecular level, then the more of this there is, the greater the thermodynamic entropy will be found to be. This relates back to what I was saying at the start, about the number of states the molecules can explore (on each of which information would need to be provided, in order to specify everything about it).

    When you say "life always implies a reduction in entropy", you need to be more precise. Reduction where, exactly? And compared to what?

    "The molecules of which a living organism is made up have lower entropy than their constituent building blocks" would be a true statement.

    But, as I have pointed out, the entropy of any closed thermodynamic system containing living organisms will always increase as the organisms grow. And this is why living organisms don't violate thermodynamics as they grow, die and reproduce, whether with beneficial mutations or not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    To start at the end, I make no apology for "argumentum ad numeram". Science is a complex discipline in which no one person can master it all. So we do rely on the expertise of others - in fact building on each others' work (after suitable critical evaluation), is a basic process of scholarship in any field, for the same reason. Of course it is trivially true that in logic, what almost everyone in physics, chemistry and biology agrees with may be wrong, but it seems to me still perfectly reasonable to ask whether this is likely. Don't forget that science, like so much of the common sense we use in the real world, is based not on logical proof or certainty, but on probability, that is, on likelihood.



    You are very honest about it. You must also recognize that Argumentum ad Numerum is a argument from a fallacy. At one time all science of the time accepted the earth was flat. There are many Authorities with high pedigrees in science that absolutely disagree with evolution. This fact is also a nobel attribute of science. When I arguing against the theory of evolution I tend to use only the peer reviewed papers from evolutionists. Over time accepted tenants in evolution always fall away by the new facts of science. Today evolution is a patchwork of confusion (only my opinion)… I do not state this opinion without reason.




    Regarding entropy and information, I think one has to be extremely careful in relating the two ideas in a chemical system. Entropy is essentially a measure of the number of states molecules can explore: higher entropy denotes a larger number of similar possible arrangements. If you compare the building blocks of a large molecule with the large molecule itself, there are more states the building blocks can explore because they are free to move and not connected together. So the entropy of the building blocks is greater than that of the large molecule. One can say that the large molecule is more "ordered" than the building blocks - and indeed the idea of entropy as a measure of "disorder" is familiar and widely used. I would certainly say longer the DNA molecule, the bigger the entropy difference betwen it and its constitent building blocks and, in this sense, the more "order"it can be said to contain. So yes, living organisms are more ordered than the building blocks that make them up.



    I agree 100%. But there is a higher order of molecular organization that falls into the definition of Teleonomy (the DNA molecule). This is best described by the science of information theory. It is a well accepted method of localizing decreased cases of entropy (not necessarily the formal thermodynamic definition). If you find this a bit of a word salad… please just look up TELEONOMY. You and I are not quite on the same page here but the principles are related and can be confused.


    In fact Shannon's information entropy (in which I am not expert) seems to be a very different idea from entropy in thermodynamics, as it is all to do with communication theory, not physics. As I read it, there is a connection, via statistical thermodynamics, in that if one thinks of molecular disorder in terms of the amount of missing information that would need to be provided to describe the thermodynamic system fully at the molecular level, then the more of this there is, the greater the thermodynamic entropy will be found to be.”



    I follow you completely. Reading your posts, makes be believe you come from a teaching background (you are articulate). The best contrast I can come up with off the cuff is (thermodynamics - teleonomy). I admit they are intertwined but the thermodynamic approach always drove me nuts…


    When you say "life always implies a reduction in entropy", you need to be more precise. Reduction where, exactly? And compared to what?



    Little sense for thermodynamics maximum sense for teleonomy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Similarly, transcription errors during meosis can result in new mutations, or genomic expressions in an organism, and if the mutation is not detrimental to the organism it can be passed on to the offspring and thorough future generations of a population.



    Haldane was an evolutionist who described mathematically the number of beneficial mutations fixed in a sexually reproducing population. If I recall it was 1 beneficial mutation per 300 generations. In the case of man since divergence it would only be about 1,660 beneficial mutation fixed in 4.5 million years. Doing the math I get about 1500 fixed mutations, maybe they assumed 5 million years?


