Notices
Results 1 to 100 of 100

Thread: Genetics cant account for generation/origin of new species

  1. #1 Genetics cant account for generation/origin of new species 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    the australian scientist colin leslie dean argues that Genetics cant account for generation/origin of new species

    http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com..._selection.pdf

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

    put simply
    it is argued that
    the generation of new species is due to random changes in genes
    if the process is random then genetics cannot account for why a species appears for being random there can be no deterministic reason why it happens in a particular why- once the generation process has started genetics can account for how it unfolds-but genetics cannot account for its random starting point -as this is just by chance- chaos theory might but genetics cant

    what may cause a gene to alter randomly could be radiation chemicals virus etc but this all happens by chance Being by chance genetics thus cannot account for the generation of new species


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    I'm sorry, but your post is incoherent and I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Also, someone with a Masters of Arts in English literature is not a scientist, they might still be Australian.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    I'm sorry, but your post is incoherent
    put even more simply

    it is argued that the generation of new species is due to random changes in genes

    what may cause a gene to alter randomly could be radiation chemicals virus etc but this all happens by chance Being by chance genetics thus cannot account for the generation of new species
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    I'm sorry, but your post is incoherent
    put even more simply

    it is argued that the generation of new species is due to random changes in genes

    what may cause a gene to alter randomly could be radiation chemicals virus etc but this all happens by chance Being by chance genetics thus cannot account for the generation of new species
    The primary source of mutations would be replication errors since the machinery isn't perfect. However, I don't see how your conclusions follow logically from the premise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    The primary source of mutations would be replication errors since the machinery isn't perfect
    as stated
    it is argued that the generation of new species is due to random changes in genes

    what may cause a gene to alter randomly could be radiation chemicals virus etc but this all happens by chance Being by chance genetics thus cannot account for the generation of new species
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Genetics cant account for generation/origin of new speci 
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    the australian scientist colin leslie dean argues that Genetics cant account for generation/origin of new species

    http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com..._selection.pdf

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

    put simply
    it is argued that
    the generation of new species is due to random changes in genes
    if the process is random then genetics cannot account for why a species appears for being random there can be no deterministic reason why it happens in a particular why- once the generation process has started genetics can account for how it unfolds-but genetics cannot account for its random starting point -as this is just by chance- chaos theory might but genetics cant

    what may cause a gene to alter randomly could be radiation chemicals virus etc but this all happens by chance Being by chance genetics thus cannot account for the generation of new species
    Mutation isn't supposed to account for speciation. Mutation and natural selection is. Many random varieties are generated, the ones most fit to the environment reproduce at a higher rate. The frequency of fit alleles increases in the population. Differing sets of selective pressures produce differing sets of allele frequencies. Speciation. If you're going to attack the theory of evolution, please research the basics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Genetics cant account for generation/origin of new speci 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    the australian scientist colin leslie dean argues that Genetics cant account for generation/origin of new species

    http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com..._selection.pdf
    Is this a joke? Someone who uses references of which about 80% stem from wikipedia and about 20% are other internet links can hardly be called a scientist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Introduction
    In the document provided, edam, Dean argues that evolution by natural selection is disproved by four things, all of which can be refuted.

    1. The inexeplicable nature of the Cambrian explosion.
    2. Natural selection cannot generate new variants and so cannot generate new species.
    3. If Natural Selection were true, then bad traits - such as the gene for breast cancer - would not proliferate in the population.
    4. Genetics cannot account for the generation of new species.

    An Aside on Dean's Lamentable Writing Skills
    Before I proceed any further in exploring these arguments and dismantling them let me remark on the Dean's style: it is crap. If something like this were handed to me as a first rough draft by an employee I would throw it in the garbage and send him immediately on a technical writing course.

    It lacks clarity. There is no meaningful structure. The clumsy phrasing combined with the ridiculous formatting choices create the impression it was written by a twelve year old. From a technical standpoint the reliance on wikipedia is laughable, while the argument is replete with non-sequiturs.

    Is any of this relevant to his argument? There is a correlation between the ability to write clearly and the ability to think clearly. It is not absolute, but the absence of the ability in Colin Leslie Dean to write properly is highly suggestive.

    The Refutation
    To the meat of the matter. I'll consider points 1, 2 and 4 only.

    Points 2 and 4
    Points 2 and 4 are equivalent to this argument.
    I cannot cross the road by walking from the side of the road to the middle. If I do so I have not crossed the road.
    I cannot cross the road by walking from the middle of the road to the side. If I do so I have not crossed the road.
    Therefore it is impossible to cross the road.


    Point 1
    Point 1 is justified by some truly ignorant blunders.

    Dean claims:
    "The Cambrian explosion, as Darwin saw, invalidates his theory."

    (The original of this sentence omits capitilisation of the opening word and of Cambrian and Darwin, while failing to place the parenthetic 'as Darwin saw' between commas. And that comes from a man who claims to hold a Bachelor of Literature degree!)

    Darwin did not believe the Cambrian explosion invalidated his theory. He believed the apparent absence of any life prior to the Cambrian explosion could be used as an argument against his theory. Since Darwin's time we have found evidence for life over 3,500 million years ago and the presence of complex life before the Cambrian.


    Dean then offers a website that contains extracts (out of context) from the works various bona fide scientists who comment on the mystery of the Cambrian explosion. He draws zero conclusion from these extracts. He simply presents them. It is not that his argument in this instance is poor, or poorly presented, his argument is non-existent.

    The website, by the way, is a creationist one that contains proof that dinosaurs and man were alive on the planet at the same time.


    He then offers a fragment of one of the quotes from that site, by Niles Eldredge.
    “No real progress has been made by evolutionists since Darwin’s day and "The Cambrian evolutionary explosion is still shrouded in mystery." (Eldredge, N., The Monkey Business, 1982, p. 46.)”

    Nor real progress? Even in 1982 Eldredge was being cavalier with the truth, while considerable progress has been made in the last three decades. We do not yet fully understand why the Cambrian explosion happened when and how it did, but we numerous working hypotheses, all of which can be tested over time until one emerges as victor.

    So what is the sum total of Dean's arguments related to the Cambrian explosion?
    1. Darwin thought it invalidated his theory. It didn't.
    2. Several authors have commented on the uncertainties surrounding the Cambrian explosion. This is what science does - it identifies areas where we lack knowledge, then sets out to investigate them. No aspect of our incomplete explanation for the Cambrian explosion invalidates evolutionary theory.
    3. One researcher, in an out of context quote, makes a demonstrably uncharacteristic and wrong statement.

    Mr. Dean (B.SC, B.A, B.LITT (HONS), M.A, B,LITT (HONS), M.A, M.A (PSYCHOANALYTIC STUDIES), MASTER OF PSYCHOANALYTIC STUDIES, GRAD CERT (LITERARY STUDIES)) you have to come up with a better argument than that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    So what is the sum total of Dean's arguments related to the Cambrian explosion?
    1. Darwin thought it invalidated his theory. It didn't.
    he did
    quote from darwin himself

    Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great. ...The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." (Darwin, C., The Origin of Species, 1872, pp. 316-317.)

    you say

    Several authors have commented on the uncertainties surrounding the Cambrian explosion. This is what science does - it identifies areas where we lack knowledge, then sets out to investigate them. No aspect of our incomplete explanation for the Cambrian explosion invalidates evolutionary theory.




    dawkins even says

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

    The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. ...not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion. So much for chordate uniqueness... Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion,[/b] all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event.[/b].." (Gould, Stephen J., Nature, vol. 377, October 1995, p.682.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    Mutation isn't supposed to account for speciation. Mutation and natural selection is. Many random varieties are generated, the ones most fit to the environment reproduce at a higher rate. The frequency of fit alleles increases in the population. Differing sets of selective pressures produce differing sets of allele frequencies. Speciation. If you're going to attack the theory of evolution, please research the basics.

    as dean argues natural selection does not add/create new genetic information it only passes on genes already present


    new species are said to arise by mutation genes

    what may cause a gene to alter randomly could be radiation chemicals virus etc but this all happens by chance Being by chance genetics thus cannot account for the generation of new species
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    quote from darwin himself

    Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great. ...The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." (Darwin, C., The Origin of Species, 1872, pp. 316-317.)
    Do you have trouble with English comprehension? Apparently so.

    Darwin is stating that the (apparent) absence of fossils in the Pre-Cambrian is a valid argument against evolution by natural selection.

    Do you understand what a valid argument is? Apparently not.

    A valid argument is not proof that the argument is correct. A valid argument is one that is logically sound and brings forth a good point. So Darwin did not say the absence of pre-Cambrian fossils invalidates his theory, he says it is a valid argument with which to challenge the theory. You can use it to say, show me the fossils, or explain their absence. Science has done the former. The point is dismissed.

    But let us examine a little further Darwin's take on the matter. As an honest, objective scientist he has raised a potential weakness in his theory. He does not hide, or prevaricate, he takes the matter head on. And what are his conclusions?

    For my part, following out Lyell’s metaphor, I look at the geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, more or less different in the successive chapters, may represent the forms of life, which are entombed in our consecutive formations, and which falsely appear to have been abruptly introduced. On this view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear.

    So edam, no. No, No. Neither you nor Dean are correct in asserting that even Darwin agreed the Cambrian explosion disproved his theory.



    Let us proceed. You now mimic the pattern of zero argument used by Dean. (By this time the similarity in writing style, the weakness of intellect, the absence of argument lead us to the hypothesis that you and Dean are one and the same.)

    You quote a series of respected scientists who have rightly identified the fascinating character, not yet fully explained, of the Cambrian explosion. How is it edam/dean that none of these authors doubts evolution? They are primary proponents of it. They recognise areas where our knowledge is murky, even absent, but yet they do not doubt evolution. Why is that?

    If their testimony is unreliable then their comments on the 'mystery' of the Cambrian explosion are unreliable. If their testimony is reliable then we should pay heed to their confidence in evolution.

    Let us go further. You cunningly highlight the phrase -
    "And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution........without any evolutionary history."

    You dishonestly omit to highlight It is as though they were just planted there.
    I don't have Blind Watchmaker to hand, but I am confident that Dawkins then goes on to explore and explain - with a viable argument - why this appearance of planting.

    May I ask, how long have you been a creationist?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    Do you have trouble with English comprehension? Apparently so.