    Do you think 1,660 mutations account for the difference between men and chimps?


    One mutation per 300 generations is per organism, is it not? So in a population of 300 creatures, there should be one beneficial mutation on average every generation.

    Of course, not all beneficial mutations necessarily achieve offspring. If the average creature is only 25% likely to achieve it, and a beneficially mutated creature is 30% likely to achieve it, then there is a high chance that any given beneficial mutation doesn't manage to achieve it. But with continued mutation, sooner or later one of them will.

    The order you claim in water to ice would be caused by hydrogen bonding? If so hydrogen bonding is the cause of increased order and not random processes?
    You're getting confused over the question of "random". Any lottery ticket may win the jackpot with equal probability with any other, but that doesn't mean that if you buy a lottery ticket you have a 50% chance of winning.

    If one outcome is more likely than another, it is well..... more likely. Over time, and continued repetitions, the most likely results always outnumber the less likely results, even though it is "random".

    In your mind, you have to avoid confusing a situation where all outcomes have the same probability with a situation where there is directed randomness. If some outcomes are more likely than others, then that is directed randomness.

    Casino's make their money by making use of directed randomness, and hoping the hapless gamblers will make the mistake of thinking it is undirected just because all outcomes are possible.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55° N, 3° W
    Posts
    1,086
    If anyone wants some background information on this 1 in 300 claim, see: Haldane's dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or Haldane's Dilemma
    Last edited by Zwirko; August 21st, 2014 at 03:39 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Perhaps humans are in a state of physical devolvement currently. While we appear to live longer (implying better genes), this longevity is artificially maintained and not from better genes.

    Aside from our physical viability, has the brain evolved beneficially? IMO, yes, how else could we have developed those drugs that allow us to live longer regardless of physical fitness?
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Where have I stated anything about God in this post? I am only using the accepted science.
    This is not exactly correct, but not totally wrong either. You inherit a lot of your genes from your parents' ancestors. Some traits may stay in your DNA but not manifest in you.
    Actually there are about 60 mutations measured in every offspring. About 1/3 per generation of those needed to change a hominid into a human with a divergence of 1.23% of 5 million years. But of course that 1.23% should actually be more like 12% because most of the genetic difference is in the regulatory code of DNA (not mentioned in the chimp DNA mapping). So it is impossible to change a hominid into a man given a 5 million year split from a supposed common ancestor with the chimp.
    I have done the math myself and I calculated with the best case scenario that it would take about 33 million years (if you like I could post the calculations). At that point the paradigm of evolution falls apart just considering the secular science. But it seems no one here is interested in the details.

    Yeah. Even a creationist would have to concede that the sum of the traits present in the human race today are not just variations on the traits of Adam and Eve.
    Actually humanity has the calculated effective population of about 10 thousand given a total population of about 7 billion. That fact is remarkable and demonstrates a young genome and very close ties to recent common parents.
    So Cethos, let's cut to the chase. ('reduce the complexity')
    You are claiming that the evolution of Human from hominid (or common ancestor) is "impossible" in the time period Dictated by what the Fossil Record, Dating techniques, etc, show IS the case. Correct?
    And that ergo a God/ID must be involved, or not only is evolution wrong, but all the confirmatory sciences.


    I give you 'credit' for finding a scientific looking approach, but "a hose is a hose by any other name."

    Pygmy Mammoths, a separate species (not mere subspecies), evolved from Mammoths in 15,000-30,000 years.
    I am not allowed to post link yet apparently, but try Wiki entry for the evo of smaller specie.

    There are even some who claim Humans have developed a separate Specie (not mere subspecies) based on Genetic distance in a mere 50,000-100,000 years, based on the same criteria used for other animals/Hominids like Chimps/Gorillas. And that if we want to be taxonomically Consistent we have to either separate Australian Aboriginals from the other current sapiens or eliminate the separate gorilla species. Links available on that too.

    Cethos, creation.com/Ministries? You're kidding right? That's like using whatreallyhappened, infowars, or Rense.

    Btw: Greetings to all, that was my first.
    `
    Last edited by OriginOfSpecies; August 21st, 2014 at 06:23 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316


    Walter ReMine has attempted a more vigorous mathematical definition proposed by Haldane. In doing so he has verified Haldane’s calculations.



    Link to ReMine’s brief explanation….


    Some people who do not understand the “cost” of substitution and do not read enough about it. There are some places that condense the information in one place. Most of the other sites are arguing via Ad Hominem.


    http://creation.com/cost-theory-and-the-cost-of-substitution-a-clarification


    I have read the complete argument by ReMine from the original submission to peer review. A bit of work and I will find it.



    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    And that ergo a God/ID must be involved, or not only is evolution wrong, but all the confirmatory sciences.
    My worldview is not at issue and I do not make it an issue. I argue mostly with peer review and evolutionist papers. I do make an exception when I cannot find legitimate scientific publication criticizing evolution from other sources. I have just posted one of those exceptions. I do read and understand what I post and do not pretend to be a scientist.


    As some one once said God is in the details….

    Welcome...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    As some one once said God is in the details….

    Welcome...
    I thought that quote was actually, "The Devil is in the details."

    If you want to deny evolution all you have to do is prove that nothing has ever changed, not even in the slightest.
    If you can not accomplish that then your mission is futile.

    All the other malarky about micro evolution verses macro evolution or claims that dating methods are flawed are quite pointless, mere distractions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    And that ergo a God/ID must be involved, or not only is evolution wrong, but all the confirmatory sciences.
    My worldview is not at issue and I do not make it an issue. I argue mostly with peer review and evolutionist papers. I do make an exception when I cannot find legitimate scientific publication criticizing evolution from other sources. I have just posted one of those exceptions. I do read and understand what I post and do not pretend to be a scientist.
    As some one once said God is in the details….
    Welcome...
    1. Your Creationist/ID worldview is an issue as it will Dictate all your other opinions.

    2. You only quoted ONE line from my post. Conspicuously leaving out the MEATY rest you could NOT/Did NOT answer.
    This is Insincere debate.
    It is a Necessary evasion of religionists.
    An answer or a concession would be in order.

    3. I've already exposed your trick.
    That is trying to "Baffle-em-with BS" on the finer points of evolution, while leaving out the fact you are also Necessarily in Denial about other Gigantic things like the Fossil/Geologic record, Isotopic dating , etc.
    IOW, once I named the Premise errors that Mandatorily go with your overly detailed/scientific-Looking numbers GAME, you are revealed to be no more that the simplest Preaching Young Earth Creationist...
    in Denial of many other sciences as well.
    Of course, you did not/Could Not address that point.

    As far as Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium... HE wrote an essay on the Disingenuous (and worse) game we see YOU trying.

    Evolution as Fact and Theory
    by Stephen Jay Gould
    StephenJayGould.org
    (Can't post link yet, easy to find)


    Quote Originally Posted by SJ Gould
    [.......]
    Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
    [.......]
    Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory; Natural selection; to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."

    [.......]
    Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.
    Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
    [......]
    The entire Creationist program includes little more than a Rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its supporters.
    [......]
    Sound familiar?
    It's you/WAS you.
    Your disingenuous numbers game is WAY over until you can refute other sciences Completely.
    Last edited by OriginOfSpecies; August 22nd, 2014 at 12:29 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316

    Your disingenuous numbers game is WAY over until you can refute other sciences Completely.



    This most beautiful system — The Universe could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.



    Is this person disingenuous? Every modern physicist who ever studied in university or any senior in high school uses his equations. This man has left his mark on all human kind. He was brilliant and only used the science to prove his points. What Atheist could have this said about him?


    Maybe you know him? He was the ultimate creationist.


    Try Mr. Newton

    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Your disingenuous numbers game is WAY over until you can refute other sciences Completely.