    Darwin is stating that the (apparent) absence of fossils in the Pre-Cambrian is a valid argument against evolution by natural selection.
    So Darwin did not say the absence of pre-Cambrian fossils invalidates his theory, he says it is a valid argument with which to challenge the theory.
    he says it is a valid argument with which to challenge the theory

    your intellectual contortions are admirable but
    wrong he clearly states
    and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained
    can you see the word against clearly


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

  14. #13 Re: Genetics cant account for generation/origin of new speci 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    the australian scientist colin leslie dean argues that Genetics cant account for generation/origin of new species

    http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com..._selection.pdf

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

    put simply
    it is argued that
    the generation of new species is due to random changes in genes
    if the process is random then genetics cannot account for why a species appears for being random there can be no deterministic reason why it happens in a particular why- once the generation process has started genetics can account for how it unfolds-but genetics cannot account for its random starting point -as this is just by chance- chaos theory might but genetics cant

    what may cause a gene to alter randomly could be radiation chemicals virus etc but this all happens by chance Being by chance genetics thus cannot account for the generation of new species
    [/img]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    Darwin is stating that the (apparent) absence of fossils in the Pre-Cambrian is a valid argument against evolution by natural selection.

    So Darwin did not say the absence of pre-Cambrian fossils invalidates his theory, he says it is a valid argument with which to challenge the theory.
    your intellectual contortions are admirable but
    wrong he clearly states
    and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained
    can you see the word against clearly
    I am sorry. I did not realise that English was your second language. Being a valid argument against is the means by which the theory can be challenged. An argument against is not proof that the theory is wrong. It does not invalidate the theory.

    Darwin, in acknowledging a valid argument against, was not accepting, acknowledging, or in any other way agreeing that his theory was falsified. You state that Darwin thought his theory was invalidated by the observations of the Cambrian explostion.This is balderdash. Accepting something as a valid argument against a hypothesis or theory is merely acknowledging that it is logical and may be significant. It is not accepting it as correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    your intellectual contortions are admirable
    There are no intellectual contortions from me: just simple English comprehension. You should try it some time.

    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    and further
    Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..." (Gould, Stephen J., Nature, vol. 377, October 1995, p.682.) "
    Gould was making his case for punctuated equilibrium, a concept accepted by many evolutionists today. Gould does not deny natural selection: he was one of its strongest proponents. Quoting him out of context appears the act of a desparate or ignorant person.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Edam, quote mining and quotation out of context = I move for you to be suspended. Make your arguments using empirical evidence and logic or you will make no arguments here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Edam, quote mining and quotation out of context = I move for you to be suspended. Make your arguments using empirical evidence and logic or you will make no arguments here.
    There has already been a move for his suspension. Add your voice to it, I beg of you, for all our sakes.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    Edam, quote mining and quotation out of context = I move for you to be suspended. Make your arguments using empirical evidence and logic or you will make no arguments here.
    i use logic
    and evidence

    thats the problem
    before you suspend me i will get this in
    the notion of heresy is exsists in science
    you all bag religion for burning those who questioned the dogma
    and you are going to burn me for questioning the science dogma
    this is not even about science
    its about your need for an ordered world where all the pecises go together seamlessly
    dean shows you all the holes in your ordered world and that upsets your psychology

    thats why dean is a threat to world security-according to NATO
    so go burn the heretic
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    We already know you think this, but as has been exhaustively explained to you throughout your multiple threads; your Dean fellow has no idea what he is talking about an neither do you. This is fairly common among religious people suspicious of science. You just don't understand the science and react simply out of some warped sense of duty with your conclusions already in place before understanding what is going on. Then you go on little mini crusades and try and nitpick at every little thing that offends your sensibilities, not willing to listen to corrections to your misconceptions.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    We already know you think this, but as has been exhaustively explained to you throughout your multiple threads; your Dean fellow has no idea what he is talking about an neither do you. This is fairly common among religious people suspicious of science. You just don't understand the science and react simply out of some warped sense of duty with your conclusions already in place before understanding what is going on. Then you go on little mini crusades and try and nitpick at every little thing that offends your sensibilities, not willing to listen to corrections to your misconceptions.
    fact is if you read this thread
    as dean has shown
    logically genetics cant account for new species
    as the random mutations which are said to cause new species happen by chance
    thus genetics cant account for this chance or new species
    chaos theory might but genetics cant
    you dont like the logic
    as it upsets your ordered world
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,627
    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    We already know you think this, but as has been exhaustively explained to you throughout your multiple threads; your Dean fellow has no idea what he is talking about an neither do you. This is fairly common among religious people suspicious of science. You just don't understand the science and react simply out of some warped sense of duty with your conclusions already in place before understanding what is going on. Then you go on little mini crusades and try and nitpick at every little thing that offends your sensibilities, not willing to listen to corrections to your misconceptions.
    fact is if you read this thread
    as dean has shown
    logically genetics cant account for new species
    as the random mutations which are said to cause new species happen by chance
    thus genetics cant account for this chance or new species
    chaos theory might but genetics cant
    you dont like the logic
    as it upsets your ordered world
    Natural selection and random mutation, not JUST natural selection.


    And I ask again WHY does this matter one iota??????
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    Natural selection and random mutation, not JUST natural selection.
    natural selection does not create new genes it only passess on genes already present
    species are said to come about by random mutation
    genetics cant account for random mutation of genes as it all comes about by chance
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,627
    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    Natural selection and random mutation, not JUST natural selection.
    natural selection does not create new genes it only passess on genes already present
    species are said to come about by random mutation
    genetics cant account for random mutation of genes as it all comes about by chance
    point?????
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    point?????
    simple
    as the thread title says
    genetics cant account for new species
    a point none of you realisied
    as you all believed genetics did/does account for new species
    you have learned something
    but i bet that wont get you a pass in your exams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,627
    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    point?????
    simple
    as the thread title says
    genetics cant account for new species
    a point none of you realisied
    as you all believed genetics did/does account for new species
    you have learned something
    but i bet that wont get you a pass in your exams
    What is the point of the "realization"? There must be some driving force for you the be so obsessed with "proving" this. What is it? Why does it matter to you soooo much?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    What is the point of the "realization"? There must be some driving force for you the be so obsessed with "proving" this. What is it? Why does it matter to you soooo much?
    come on are you for real
    this is a science forum
    is not science about the finding of what is really happening in nature
    hey if you cant see this
    then humanity would never have got out of its caves

    or are you content with myths so long as they dont upset your tidy little ordered
    world

    you sound as if you would have said to galelio when he stated his realization about nature

    What is the point of the "realization"
    get real
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,627
    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    What is the point of the "realization"? There must be some driving force for you the be so obsessed with "proving" this. What is it? Why does it matter to you soooo much?
    come on are you for real
    this is a science forum
    is not science about the finding of what is really happening in nature
    hey if you cant see this
    then humanity would never have got out of its caves

    or are you content with myths so long as they dont upset your tidy little ordered
    world

    you sound as if you would have said to galelio when he stated his realization about nature

    What is the point of the "realization"
    get real
    how many times does everyone here have to say, we DONT think its a tidy organized little world. Its a great big tangled web, but we do what we can to understand it. NO taxonomy is not perfect but nothing is. The lack of perfection is in no way reason to totally throw the whole of biology (which is a hell of a lot more then just species).

    If taxonomy was dumps what would you suggest for replacement?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    If taxonomy was dumps what would you suggest for replacement?
    you really are not real are you
    so you would keep a taxonomy even though it falsified the world
    as the species taxonomies do -as pointed out in another thread
    you really are content to live with myths
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,627
    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    If taxonomy was dumps what would you suggest for replacement?
    you really are not real are you
    so you would keep a taxonomy even though it falsified the world
    as the species taxonomies do -as pointed out in another thread
    you really are content to live with myths
    What is your alternative....................................... ......
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    edam,
    listen very carefully. Open your mind. Use both of your neurons.

    Natural selection acts upon randomly generated mutations to generate new species.
    Your argument appears to be that since this is a two part process it is meaningless. I'm sorry, but if that is what you are saying it is incredibly ignorant. If you are trying to say something else then you need to try again.

    Second point: I notice you have apparently run away from admitting your claim about Darwin was false. Why?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    Natural selection acts upon randomly generated mutations to generate new species.
    wrong
    natural selection does not create new genes it only passess on genes already present
    species are said to come about by random mutation
    genetics cant account for random mutation of genes as it all comes about by chance

    Second point: I notice you have apparently run away from admitting your claim about Darwin was false. Why?
    darwin used the word "against"
    ie the cambrian explosion was evidence against his theory
    all very clear
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    Natural selection acts upon randomly generated mutations to generate new species.
    wrong
    natural selection does not create new genes it only passess on genes already present
    You genuinely have real comprehension difficulties. No one is claiming, has claimed, or should ever claim that natural selection creates new genes.
    The new genes, and variations of existing genes are created by random mutations.

    How many times do you have to be told that this is a two step process.
    Step 1: Create new genes, or variants of exisitng genes by random mutation.
    Step 2: Select from these genes via the process of natural selection.

    What don't you understand about this very simple two step process?


    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    genetics cant account for random mutation of genes as it all comes about by chance
    Excuse me but that statement betrays enormous ignorance on your part.

    Random mutation is about chance. The clue is in the meaning of the word random. Genetics explores some of the mechanisms at work to generate those random changes and to investigate their consequences. Therefore genetics does account for the random mutation of genes by identifying and describing how those random mutations arise.


    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    Second point: I notice you have apparently run away from admitting your claim about Darwin was false. Why?
    darwin used the word "against"
    ie the cambrian explosion was evidence against his theory
    all very clear
    For the last ****ing time:
    You clearly state that Darwin thought the Cambrian explosion invalidated his theory. He did not think this. At no time did he think this. At no time did he say this.

    All theories will have evidence in favour of them and evidence against them. He noted that the Cambrian explosion represented evidence agains his theory. This is not the same thing as invalidating the theory. You are getting hung up because you do not understand simple English. He found an immense amount of evidence for his theory and some niggling, little items against it. In the passage I quoted he addressed the 'against' part of the Cambrian explosion and decided it probably wasn't that concerning.

    Therefore, your statement that Darwin believed the Cambrian explosion invalidated his theory is wrong. 100% incorrect. False. Nonsense. Rubbish.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    genetics cant account for random mutation of genes as it all comes about by chance
    Excuse me but that statement betrays enormous ignorance on your part.