    This most beautiful system — The Universe could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.

    Is this person disingenuous? Every modern physicist who ever studied in university or any senior in high school uses his equations. This man has left his mark on all human kind. He was brilliant and only used the science to prove his points. What Atheist could have this said about him?
    Maybe you know him? He was the ultimate creationist.
    Try Mr. Newton
    1. You DISHONESTLY Haven't answered a word I said in any post.
    Instead we get
    2. A nonsense quote from 17th c Newton.

    3. Your posts a DISHONEST and EVASIVE Nonsense.
    Absolute Charlatanism.

    I don't know procedures here, but you should be removed from this discussion for your NONRESPONSIVE/Insincere posts.
    I expected much better on a 'Science forum'.
    You are NOT in this debate at all.
    You have been Outed as just another Science denier ala YEC. (Young Earth Creationists)
    Your posts are Garbage-speak.

    From now on, do the right thing, Worship me.
    I have given you truth while your god has made you Incoherent-for-Jesus.
    `
    Last edited by OriginOfSpecies; August 21st, 2014 at 09:55 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Try Mr. Newton

    OH please, you really don't want to try Newton.
    You certainly don't want to stand him up as a Christian.
    He was an extreme religious crank who recalculated the entire bible according to his own interpretation of what the numbers in it meant.
    In short he believed the bible was secretly encoded by Pythagoras with a mathematical meaning.
    Newton in his crazy phase would make John Nash look like a model of sanity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    You are right I have turned over a new leaf, I have been holding back on proving real evolution. The kind you talk about…




    Bozo could prove Evolution.


    A final hope for the theory of evolution could rest on Bozo. He is the ideal example of natural selection, symbiosis, mutation, gene drift and horizontal gene transfer. The fossil record shows that Tiktaalik’s flippers explain Bozo’s flipper like feet in an amazing way. Fossil evidence may be somewhat lacking for his direct ancestry but that should not be considered an obstacle for traditional evolution. Although my right wing Christian friends have cast doubts that maybe Bozo is just some want to be actor dressed up as some freak.


    What do they know? They also consider evolution as want to be science.
    My frustration here is not with the critics of evolution but the lack there of. The branches of that hominid family tree, according to the theory, should support the phylogenic tree. But these days’ recent findings in the fossils are causing an explosion of new supposed of hominids. You evolutionists have no reason for concern; evolution will just change its view (again). Looking forward to the day when scientists wake up and views like mine are no longer considered as sacrilege under penalties of scientific heresy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    What is your view on that again? I don't recall reading your interpretation of events and a satisfactory explanation of so many different species and sub-species of humans and other organisms.

    By your reasoning the tree of life should be as Darwin drew it? As I recall it was rather incomplete.
    IMO, our knowledge of the evolutionary tree is still incomplete and it is growing with every new find. This does not support creationism, but rather the opposite. From my viewpoint, greater variety supports the theory of evolution and speciation.
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    ....
    Bozo could prove Evolution. ....
    Yes, Bozo was much smarter than you and your Christian friends are, but that is beside the point.

    You have entirely missed the point of the scientific method because you want it to give you an absolute truth. Something you can feel secure with, something you will never have to doubt or question.
    Instead science offers you honesty, doubt and questions, and that is what terrifies you and your Christian friends.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    These helpful parasites which infect our brains - called "ideas" are evolving much faster than we can evolve biologically. After they've had a chance to duplicate inside the brain, the leave their host through its mouth (and sometimes its fingertips) and then enter another host through its ears (or sometimes its eyes.)

    Their breeding rate is very fast, and there is a strong selection process that filters out the bad ones fairly quickly (or at least those which don't contribute to the survival of their host), allowing the good ones to move quickly through the population. (Sometimes, particularly entertaining ideas "go viral")


    Probably very soon these parasites will evolve to a point where they no longer need a human host. They'll just build machines to carry them around, or something.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by ultimatesceptic View Post
    It seems that there is a consensus or near consensus view about human evolution that it stopped way back in prehistory.

    Seriously, why should anyone believe that? Evolution is supposedly the outcome of random mutations. Are we expected to believe that human beings have stopped randomly mutating? When did it happen? How did it happen? I'm baffled.
    I don't think it ever did happen. No person so far has been an exact replica of either of the parents. We are all evolving all of the time. Most of all are evolving mentally, but you must remember that evolving may be positive, it may be negative or it may be neutral - most probably a mixture of the 3. If the mind is strong enough, the positive will be the stronger of the influences and the mind will develop greater learnings and insights.
    Last edited by Mayflow; August 22nd, 2014 at 06:44 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Turkana Boy
    Estimated age: 1.6 million years
    Date of discovery: 1984
    Location: Lake Turkana, Kenya
    This nearly complete skeleton of a 9- to 12-year-old boy is one of the oldest-known specimens of H. erectus. The boy -- about 5 feet 3 inches tall when he died -- may have grown to be about 6 feet 1 inch as an adult.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/k.html


    I believe this fossil is human yet dated about 1.5 million years old. Brain size and morphology is well within human kind’s genetic diversity. So this discounts many of those ape skulls that have been flaunted by evolutionists as human ancestors. Why? “because Turkana boy it is simply older or too close to allow the needed changes in body type”. Don’t believe me? Look at any skull you like then the dating of that skull and put it up against 1.6 million years.
    Or from time of supposed divergence… 4.5 million years - 1.6 million years = 2.9 million years.
    Truth is in the details.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Turkana boy was a hominid, not a modern human.
    What part of that are you clowns unable to understand?

    And while we are at it the modern apes are not the same animals as their more primitive ancestors were either. They have continued to evolve over time too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    These helpful parasites which infect our brains - called "ideas" are evolving much faster than we can evolve biologically. After they've had a chance to duplicate inside the brain, the leave their host through its mouth (and sometimes its fingertips) and then enter another host through its ears (or sometimes its eyes.)

    Their breeding rate is very fast, and there is a strong selection process that filters out the bad ones fairly quickly (or at least those which don't contribute to the survival of their host), allowing the good ones to move quickly through the population. (Sometimes, particularly entertaining ideas "go viral")

    Probably very soon these parasites will evolve to a point where they no longer need a human host. They'll just build machines to carry them around, or something.
    That was a very spritual statement, kojax...
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    Turkana boy was a hominid, not a modern human.
    What part of that are you clowns unable to understand?


    Ok… he was a human hominid quite modern in appearance. Like I say his morphologic profile is basically human. I do not claim that all the necessary diversity seen in human population accounts for Turkana boy. A recent narrowing of the human population could account for a possible loss of some of human diversity. That claim is not unknown by evolutionists.




    If you claim that he did not look like a human just give me some citations. I think I can defend this and other statements



    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,627
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    Turkana boy was a hominid, not a modern human.
    What part of that are you clowns unable to understand?


    Ok… he was a human hominid quite modern in appearance. Like I say his morphologic profile is basically human. I do not claim that all the necessary diversity seen in human population accounts for Turkana boy. A recent narrowing of the human population could account for a possible loss of some of human diversity. That claim is not unknown by evolutionists.




    If you claim that he did not look like a human just give me some citations. I think I can defend this and other statements



    define your use of the vernacular term "human" before we go any further
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    OK, so you got caught lying again.

    His appearance was not modern. Yes he was bipedal and yes he did have a projecting nose, but that is about it. That does not mean he looked modern human by any means.


    And on top of that, the species Turkana boy belonged to went extinct.
    Before modern humans appeared.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    define your use of the vernacular term "human" before we go any further



    Would you prefer “human-like” appearance. That, I think would make you more comfortable. Just to prime the conversation…


    I am not the only one who made a similar indiscretion.