    Random mutation is about chance.
    fact is
    genetics cant account for random mutation of genes as it all comes about by chance

    wrong
    natural selection does not create new genes it only passess on genes already present
    You genuinely have real comprehension difficulties. No one is claiming, has claimed, or should ever claim that natural selection creates new genes.
    The new genes, and variations of existing genes are created by random mutations.
    fact is
    natural selection does not create new genes it only passess on genes already present

    putting it all together

    natural selection does not create new genes it only passess on genes already present
    species are said to come about by random mutation
    genetics cant account for random mutation of genes as it all comes about by chance


    You clearly state that Darwin thought the Cambrian explosion invalidated his theory
    dont you know what against means
    dont you know what this ,mean
    the cambrian explosion is evidence AGAINST his theory--according to darwin

    go read the quote

    Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great. ...The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." (Darwin, C., The Origin of Species, 1872, pp. 316-317.)
    can you see the word against-DONT YOU KNOW WHAT IT MEANS
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Ban the bugger. He's illiterate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Introduction
    In the document provided, edam, Dean argues that evolution by natural selection is disproved by four things, all of which can be refuted.

    1. The inexeplicable nature of the Cambrian explosion.
    2. Natural selection cannot generate new variants and so cannot generate new species.
    3. If Natural Selection were true, then bad traits - such as the gene for breast cancer - would not proliferate in the population.
    4. Genetics cannot account for the generation of new species.

    Actually #3 isn't an issue at all for evolution, at least not its specific example of breast cancer, since it usually happens late in life, after the victim would have born all the children they were likely to bear. Apparently, less than 7% of cases happen to women under 40 years of age.

    http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/g...er-young-women

    Natural selection has no interest in longevity beyond making us able to live long enough to reproduce. Indeed, shorter life spans actually increase our fertility rate by giving us short generation gaps.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    he's literate, ophi, but a clear and terrible troll. He should have been banned days ago...
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    I love his logic.

    A cannot do X.

    B cannot do X.

    Therefore A + B cannot do X.

    I almost feel embarrassed for him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    Actually #3 isn't an issue at all for evolution, at least not its specific example of breast cancer, since it usually happens late in life, after the victim would have born all the children they were likely to bear. Apparently, less than 7% of cases happen to women under 40 years of age.
    you should quote the rest of the text

    http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com..._selection.pdf

    Young women mums and grandmother are killed by it ie breast cancer genes It occurs in women of childbearing age and they transmit it to their daughters. Some say a gene that kills after child bearing age does not invalidate NS. The fact is the gene for breast cancer kills Young women mums and grandmother. It is an abuse of language to say such a deleterious gene which kills all ages of women is not bad or unfavorable

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


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

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/articl...30/2529713.htm

    Researchers find new breast cancer genes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

    http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2...286-738782_ITM
    “2001 MAY 25 - (NewsRx Network) -- New research indicates that a vast majority of children admitted to hospitals have a genetically determined underlying disorder.

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

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

    http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/27...Disorders.html
    There are more than 6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about one in every 200 births. Examples are cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell anemia, Huntington's disease, and hereditary hemochromatosis”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Sorry edam, but to be quite honest, we have heard all of this before and there's a very good reason why it doesn't have popular support amongst biologists. It's garbage.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    97
    why it doesn't have popular support amongst biologists. It's garbage.
    if this had been said by a Phd from Yale
    it would not be considered as garbage
    it is garbage only because dean is a no body

    PROOF
    DAWKINS can write book after book about species speciation yet he has and biologists have no agreed definition of species
    and when they give one it ends in self contradiction
    Dawkins writes garbage and is aloud to get away with it-i dont know why biologists let him do that
    only because he has a reputation - ie is a sombody


    these days will be seen as a dark age for science
    as science has degenerated into scientism
    and is run by powerful vested interest groups who dont want their nets egg broken ie dawkins and reasearch granters

    khun looked at the history of scientific revolutions and found most scientists just do normal science ie are just technictians following the algorythym
    only very rarely do you get new ideas coming through as the normal scientist just ignore major paradgim problems

    this age will be seen as the age of the conformist techniticians

    as with dean
    he points out theoretical problems with the very foundation of biology ie their taxonomies falsely describe the world ie species
    and all you can say is he talks garbage
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Broken record, and you still haven't given real support to your argument. All you do is post the same response to every question backed by the same bullshit "scientist." It's garbage because his points are useless ie we can't do anything with them
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    why it doesn't have popular support amongst biologists. It's garbage.
    if this had been said by a Phd from Yale
    it would not be considered as garbage
    it is garbage only because dean is a no body
    There are plenty of people with PhDs saying similar things, and we still consider it to be garbage because it isn't about who is saying it or what qualifications they have. It's about the evidence.

    Hell, there are PhDs who think the Earth is 6000 years old. We don't let the letters after their name convince us.

    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    PROOF
    DAWKINS can write book after book about species speciation yet he has and biologists have no agreed definition of species
    Repeating it wont make it true. It's not that there is no agreed definition. It's that there are several, which we use in different contexts. The Wikipedia article you keep pointing us to says that. Read your own sources please.

    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    and when they give one it ends in self contradiction
    Which is it? We have no definition, or we have a circular definition? Now you're contradicting yourself. By Colin Dean Leslie's logic, that makes you meaningless...

    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    Dawkins writes garbage and is aloud to get away with it-i dont know why biologists let him do that
    only because he has a reputation - ie is a sombody
    Nope, because we understand exactly what he means. And more importantly, so do millions of non-biologists. They understand his argument- an argument pitched at the mainstream, at the common man, but you don't. And Colin Dean Leslie doesn't. That's not promising. Plus, already explained above that Dawkins is not accepted due to his qualifications. Here's an example: A list of creationists with science doctorates.

    Do you see any of us rushing to agree with these guys because they have PhDs?

    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    these days will be seen as a dark age for science
    as science has degenerated into scientism
    Rubbish. Spouted by someone with no understanding of the most basic science. Who has laughably seized upon a semantic argument and thinks he can use it to bring down the entire edifice of modern biology.

    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    and is run by powerful vested interest groups who dont want their nets egg broken ie dawkins and reasearch granters
    Oh now this is priceless. Big Research? Big Grants? Like Big Oil and Big Pharma and their buddies? Research grants are awarded competitively and granters have an adversarial relationship with grantees- they want results, publications, solid evidence. The guy who can scientifically show Dawkins to be wrong will get a hell of a lot of grant money. Please, for your own dignity, stop making such sweeping statements about a system you simply don't understand at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    khun looked at the history of scientific revolutions and found most scientists just do normal science ie are just technictians following the algorythym
    only very rarely do you get new ideas coming through as the normal scientist just ignore major paradgim problems
    Kuhn (note the spelling please), argued that normal science and paradigm shifting science were two sides of the same coin. Both essential. Kuhn considered it the role of the normal science phase to be sceptical of change, and to be sceptical in proportion to the claims made. The alternative is credulousness, continuous and non-progressive adoption of any and all new ideas. As he saw it, it was not a weakness that Darwin, Newton and Einstein were challenged by their contemporaries, but was essential.

    When he spoke of paradigm shifting science, do you think he had in mind petty, self-contradictory, logically broken little semantic arguments made by gratuitous self-promoters.

    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    this age will be seen as the age of the conformist techniticians
    Yes, I'm sure the age in which we developed stem cell technologies, gene therapy and synthetic cells will be seen as a life sciences backwater.

    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    as with dean
    he points out theoretical problems with the very foundation of biology ie their taxonomies falsely describe the world ie species
    and all you can say is he talks garbage
    He's not pointing out a problem- he's pointing out something we spotted 150 years ago when Darwin wrote "No one definition has satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species." That problem was solved ad hoc by using careful definitions of species in each case. It was solved fully about 50 years ago when phylogenists adopted cladistics.

    You so desperately want there to be a problem with science that is simplistic enough for you to argue, that you've completely ignored these facts. You might as well be shouting at us that Newtonian gravity can't explain the orbit of Mercury. We know, we spotted it ages ago, we fixed that, please sit down, you're making a fool of yourself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    Colin Leslie Dean is absolutely right on this and it is obvious also.

    The difference between two species (species defined as the possibility to have children from a male and female) of birds can be in a little different length of the beak.

    Differences between individuals of one species can be much bigger. A good example of an at random variation is the breeding of different kind of dogs. That has been done for ages giving huge differences in how they look, fir, size, length of the legs etc etc.

    For a dog this is all at random and very similar to the darwinistic idea of evolution. Darwinistic evolution can explain this. But Darwinistic evolution also tells us that if we keep on breeding dogs we will after time length of time create different species.

    There is no proof for that it,s an assumption and as we see and know how big the differences can be inside one species and how little between two species I think it is unlikely that men can make different species just by breeding. And if it can,t be done by breeding and to dogs we are just environmental influence I can,t see how the darwinistic mechanism (which is also only about an influence from the outside, the environment) can explain a new species.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    Colin Leslie Dean is absolutely right on this and it is obvious also.

    The difference between two species (species defined as the possibility to have children from a male and female) of birds can be in a little different length of the beak.

    Differences between individuals of one species can be much bigger. A good example of an at random variation is the breeding of different kind of dogs. That has been done for ages giving huge differences in how they look, fir, size, length of the legs etc etc.

    For a dog this is all at random and very similar to the darwinistic idea of evolution. Darwinistic evolution can explain this. But Darwinistic evolution also tells us that if we keep on breeding dogs we will after time length of time create different species.

    There is no proof for that it,s an assumption and as we see and know how big the differences can be inside one species and how little between two species I think it is unlikely that men can make different species just by breeding. And if it can,t be done by breeding and to dogs we are just environmental influence I can,t see how the darwinistic mechanism (which is also only about an influence from the outside, the environment) can explain a new species.
    You can't see how it would work? That's your argument?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    A far better argument is that uniform experience,observation and experimental testing demonstrates not only does new biological form or function not occur by the combined processes of genetic errors and natural selection, but in addition the minor precursor steps required for new form and function also do not occur by these processes in a time frame that is consistent with the time periods suggested by the geological record.

    One aspect that is particularly intractable to random error and selection is the requirement to account for generation of the instruction set needed not only to generate the proteins but also to cause them to be properly folded and linked, to allow them to be expressed, regulated, stored, transported and assembled all at the proper time to allow for novel form or function. Fifty years ago it may have made sense to see mutation and selection as the best explanation because many of these requirements were not known, but today it is a poor explanation because good explanations must have the capability of accomplishing the tasks assigned to them. Mutation simply lacks explanatory power. It is worse to because genetic engineering has demonstrated the ability to accomplish these steps. Biological engineering is a far better explanation. What is needed is a new process that has the causal power to explain these sub steps. If a process is not soon found, and genetic engineering goes on to succeed in generating new and diverse life forms, the neo-Darwinian processes will be even less satisfactory.

    It is fine to imagine how mutation and selection could possibly generate the diversity we observe but conjecture and imagination is metaphysics not science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    You can't see how it would work? That's your argument?
    Has it been shown ? So as it hasn,t been shown or whitnessed what other option do you suggest ? If you believe that by extending darwinistic selection (in time) all of a sudden new species could occur what else have you got then believe or "seeing it as possible".

    Does Darwin explain why a rudd and a roach can,t have children that are virtile while they are much less different then two types (but not two species) of dogs.

    What explanation does scientific evolution theory give for the fact that a horse and a donkey can breed a mule but a mule and a horse or a mule and a donkey cannot have children ?

    That a donkey and a horse (or a roach and a rudd) can have children but that these are not virtile to me shows that they come from one species, one ancestor but none of these existed before they parted from that. A=> B+C instead of A=> A+B.

    That way a living species can never be the ancestor of another species. The species split up in two branches. After that for a period of time they still can have offspring but that offspring is somehow invirtile. Darwinism doesn,t explain that invirtality.

    That way men and apes somewhere back in time may decend from one species but existing apes are not mens parents.

    With human rasses two of different gender are virtile allthough different populations can have lived in - relative - seperation for a reasonable long time whereas science has given proof that new species can emerge in rather relatively short time.

    Darwin, the scientific notion of evolution explains rasses not species. So there is a certain incompleteness in that respect. Completeness is pretentious.
    For the record I don,t believe in "a creator" but I do believe in creativity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    You can't see how it would work? That's your argument?
    Has it been shown ? So as it hasn,t been shown or whitnessed what other option do you suggest ? If you believe that by extending darwinistic selection (in time) all of a sudden new species could occur what else have you got then believe or "seeing it as possible".

    Does Darwin explain why a rudd and a roach can,t have children that are virtile while they are much less different then two types (but not two species) of dogs.

    What explanation does scientific evolution theory give for the fact that a horse and a donkey can breed a mule but a mule and a horse or a mule and a donkey cannot have children ?

    That a donkey and a horse (or a roach and a rudd) can have children but that these are not virtile to me shows that they come from one species but none of these species existed before they parted from that. A=> B+C instead of A=> A+B.

    With rasses you can breed what you want it won,t give another species, won,t change a thing in that respect. There you can have the original species and varieties of it at the same time : A=> A+B. That is as far as Darwinism goes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    You can't see how it would work? That's your argument?
    Has it been shown ?
    Speciation? Meaning the appearance of a new group of organisms unable to productively mate with their progenitors? Yes it has been shown, both in lab settings and in the wild. Instances of this have been observed in small animal species and in plants.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    So as it hasn,t been shown or whitnessed what other option do you suggest ?
    It has been shown and witnessed. Examples include the emergence of the fly species Drosophila paulistorum as well as the plant species Stephanomeira malheurensis. But aside from that, we could make a claim regarding large changes by inference from observation of multiple smaller changes over time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    If you believe that by extending darwinistic selection (in time) all of a sudden new species could occur what else have you got then believe or "seeing it as possible".
    Logical inference. Construction of a testable model. If the predictions we make fail, then we abandon the model. So far, none of the core predictions of the model have failed testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    Does Darwin explain why a rudd and a roach can,t have children that are virtile while they are much less different then two types (but not two species) of dogs.
    I don't know much about those species of fish, but as I understand it they merely look quite similar. That doesn't mean that they're genetically similar, since species will often come to look similar to one another due to convergence. Convergence is allowed by the theory of evolution, with the stipulation that convergence of genetics is highly unlikely. The suggestion that rudd and roach are more similar than breeds of dog on the basis of their morphology is a bit odd- rudd and roach belong to different genuses and whilst their external morphology may well be highly conserved by selective pressures, this doesn't mean that any other traits are.

    There could be many reasons why the two cannot produce viable or fertile young- these would be explained by theories within cellular and molecular biology and physiology. These explanations form part of our modern understanding of evolution, though they were mostly unknown to Darwin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    What explanation does scientific evolution theory give for the fact that a horse and a donkey can breed a mule but a mule and a horse or a mule and a donkey cannot have children ?
    Donkeys and horses have differing numbers of chromosomes. Sometimes this can make breeding impossible outright, depending on many factors. In this case, the outcome is that when mules attempt to breed, their haploid gametes cannot properly pair up homologous chromosomes and the fusion process fails. This is quite well understood.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    You can't see how it would work? That's your argument?
    Has it been shown ?
    Speciation? Meaning the appearance of a new group of organisms unable to productively mate with their progenitors? Yes it has been shown, both in lab settings and in the wild. Instances of this have been observed in small animal species and in plants.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    So as it hasn,t been shown or whitnessed what other option do you suggest ?
    It has been shown and witnessed. Examples include the emergence of the fly species Drosophila paulistorum as well as the plant species Stephanomeira malheurensis. But aside from that, we could make a claim regarding large changes by inference from observation of multiple smaller changes over time.
    Let's be honest though. The kinds of speciation you refer to, biologistica are not the same as the ones Ghrasp is asking about. You provide cases of speciation by polyploidy not by the neo-Darwinian mechanism of genetic error and selection. Other examples of speciation you mention are arrived by weakening the definition of species. A better measure of the efficacy of mutation and selection would be to provide an example of generation of any one of the numerous precursors to novel form and function. Diversification implies generation of novel forms. On this point the lab has turned up nothing apart from the occasional one step mutation to an altered enzyme.

    The method of logical inference is fine if there are no other processes that can explain the same observations. In this case not only is their an alternative process but the alternative process is one that is currently in operation, has been shown to be capable of generating the required subcomponents and other necessary and sufficient prerequisites and furthermore uniform experience is that only this process generates these systems. Genetic engineers are increasingly successful at generating the changes required. Naturalism is desperately in need of a more robust and coherent explanation than creative inference. I think there is one but it is certainly not mutation and selection.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Let's be honest though. The kinds of speciation you refer to, biologistica are not the same as the ones Ghrasp is asking about.
    Let's be honest? He's defining speciation as reproductive isolation in this instance. That's exactly what I talked about.

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    You provide cases of speciation by polyploidy not by the neo-Darwinian mechanism of genetic error and selection.
    Since when is polyploidy not part of the modern synthesis theory? It's a form of genetic variation, and though we don't typically class it as mutation, it serves the same function in evolution. Moot point, since only the plant example had anything to do with that. I can give plant examples without the involvement of polyploidy if that would satisfy.

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Other examples of speciation you mention are arrived by weakening the definition of species.
    If the definition was weakened in this discussion, it was not weakened by me. I wrote in terms of Ghrasp's meaning.

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    A better measure of the efficacy of mutation and selection would be to provide an example of generation of any one of the numerous precursors to novel form and function. Diversification implies generation of novel forms. On this point the lab has turned up nothing apart from the occasional one step mutation to an altered enzyme.
    This thread isn't about the generalised 'efficacy' of mutation and selection, whatever that means. It's about the specific capacity of variation and selection to produce speciation as an outcome, with various definitions of speciation being on the table. This more generalised argument of yours is the same argument you're already employing against evolution in other threads. It is off topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    The method of logical inference is fine if there are no other processes that can explain the same observations.
    What other known processes fit the totality of evidence?

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    In this case not only is their an alternative process but the alternative process is one that is currently in operation, has been shown to be capable of generating the required subcomponents and other necessary and sufficient prerequisites and furthermore uniform experience is that only this process generates these systems. Genetic engineers are increasingly successful at generating the changes required.
    And their fingerprints are all over their work, and the results don't fit into a bifurcating phylogeny, nor will they unless they deliberately restrict their own design choices. So really this would be a terrible alternative explanation for the observed, at least for the explaining the origin of diversity in eukarya.

    Again, this is really not on topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Naturalism is desperately in need of a more robust and coherent explanation than creative inference. I think there is one but it is certainly not mutation and selection.
    If not, it certainly isn't design. Unless it's design intended specifically to look like it isn't design.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Let's be honest though. The kinds of speciation you refer to, biologistica are not the same as the ones Ghrasp is asking about.
    Let's be honest? He's defining speciation as reproductive isolation in this instance. That's exactly what I talked about.
    Hmm, I reread his posts and he is speaking far more generally.

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    You provide cases of speciation by polyploidy not by the neo-Darwinian mechanism of genetic error and selection.
    Since when is polyploidy not part of the modern synthesis theory? It's a form of genetic variation, and though we don't typically class it as mutation, it serves the same function in evolution. Moot point, since only the plant example had anything to do with that. I can give plant examples without the involvement of polyploidy if that would satisfy.
    The key word I direct you to is "mechanism". Serving the same function is not the same as "same process".

    If the definition was weakened in this discussion, it was not weakened by me. I wrote in terms of Ghrasp's meaning.
    I don't get that from the posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    A better measure of the efficacy of mutation and selection would be to provide an example of generation of any one of the numerous precursors to novel form and function. Diversification implies generation of novel forms. On this point the lab has turned up nothing apart from the occasional one step mutation to an altered enzyme.
    This thread isn't about the generalised 'efficacy' of mutation and selection, whatever that means. It's about the specific capacity of variation and selection to produce speciation as an outcome, with various definitions of speciation being on the table. This more generalised argument of yours is the same argument you're already employing against evolution in other threads. It is off topic.
    The problem is that the term speciation is so general it is nearly meaningless for this topic. However unless you redefine neo-Darwinian Evolution to limit it to speciation without generating novel form and function, we are talking about the same thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    The method of logical inference is fine if there are no other processes that can explain the same observations.
    What other known processes fit the totality of evidence?
    There are none that fit the totality of evidence. But the modern synthesis can't even produce necessary sub-steps in the direction of diversity. We need a new model.

    And their fingerprints are all over their work, and the results don't fit into a bifurcating phylogeny, nor will they unless they deliberately restrict their own design choices. So really this would be a terrible alternative explanation for the observed, at least for the explaining the origin of diversity in eukarya.
    Hmm, I don't get how you can say that. Contingent design seems to fit the pattern quite well, since contingency provides for both patterns of reuse and transfer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Let's be honest though. The kinds of speciation you refer to, biologistica are not the same as the ones Ghrasp is asking about.
    Let's be honest? He's defining speciation as reproductive isolation in this instance. That's exactly what I talked about.
    Hmm, I reread his posts and he is speaking far more generally.
    He's broad in his first post- much more specific in his second one.

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    You provide cases of speciation by polyploidy not by the neo-Darwinian mechanism of genetic error and selection.
    Since when is polyploidy not part of the modern synthesis theory? It's a form of genetic variation, and though we don't typically class it as mutation, it serves the same function in evolution. Moot point, since only the plant example had anything to do with that. I can give plant examples without the involvement of polyploidy if that would satisfy.
    The key word I direct you to is "mechanism". Serving the same function is not the same as "same process".
    I'm sorry, are you telling me that when you so often make the claim that mutation and selection can't account for this or that- that you're not including chromosome-level variations like polyploidy? I mean, if you're just rejecting some highschool version of evolution then we don't have a problem here, but my impression is that your problems with the theory run deeper than that. So please, let's not play this silly game.

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    If the definition was weakened in this discussion, it was not weakened by me. I wrote in terms of Ghrasp's meaning.
    I don't get that from the posts.
    Ghrasp talks about species exclusively in terms of extent of difference in morphology and interbreeding capacity. My response was in those terms. What did I miss?

    I'm not going to reply to your usual arguments. They've been aired and responded to often enough without bringing them up here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    Let's be honest? He's defining speciation as reproductive isolation in this instance. That's exactly what I talked about.
    I wasn,t, (I even needed an online dictionary to look up for the word speciation to be honest) a horse or a donkey can produce offspring just fine, you have a mule then.

    These fish I referred to are living in the same water no isolation whatsoever and for as long as these species exist (I assume) they have hybridal offspring that is invirtile so the species don,t mix up. I often caught - while fishing- hybrids of roach and rudd or roach (or rudd?) and bream etc. The differences between these species are really minimal, most people fishing even don,t notice the differences and to recognize a hybrid you really need an experienced eye or you have to know what to look for.

    Logical inference. Construction of a testable model. If the predictions we make fail, then we abandon the model. So far, none of the core predictions of the model have failed testing.
    Where did you read that for me (or CLD) the ideas of evolution or Darwin's ideas would have to be abandoned ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    Let's be honest? He's defining speciation as reproductive isolation in this instance. That's exactly what I talked about.
    I wasn,t, (I even needed an online dictionary to look up for the word speciation to be honest) a horse or a donkey can produce offspring just fine, you have a mule then.
    That's not productive breeding. Two groups of organisms are reproductively isolated if either they cannot produce any offspring or they cannot produce fertile offspring. The result is basically the same- a dead end.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    These fish I referred to are living in the same water no isolation whatsoever and for as long as these species exist (I assume) they have hybridal offspring that is invirtile so the species don,t mix up.
    What's basis of that assumption? What's the basis of your assumption that these species have always lived together?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    I often caught - while fishing- hybrids of roach and rudd or roach (or rudd?) and bream etc. The differences between these species are really minimal, most people fishing even don,t notice the differences and to recognize a hybrid you really need an experienced eye or you have to know what to look for.
    What's your point? They look similar? Is that the only way we measure similarity?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    Logical inference. Construction of a testable model. If the predictions we make fail, then we abandon the model. So far, none of the core predictions of the model have failed testing.
    Where did you read that for me (or CLD) the ideas of evolution or Darwin's ideas would have to be abandoned ?
    I don't know what you mean here. Can you rephrase that? What is CLD?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    I don't know what you mean here. Can you rephrase that? What is CLD?
    CLD=Colin Leslie Dean, a bullshit, idiot, pseudoscientist with a degree in English...
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    I don't know what you mean here. Can you rephrase that? What is CLD?
    CLD=Colin Leslie Dean, a bullshit, idiot, pseudoscientist with a degree in English...
    Don't forget self-publicist!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    why it doesn't have popular support amongst biologists. It's garbage.
    if this had been said by a Phd from Yale
    it would not be considered as garbage
    it is garbage only because dean is a no body
    If it had been said by a PhD from Yale there would be cries across the campus in New Haven for more stringent general examinations and dissertation defenses.

    Fortunately, Yale has standards that serve to avoid such things.

    Colin Leslie Dean is not a nobody. He is a well-known (thanks to self-promotion) fool.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    What's basis of that assumption? What's the basis of your assumption that these species have always lived together?
    There is nothing in their way of live and adaptation that makes me assume they have a history of being split up by geographic seperation to an adaption to a different environment.

    They are perfectly well adapted to the same environment only in their own and slightly different way. Some waters I fished the chance of catching a roach is bigger other waters it is reversed and other waters the chance is about fifty fifty.

    I find it hard to assume they first adapted to a different environment living in different waters and then - for what reason ? - they would evolve to a similar biotope that would be to accidental to me.

    That's not productive breeding. Two groups of organisms are reproductively isolated if either they cannot produce any offspring or they cannot produce fertile offspring. The result is basically the same- a dead end.
    Youcan define a word as you want to me a hybrid of a roach and a rudd is not dead just because of being invirtile (catching them they tend to fight harder then either a rudd or a roach meaning not that much but for the record) And such a fish has two parents just the same so these parents had offspring. So these individuals where not isolated and these species are not isolated as most other species. If you want to refer to that as also isolation I wonder how the distinction should be expressed in words ? Let,s say they are (as horses and donkeys) semi-isolated ? I,m not saying that the possibility to get invirtile offspring is similar to getting virtile offspring but you can,t either say that it is similar to having no possibility for offspring. A Donkey to a horse is different then a camel. There are similarities and differences but nothing is similar or completely different. As I see these hybrids they reflect in their morphology the ancestors of both species...Therefor A=>B+C instead of A=>A+B. Meaning B and C emerge at the same time as A dissappears.

    Ghrasp wrote:
    Quote:
    Logical inference. Construction of a testable model. If the predictions we make fail, then we abandon the model. So far, none of the core predictions of the model have failed testing.

    Where did you read that for me (or CLD) the ideas of evolution or Darwin's ideas would have to be abandoned ?

    I don't know what you mean here. Can you rephrase that? What is CLD?
    I have nowhere critisized the mechanics as being wrong as you suggest (and then would lead to the necessarity to abandon the ideas) just that you can,t use them to explain everything which would be the pretence of a completeness that is false simply becaue of being a pretence. That does not say these ideas are wrong just that they need some resistance at times in their pretention of ëxplaining everything or regard everything as being explanable by or within a model. Lack of completeness can be misleading and thinking within a model prooving it,s incompleteness is impossible.
    Who the shoe fits puts it on. If such resistance is experienced as criticque to these ideas as being wrong it,s not CLD's (or my) problem, he just critisizes the pretentions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    What's basis of that assumption? What's the basis of your assumption that these species have always lived together?
    There is nothing in their way of live and adaptation that makes me assume they have a history of being split up by geographic seperation to an adaption to a different environment.
    A lack of evidence is not very compelling.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    They are perfectly well adapted to the same environment only in their own and slightly different way.
    Which might also be true if they had originated as one species, then been geographically isolated long enough to become reproductively isolated, then re-united and left to adapt to the same environment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    Some waters I fished the chance of catching a roach is bigger other waters it is reversed and other waters the chance is about fifty fifty.
    Not evidence of anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    I find it hard to assume they first adapted to a different environment living in different waters and then - for what reason ? - they would evolve to a similar biotope that would be to accidental to me.
    Your inability to imagine things is not evidence.

    Not going to bother with the rest, I just don't have the lifetime to waste on this stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    Ghrasp wrote:
    Quote:
    What's basis of that assumption? What's the basis of your assumption that these species have always lived together?


    There is nothing in their way of live and adaptation that makes me assume they have a history of being split up by geographic seperation to an adaption to a different environment.


    A lack of evidence is not very compelling.
    These animals are as closely related as donkeys and horses. Donkeys and horses their biotope also never had sharp borders or isolation. Their is no proof to assume that only after developing to different species they met again they don,t live on small islands (and even that would be no proof and never has been.
    At least their is no proof for that.
    So you should not point me at lack of proof if their is no proovability in a scientific way.
    Without proovability or proof people still can communicate in terms of what is likely, possible etc. Scientific occupation with proof is not that impressive to me that it stops my imagination. But for you that seems different.

    What sense would it make if I throw lack of proof to you (I have no proof for proovability as well) if you assume this seperation as a necessity for evolvement of species. I don,t have proof against it.
    But the sme way you occupation with proof here is based on nothing because there is no proovability in the case of these specific species. The isolation of the isles at the part of the world Darwin studied can be accidental or not that important as assumed. It may have played a role that,s for sure but it doesn,t proof geographical isolation as always necessary or a prooven fact in all cases where new species developed.

    On the contrary there are birds on some of the galapagos islands of different species so similar and closely related that they have been discovered only lately and that do live mixed up on the same islands. They only live a different "style of life". To develop a different style or a new style what do you need for that ?

    In you,re post you throw lack of proof to me where there is a lack of proovability. That lack we share in this case or in the case of horses and donkeys and many many other species. So it can be turned back to you as well (and be just as pointless for that lack.

    The standard model has used this isolation as a way to make the evolution of species based on random mutations more acceptable. And the Galapagos islands served well to illustrate that. But it doesn,t serve me well for the lakes I fish.

    These species live in europe, asia in a biotope that is well defined by temperature, saltness of the water etc a seperation for a longer period before evolving is unlikely so it is likely that there hasn,t been a seperation. No proof for it is not needed as I use the word likely not the word certainty. I,m sorry if I can,t offer you certainty you seem to need it.

    But what gives you certainty ? A model. Where is the difference with other models that serve people to give them certainty..The proof may be there for races variety withing species etc but there is no proof that you can extend that proof and mechanism to explain the evolution of new species.

    These different species are more similar then some varieties in one race.
    That may make it seem possible that they evolved by the same idea as varieties.

    But the problem is that these different species are different in a very specific way that shows them to be species (not able to produce virtile offspring) where if the difference may seem bigger with races they still have this ability and are one species.

    Of all the genes Horses and Donkeys have most are identic but some specific genes are different.

    Do you want me to believe that they happened to diver on that gene of all the genes they have just by coincidence and randomness ?

    It is not convincng and it won,t be (and not just for me) in the future.

    Roaches/rudd hybrids and mules may not proof this but they do show the ability to survive and an adaptation to their environment and the environment of roach and rudd. So why aren,t they virtile ?

    You cannot explain that without the idea of a long isolation but do not have proof that a different geographical environment on itself results in invirtile offspring and also no proof that these species where isolated that way or by huge mountains or anything. You have no proof that there is a gap in time and space between an ancestor of horse and donkey and mules.
    Just as I have no proof there is not a gap. To me you,re lack of proof is not a problem (I can live with a lack of proovability) but if my lack of proof is it to you I suspect you to reflect and critisize you,re own ideas on that criterium as well.
    Then you might come to the conclusion that their is a lack of proovability and hence right or wrong is not an issue, you would have to scientifically proof the proovability of this mechanism in relation to the evolution of species first. Proovability and prooving in releation to how varieties can develop is not enough. For variety I even don,t need a fossil proof or any other scientific proof. It is allready evident (it shows) that people developed different skin to different climate while still of same species.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60 Re: Genetics cant account for generation/origin of new speci 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    the australian scientist colin leslie dean argues that Genetics cant account for generation/origin of new species

    http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com..._selection.pdf

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

    put simply
    it is argued that
    the generation of new species is due to random changes in genes
    if the process is random then genetics cannot account for why a species appears for being random there can be no deterministic reason why it happens in a particular why- once the generation process has started genetics can account for how it unfolds-but genetics cannot account for its random starting point -as this is just by chance- chaos theory might but genetics cant

    what may cause a gene to alter randomly could be radiation chemicals virus etc but this all happens by chance Being by chance genetics thus cannot account for the generation of new species
    certainly genetics can't account for evolution. That would be descent with modification.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp

    These animals are as closely related as donkeys and horses. Donkeys and horses their biotope also never had sharp borders or isolation. Their is no proof to assume that only after developing to different species they met again they don,t live on small islands (and even that would be no proof and never has been.
    At least their is no proof for that.
    You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. The wild ancestor of donkeys lives in Western Africa, the wild ancestor of horses lived in Eastern Europe and Western Asia (it went extinct in the 19th century). How is that not geographically isolated? Both the modern horse and donkey are domesticated by humans.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    So you should not point me at lack of proof if their is no proovability in a scientific way.
    Without proovability or proof people still can communicate in terms of what is likely, possible etc. Scientific occupation with proof is not that impressive to me that it stops my imagination. But for you that seems different.

    What sense would it make if I throw lack of proof to you (I have no proof for proovability as well) if you assume this seperation as a necessity for evolvement of species. I don,t have proof against it.
    But the sme way you occupation with proof here is based on nothing because there is no proovability in the case of these specific species. The isolation of the isles at the part of the world Darwin studied can be accidental or not that important as assumed. It may have played a role that,s for sure but it doesn,t proof geographical isolation as always necessary or a prooven fact in all cases where new species developed.
    Breeding isolation doesn't require geographic isolation. If two groups of animals mate at different times of the year, they won't breed. Geographic isolation is just one way that two populations can become breeding isolates.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    The standard model has used this isolation as a way to make the evolution of species based on random mutations more acceptable. And the Galapagos islands served well to illustrate that. But it doesn,t serve me well for the lakes I fish.

    These species live in europe, asia in a biotope that is well defined by temperature, saltness of the water etc a seperation for a longer period before evolving is unlikely so it is likely that there hasn,t been a seperation. No proof for it is not needed as I use the word likely not the word certainty. I,m sorry if I can,t offer you certainty you seem to need it.
    Your argument isn't entirely cogent, but how is a separation unlikely?

    These different species are more similar then some varieties in one race.
    That may make it seem possible that they evolved by the same idea as varieties.

    But the problem is that these different species are different in a very specific way that shows them to be species (not able to produce virtile offspring) where if the difference may seem bigger with races they still have this ability and are one species.
    Huh, on what basis do you determine they aren't different at a genetic level. Do you want to present their genomes to show how similarly related they are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    Of all the genes Horses and Donkeys have most are identic but some specific genes are different.
    No they vary in many different ways, they share a common ancestor though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    It is not convincng and it won,t be (and not just for me) in the future.

    Roaches/rudd hybrids and mules may not proof this but they do show the ability to survive and an adaptation to their environment and the environment of roach and rudd. So why aren,t they virtile ?
    What?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    You cannot explain that without the idea of a long isolation but do not have proof that a different geographical environment on itself results in invirtile offspring and also no proof that these species where isolated that way or by huge mountains or anything. You have no proof that there is a gap in time and space between an ancestor of horse and donkey and mules.

    Just as I have no proof there is not a gap. To me you,re lack of proof is not a problem (I can live with a lack of proovability) but if my lack of proof is it to you I suspect you to reflect and critisize you,re own ideas on that criterium as well.
    Then you might come to the conclusion that their is a lack of proovability and hence right or wrong is not an issue, you would have to scientifically proof the proovability of this mechanism in relation to the evolution of species first. Proovability and prooving in releation to how varieties can develop is not enough. For variety I even don,t need a fossil proof or any other scientific proof. It is allready evident (it shows) that people developed different skin to different climate while still of same species.
    Skin colour isn't adapted to different climates. Once again, geographic isolation is just one of many ways two groups can become isolated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62 Re: Genetics cant account for generation/origin of new speci 
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Quote Originally Posted by edam421
    the australian scientist colin leslie dean argues that Genetics cant account for generation/origin of new species

    http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com..._selection.pdf

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

    put simply
    it is argued that
    the generation of new species is due to random changes in genes
    if the process is random then genetics cannot account for why a species appears for being random there can be no deterministic reason why it happens in a particular why- once the generation process has started genetics can account for how it unfolds-but genetics cannot account for its random starting point -as this is just by chance- chaos theory might but genetics cant

    what may cause a gene to alter randomly could be radiation chemicals virus etc but this all happens by chance Being by chance genetics thus cannot account for the generation of new species
    certainly genetics can't account for evolution. That would be descent with modification.
    Yeah, basically the answer to the thread that.

    Ghrasp, can't be bothered sorry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. The wild ancestor of donkeys lives in Western Africa, the wild ancestor of horses lived in Eastern Europe and Western Asia (it went extinct in the 19th century). How is that not geographically isolated? Both the modern horse and donkey are domesticated by humans.
    Haha you where there at the time these species evolved ?

    Or maybe is it based on fossils.
    Then that is what is known ;
    The original habitat of the oldest fossil of a horse that was found by men is somewhere in europe and the original habitat of the oldest fossil of a donkey was in afrika (where these continents even seperated then ?)

    Between development of these species and these oldest fossils there can be thousands and thousands of years.

    The isolation idea is only illustrated by selecting specific examples that fit to it. The idea implies that for the development of species racial seperation (development of variety) is necessary.

    Look in you,re garden and you will see enough closely related species adapted to the same biotope and sharing the same habitat and breeding at the same time.

    With fish and plants the isolation is even less, as the firtilization is different then with mammels and birds (hence the hybrids). Pollen of plants can travel huge distances.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Modern horses and donkeys are domesticated animals Ghrasp, all domesticated donkeys are genetically related to the wild African Ass, Donkeys were domesticated by the Egyptians and Nubians as a pack animal. This is well understood.

    Wild horses were domesticated in Asia, wild horses lived in the Eurasian Steppes. The only surviving wild horse is found in Mongolia, all other breeds of horses are feral domestics or domestic horses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    where these continents even seperated then
    Yes and the break-up had been complete for many tens of millions of years. Not knowing this simple fact illustrates the amount of knowledge you are basing your arguments from. *Hint: not a lot*
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    Sure they are "domesticated", many species are. It means that men and these species live in a sort of symbioses with different human populations (allthough it is difficult to use the word symbiosis in relation to bio-industry). Symbiosis is not something exceptional in nature. There is no proof that mules didn,t exist before donkeys and horses where domesticated and even before humans evolved.

    If these species would have developed by selection/isolation by men (breeding as a schoolexample of isolation) they would be less old then humans as a species (?).

    I tried to find some more specific information on mules and as it seems the number of chromosomes is different for donkeys and horses 62, resp 64. Therefor mules have 63 chromosomes which would make them invirtile. I have no idea if this is also the case with roaches and rudd or other species that can produce hybrids.

    But according to this source (in Dutch) sometimes a female mule can get pregnant from a male horse or male donkey. The offspring is not a mule foal then but back to a normal horse - resp. donkey foal and virtile as well. So mules would not be invirtile or "a dead end" by definition.
    That would mean hybrids of fish like roach and rudd could also be virtile some times.
    Species that can produce hybrid offspring are certainly exceptional but a theory on how species evolve also has to fit and be acceptable for exceptions not only the examples that fit the theory nicely.

    Otherwise it clearly would be what I mentioned as picking examples that are usefull to illustrate and fit in a model.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    you make it sound like the potential to create hybrids under special circumstances is a problem for the theory of evolution.

    It just proves that 2 lineages have a common ancestry.

    duh.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    And it makes it highly unlikely that they where isolated before developing as seperate species yes. For that isolation idea there is no proof. And if it is not proven explaining development of species becomes much more difficult.

    But it,s not the only thing that makes it unlikely. Pollen with plants do the same as there isolation is also almost impossible.

    By the way even Darwin never pretended to explain it all. He never was a Darwinist. The only thing he really rambled on was that species could change in relation to how they where supposed to be created. He explained and explains by a mechanism how there can be variety within a species and then a point.

    The example of Donkey and horse with a different amount of chromosome does tell something. As you know chromosomes come in pairs.

    More primitive lifeforms like a fruitfly had and have less (8 for a fruitfly).

    As you noticed a donkey and a horse are reproductively isolated because of the difference in amount of chromosomes; 62 to 64 and a mule has 63. So two mules can,t breed offspring ; it would come to 31+ 32 resp male donkey, female horse
    or other way round ; always uneven amount.

    The cases where a female mule and a male horse (32) or male donkey (31) have virtile offspring the female also delivers 32 resp 31 chromosomes. She passes on the chromosomes of her mother (bad luck for her father)

    But it shows that to make a step to a higher amount of chromosomes is difficult.

    If an ancestor would have 30 and the next species has 32 both a male and a female have to develop 32 first to come to where they can,t breed with there ancestor.
    The mechanism of evolution explains genetic variation within a certain amount of chromosomes but not the different amount of chromosomes between closely related species and also not an increase in amount of genes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Your argument appears to be of this form:

    We do not understand everything about evolution
    Therefore evolution is wrong.

    That is not a very logical or convincing argument.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    And it makes it highly unlikely that they where isolated before developing as seperate species yes. For that isolation idea there is no proof. And if it is not proven explaining development of species becomes much more difficult.
    I'm sorry, but are you dense? If the ancestor of domestic donkeys lived in West Africa in 4000 bce and the ancestor of domestic horses lived in the Eurasian steppes in 4000 bce, then the species were geographically separated at that point. The only reason we find donkeys and horses living side by side today is because of humans domesticating the animals and spreading them around everywhere.

    Once again you're ignoring the fact that breeding isolation does not require geographic isolation.

    You're showing so much misunderstanding of biology in that post. There's nothing "more primitive" about fruit flies, number of chromosomes tells you nothing. There are species of amoeba with 200 times the amount of DNA as humans, most plants have much larger genomes than most animals.

    There is also plenty of research on how chromosome number changes occur. An entire chromosome can be duplicated (this happens reasonably frequently in humans, but usually causes disorders), two chromosomes can combine, or one chromosome can split. The best studied example of this is the chromosome difference between humans and chimps.

    http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    Ophiolite : Your argument appears to be of this form:

    We do not understand everything about evolution
    Therefore evolution is wrong.

    That is not a very logical or convincing argument.
    Actually that,s the same form as :

    We do not understand everything about evolution
    Therefore evolution is right.

    Logic form is no different. Or maybe you understand it all and it doesn,t apply to you ?
    But I no where said that Darwin was wrong I just try to explain that the title of his book is pretentious. And personnally I believe there are things you will never get explained and the book is a book of explanation that to me means an inbuild limitation on itself.

    Tired and sleepy : I'm sorry, but are you dense? If the ancestor of domestic donkeys lived in West Africa in 4000 bce and the ancestor of domestic horses lived in the Eurasian steppes in 4000 bce, then the species were geographically separated at that point.
    You mean that the oldest fossils found by men of these species are found there. There can be thousands of generations of donkeys and horses between the first and these fossils. The distance means nothing on these scales and with the mobility of these animals. It,s the same as with humans twenty years ago humans came from a different area then now. It changes every time if an older fossil is found. And research on human fossils has been far more intensive then on donkeys and horses.

    That they - possible - later on migrated to different areas and by that where seperated could be possible but says nothing if they migrated after they developed to different species. There is no proof that this migration was before they developed as species or after. You can,t argue that if there is no proovability for a or b thus a is true as long b is not prooven that,s ridiculous.

    Tired and Sleepy : You're showing so much misunderstanding of biology in that post. There's nothing "more primitive" about fruit flies, number of chromosomes tells you nothing. There are species of amoeba with 200 times the amount of DNA as humans, most plants have much larger genomes than most animals.
    Maybe different understanding ? I,m certainly not an expert in biology, genes and chromosomes that,s right. But it says nothing if you as maybe an expert say someone shows to not be an expert. It,s not an arguement and not on topic, just presumptious.

    The real issue is that Dean points out that Darwin did not explain the origin of species by his book. He only explained how variety,s within a species could emerge related to a different natural environment.
    Darwin had no idea about amounts of genes and chromosomes. All the latest research mentioned here was not known by him. He choose a title that pretended something he could not really account for. Darwin in his book never touched (he couldn,t at that time) on a different amount of genes or chromosomes related to the origin of species.

    If donkeys where the ancestor of horses from donkey to horse is not just a variation of genes but genes are added or left away. If they had the same ancestor species it,s the same either donkey or horse or both then would have a different amount of genes as this ancestorspecies. Thats different then just variation of genes like you have with different races. If only variation all species would have the same amount of genes.

    If horses first developed to the species they are and then the amount of chromosome pairs or genes would have changed within the species the horses with two pair of chromosomes more could not breed with horses with a pair less or only as a donkey and a horse can so by the definition of the ability to get virtile offspring these different horses would not be one species. The development of a different amount of chromosome pairs and genes must be closely related with their development to a species on their own.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. The wild ancestor of donkeys lives in Western Africa, the wild ancestor of horses lived in Eastern Europe and Western Asia (it went extinct in the 19th century). How is that not geographically isolated? Both the modern horse and donkey are domesticated by humans.
    Haha you where there at the time these species evolved ?
    Oh bloody hell. Big fan of Ken Ham by any chance?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    I don't know what Darwin has to do with anything, Darwin is certainly outdated, but how is this relevant to modern biology? I think Ophi has made this analogy before, it's like you're trying to argue against modern physics by pointing out problems in Newtonian mechanics. I'm not going to respond to the micro/macro distinction argument, it has been addressed too many times

    And of course the ancestors of horses and donkeys diverged earlier than the point of domestication, they diverged much much earlier (as well as from the Zebra). The point was to illustrate that these species were most definitely not within breeding range of each other. If they can be geographically separate and existing in different parts of the world, why is it so hard to believe they could not have been separated in the past. Two populations become isolated from each other seems far more likely than never once becoming separate. It is not separation that creates breeding isolation, but isolated populations allow for different changes to occur. The behavior of one group can change to make breeding between the two groups no longer happen if they were reintroduced into the same habitat. The receptors on egg and sperm could change gradually to make them incapable of fusing gametes.

    As to the chromosome number problem, there's an easy solution to that, inbreeding.

    Edit: I'm not sure if the different chromosome number of horses arose during domestication though, apparently the wild Mongolian horse has 66 like donkeys, though it is possible that the direct ancestors of domestic horses had 32 pairs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    And it makes it highly unlikely that they where isolated before developing as seperate species yes. For that isolation idea there is no proof. And if it is not proven explaining development of species becomes much more difficult..
    you seem to have difficulty understanding the concept of hybridism under forced conditions.

    Recently they discovered two species of fish which had diverged into new species in just 100 generations. They live in the same lake. They can actually interbreed in captivity. But they never do in the wild.

    Hybridism is possible, but it isn't a realistic event in the wild. (behavioural differences, niche differences)

    And failing to accept this is just pigheadedness. Sheer unwillingness to accept fact. Denialism. Or even worse.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    The point was to illustrate that these species were most definitely not within breeding range of each other. If they can be geographically separate and existing in different parts of the world, why is it so hard to believe they could not have been separated in the past.
    You ask me to believe something on a scienceforum ?
    Why would I have to believe that these species developed seperate of each other from one ancestor ? A branch can also split up in two branches each going a different direction then before the splitting. Donkey and horse can have done the same.
    If I believe what you ask me to believe I have to exclude options that are just as believable. The believe in a model is the only basis to rule other options out here. Therefor you can,t use it anymore to proof the mechanism you would be prooving (illustrating) the mechanism by the pick of an option that comes from that same model. It,s the model that leads you to that option. You can not go back then and proof the model with that option. Logically that,s trying to bite you,re own tail.

    If you look at a tree where it develops a new branch the growth direction of the whole tree changes, more or less. A new branch on an existing branch the existing branch changes it,s growth direktion. Donkey and horse might just as well have developed that way.

    The idea of one ancestor and horse and Donkey evolving at different time and place from that ancestor at least one of them has a different amount of chromosomes and one of them had the same amount the ancestor had 31 or 32 in his gamets or this developed later but the ancestor and the donkey as well as the ancestor and the horse can,t have been seperated. The ancestorspecies lived in Africa and Europe then. You cant seperate a species from the ancestor species.

    I may have concentrated to much to the amount of chromosomes. There are different species (isolated for breeding) with the same amount of chromosomes as well so that would not be necessary.

    I used the word primitive earlier. What I meant was that the first plants had a certain amount of genes. How likely is it that these plants had more genes then all the organisms following ? So somehow new genes can emerge in evolution. Is that (and thats more then particular existing genes that change) just evolution or creation or is it evolution and creativity combined. People can be creative also if they are not theistic creativity can have a meaning.
    Creativity does not automatically imply a believe, it,s a normal word not a dirty word.

    If creativity exists for other species as well I see no reason why it could not play a role in the variety of species combined with evolution (how would become the question then). Or it would only be a hobby of people ?

    If you ask an artist how creativity works would you expect an answer that explains it for you. I wouln,t. But that would not lead me to the conclusion that creativity thus doesn,t exist just as you can see evolution in an artists work and in art in general. So in art evolution as well as creativity plays a role.
    And as I have no reason to assume creativity started with humans or horses or apes or dogs. So where did it start ? Did it start before something existed or could it be an integral part of all existence ?
    If that,s a believe then what is there to not hold it possible. Not believing becomes a believe then also. The believe in existence without creativity. And maybe that,s what that believe shows... a lack of creativity, regarding it as a word that is dirty.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    I'm not sure what you're getting at. "Creativity" seems an ill-defined term, what exactly is that supposed to mean. How would you propose "creativity" be assessed in any sort of objective way.

    Of course new genes have arisen in the genomes of organisms, this is in no way in conflict with evolutionary theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    The point was to illustrate that these species were most definitely not within breeding range of each other. If they can be geographically separate and existing in different parts of the world, why is it so hard to believe they could not have been separated in the past.
    You ask me to believe something on a scienceforum ?
    Why would I have to believe that these species developed seperate of each other from one ancestor ? A branch can also split up in two branches each going a different direction then before the splitting. Donkey and horse can have done the same.
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ord-speed.html

    FISH in a remote crater lake in Nicaragua are splitting into separate species at breakneck speed.

    It has taken the lake cichlids just 100 generations and as many years to evolve an entirely new physical feature: very fat lips. Most estimates of how fast species evolve new features are based on models, which generally indicate that it could take up to 10,000 generations. Some models suggest just tens of generations are enough, but such rapid change has never been documented before.

    Axel Meyer at the University of Konstanz in Germany and his team say the fat-lipped fish occupy a different ecological niche from their thin-lipped cousins, despite living in the same lake, which fills a volcanic crater (BMC Biology, vol 8, p 60). They don't eat the same diet, nor do they like to mate with each other - though lab experiments show they can still interbreed. Meyer says that if they avoid mating with each other in the wild, they are well on their way to becoming separate species.

    The new variety has a narrower, more pointed head, ideal for nibbling insects and larvae from crevices in the volcanic rock, and fat lips to cushion its ventures into these sharp-edged fissures. The thin-lipped variety has sturdier jaws and more teeth, to crack the shells of the snails it feeds on.
    original article:
    http://www.evolutionsbiologie.uni-ko..._7007_8_60.pdf

    you don't have to believe a scienceforum. But to deny the existence of scientific literature is a farce.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    Where did I deny these things. I am not unaware of the important role mating preferences have and wasn,t unaware of it when I first reacted here. And I allready knew that such developments can go relatively fast. What makes them go fast is that the mating preference is related to a certain change. I also assume a horse could have a preference for another horse instead of a donkey to mate and a roach male for a roach female.
    But the preference on itself is that explained by the same genes. How do annimals with a genetic change recognize the genes in there mating partner ?
    They don,t carry a genetic profile around in their pasport.

    And does their offspring inherit that preference itself also ?

    If they inherit that preference also by a genetic change can that gene also be explained by another preference ? and that one by again another gene and another preference aso ? Somewhere you need a sort of consciousness to come out of that or they would keep mating blindly as they are still virtile between each other and not breeding hybrids. At least that is not mentioned.

    If they need genes to develop that preference (a blind preference) the mating preference can not serve to account for such a fast evolution also.
    It can,t be blind and at random.

    So as long as the idea of evolution is blind and at random as Darwin and also Dawkins (the blind watchmaker, a book I read on this) assumed such a fast evolution still can,t be explained by random genetic variation only.

    Partner preference can explain the rapid change of the lips but not how the partnerpreference itself changes or can it ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    you seem to mix up stuff for no good reason.

    Ever tried to carefully formulate?
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    Actually that,s the same form as :

    We do not understand everything about evolution
    Therefore evolution is right.

    Logic form is no different. Or maybe you understand it all and it doesn,t apply to you ?
    Really. Try to pay attention for a moment or two.

    We are talking about probabilities. The vast interlocking volume of evidence in favour of evolution on the one hand and the presence of uncertainties in some particualrs of evolution on the other. We then couple this with the observation that many uncertainties in the past have been resolved and turn out to support and confirm evolution. None have ever turned out to falsify evolution.

    It would therefore be an act of singular stupdity to reject evolution as the most probable explanation for the observations of biology, biochenmistry, genetics, palaeontology and embryology. Yet this is exactly what you propose.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    But I no where said that Darwin was wrong I just try to explain that the title of his book is pretentious.
    Please tell me what is pretentious about "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

    This is the very opposite of pretentious. It adopts the Victorian habit of long, explanatory titles. Adopting the scoeital norm is the opposite of pretentious.

    It does not claim that Natural Selection is rpsonsible for the origin of species, rather it explains that this book is a discussion on that topic. This, again, is the opposite of pretentiousness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    For the record I do believe in evolution as well as creativity and not in design be it intelligent or not.
    So no need to convince me.

    The example of the fish is a special one. It shows the classic seperation idea is not necessary. The preference for mating plays that role just fine.

    My idea of a specific preference for these specific genes is wrong I regret allready I came up with that. A general preference for fitness is enough if there is a time the normal foudsource is less available the fish that can still find food stay more fit.

    But again it is an example.

    Another example is birds where the feathers have stirking colours like peacocks.
    The females do the selecting here. But if such colours would emerge from selection based on general fitness (as I read once in Dawkins book "the blind watchmaker" ) then why aren,t all male birds so different from the females.

    Also why would a bird have to show his fitness with striking feathers ? There are so much other options for that.

    The funktion of these feathers lies in that the male that way can lead predators astray from the nest, the eggs. bad for him but good for his genes.

    Some salmons also have this feature. They develop a striking red head specially where it is vissible for predators like bears and some birds.
    These predators start to concentrate on such spots as they make it easy to detect a salmon. less males then females reach the breeding area of the river.
    For the species that is an advantage but for selection by the females it shouldn,t play a role. A salmon who would not develop such a spot before swimming up the river could be just as fit as all the others.

    I can,t explain these examples by the book I read from Dawkins, these genes don,t seem selfish at least not individual.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    I'm a scientist. I do not believe in evolution. I accept it as an elegant theory that enriches the scientific progress. And the current body of knowledge shows that in all probability the chances are low that in the near or not so near future we will have a radically different theory that can explain the same body of knowledge better (p < 0.001)

    Science as a whole is also not interested whether you as an individual has a certain belief set that corresponds to the accepted dogma in the scientific community as such. That is because all members of the scientific community are fairly knowledgeable on the concept of the irrelevance of the personal viewpoints of lay people, especially when it concerns topics such as evolution, which serve mostly as intellectual "penis size comparing" test for people with too much time on their hands.

    In the scientific community there is no discussion on whether the theory of evolution is true. They go out and test the theory on a daily basis. And since nobody has ever come up with anything but supportive evidence for more than 100 years the experimental setup has gone from disproving/proving evolution to mapping out the details of evolution a long long time ago. The correct scientific term would be 'yonks".

    This even allows for publications that use evolution as a given. I know because I have published these kind of papers myself.

    Don Chicote was fighting windmills. Creationists are fighting enlightenment. Educated people are fighting denialists.

    And the USA is fighting terrorists with terrorism.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Don Chicote was fighting windmills. Creationists are fighting enlightenment. Educated people are fighting denialists.

    And the USA is fighting terrorists with terrorism.
    ..and a partridge in a pear tree.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    In the scientific community there is no discussion on whether the theory of evolution is true.
    I,m nowhere discussing evolution here am I ?
    I,m also nowhere arguing that evolution is a result of a world that was first created. Or creativity came/comes first (thus a creator) and then evolution came/comes later or the other way round explaining creativity by evoltion. I see creativity and evolution as the two basic forces for constant renewal and dynamically balance each other. If it is for birds or for human nature and culture or even for what we call "matter" or for science or art or music.
    So explaining renewal only by evlution to me is just as dumb as explaining it only from creativity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    So explaining renewal only by evlution to me is just as dumb as explaining it only from creativity.
    But creativity implies a conscious and intentional input, no? Platyhelminthes didn't decide to try out cephalization, it evolved.

    I guess I don't understand why some people find natural selection so difficult to believe/understand. There is natural randomness built into organisms, as no two are exactly the same, even among siblings. One way to visualise the effect of evolution over time is to imagine two balls being let go at the top of a very tall incline. Even if the ball is, say, a squash ball and the surface of the incline is as smooth as paint on a wall, those two balls could end up separated by a huge distance once they reach the bottom. This is accomplished solely by the minute variations of the terrain and each ball's own particularities.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    I guess I don't understand why some people find natural selection so difficult to believe/understand.
    If I would bring into a conversation that black exists when someone explains me that everything is white it doesn,t imply I deny the existence of white.
    My argument is that white and light are basically complementary to each other.

    The color of a sockey has nothing to do with fitness.

    A pair that would give birth to sockeyes that start to develop the red spawndress would give birth to offspring where it doesn,t matter for the females no advantage or disadvantage (they don,t change colors that way) but the male offspring would have less chance to survive the river. So for the competition inside the species between the males it is a disadvantage where it is an advantage for the species as a whole. If that type of advantage (from female consciousness where we males tend to be blind for ?) outweighs the personal disadvantage for the males it apparently can bring such developments.

    As the females do the selecting in this they must be aware of this advantage but without having an individual advantage.
    So a blind process and only idividual advantage and awareness would lead to the disappearance of this feature that is related to the livechances of the species because a few males less can still firilize all eggs and more females means more eggs thus more offspring.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    You don't need anything special to explain that.

    A few males can suffice to inseminate large numbers of females. If the redheaded males do in fact increase the survival of the females then the trait could easily be explained through natural selection.

    Say you have one group of fish where the females don't carry the gene to produce red headed males. They have 10 female offspring, and 10 male offspring. They get killed in equal amounts, let's say you're left with 5 females and 5 males when they go to breed. Those 5 females are pretty much guaranteed to reproduce, maybe the males aren't.

    Now you have another population where the males and females carry the gene to produce red headed male offspring. They have 10 females and 10 males like above, except the red head increases the survivability of the females. So, you get 9 females survive, and 1 male. Those, 9 females could reproduce with a small number of males. The only way this could negatively effect fitness of the females is if the male population got too low for them to successfully reproduce.

    If you ignore the sex of the fish, you'll see that the redheaded trait would be selected for since overall more offspring will be produced if the trait is present.

    Your problem is you're seeing this as a group selection thing, when you're ignoring the fact that selection could be simply acting more in favor of the females.

    I doubt the female fish are aware of anything.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    A few males can suffice to inseminate large numbers of females. If the redheaded males do in fact increase the survival of the females then the trait could easily be explained through natural selection.
    The problem is that they don,t the females haven,t got this coloration so it is strictly for the male line only. The advantage for the females is that these colours distracts attention of predators to the males and therefor from the females. If you went hunting for these fish with in a river you,d be looking for red spots that flash by. A bear and a bird do the same in that season as it helps them to catch salmon in general because of the better visibility.

    It could work when there would be a population of two fish for a certain river an adam and eve of sockeys. Then the 5 females would have a better chance thanks to there brothers but then it doesn,t work, no bear is going to hunt for just ten or even thousand salmons in one river a seison.

    Also these five females would have no advantage of it only if they would after years have a date to swim up the river together. If a female swims up when here brother passed half a day earlier and another brother half an hour later it hasn,t got the effect.

    The only way this could negatively effect fitness of the females is if the male population got too low for them to successfully reproduce.
    You,re forgetting incest here as a negative influence.

    the species would be incestuous to a veryhigh degree.
    Incest is normally not an item with animals as they part from each other and mix with others from that species. They may even forget who there brother or sister is. Incest happens rarely then and