    Richard Leaky said, “the boy from Turkana was surprisingly large compared with modern boys his age; he could well have grown to six feet. ....he would probably go unnoticed in a crowd today. This find combines with previous discoveries of Homo erectus to contradict a long held idea that humans have grown larger over the millennia.", (National Geographic, p. 629, Nov., 1985)
    (My emphasis)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    By the way Dan I was going to let this slide…
    Turkana boy was a hominid, not a modern human.
    What part of that are you clowns unable to understand?


    “Humans are hominids, members of the taxonomic family termed Hominidae that includes all of our extinct human-like relatives.” http://www.utexas.edu/courses/denbow/labs/hominid.htm



    Apparently I know a lot more than you… You really need to read more… please
    Last edited by GTCethos; August 23rd, 2014 at 01:50 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    By the way Dan I was going to let this slide…
    Turkana boy was a hominid, not a modern human.
    What part of that are you clowns unable to understand?

    “Humans are hominids, members of the taxonomic family termed Hominidae that includes all of our extinct human-like relatives.” http://www.utexas.edu/courses/denbow/labs/hominid.htm

    Apparently I know a lot more than you… You really need to read more… please
    IMO, you should have let it slide. The link only confirms what Dan was saying.

    As an aside, even if the boy was large for that time, today we can find 8' tall individuals. Does that prove we are all 8' tall?
    Human height or stature is the distance from the bottom of the feet to the top of the head in a human body, standing erect. It is measured using a stadiometer,[1] usually in centimetres when using the metric system,[2][3] and feet and inches when using the imperial system.[4][5] Adult human height has varied from under 60 centimetres (2 ft 0 in) to over 260 centimetres (8 ft 6 in). On average, males are taller than females.When populations share genetic background and environmental factors, average height is frequently characteristic within the group. Exceptional height variation (around 20% deviation from average) within such a population is sometimes due to gigantism or dwarfism, which are medical conditions caused by specific genes or endocrine abnormalities.[6]
    In regions of poverty or warfare, environmental factors like chronic malnutrition during childhood or adolescence may account for delayed growth and/or marked reductions in adult stature even without the presence of any of these medical conditions.
    Human height - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    316
    IMO, you should have let it slide. The link only confirms what Dan was saying.



    Modern humans are hominids, Turkana boy is a hominid. Dan should have said Turkana boy is not a modern human. Is descriptive speech that difficult?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by GTCethos View Post
    IMO, you should have let it slide. The link only confirms what Dan was saying.



    Modern humans are hominids, Turkana boy is a hominid. Dan should have said Turkana boy is not a modern human. Is descriptive speech that difficult?
    Give it a break, Turkana Boy was a Hominid.......Modern humans are Hominid......Gorillas are Hominid. Got any problem with that?

    The Hominidae have been discussed at length already, but once more into the breach,
    The most recent common ancestor of the Hominidae lived roughly 14 million years ago,[3] when the ancestors of the orangutans speciated from the ancestors of the other three genera.[4] The ancestors of the Hominidae family had already speciated from those of the Hylobatidae family, perhaps 15 million to 20 million years ago.[4][5] Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55° N, 3° W
    Posts
    1,086
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post

    And while we are at it the modern apes are not the same animals as their more primitive ancestors were either. They have continued to evolve over time too.
    Interestingly, there was a 2007 study that demonstrated that the lineage leading to modern day chimpanzees has undergone more evolution (more genes positively selected for*) than the human lineage since their divergence.

    I don't know if that study has stood the test of time or not, but mentioning it always confuses creationists - how can chimps be "more evolved"?


    *there's more to it than that, of course.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. How to stop plug in
    By steelcat in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 10th, 2014, 04:19 AM
  2. Non-stop engine
    By thinh123 in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: January 12th, 2013, 09:13 PM
  3. STOP ARGUING!!
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 24th, 2010, 11:14 AM
  4. Where does the orbiting stop?
    By Joe L. Ogan in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 29th, 2009, 04:40 PM
  5. Arriving At One's Stop
    By Obviously in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: April 3rd, 2009, 10:32 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •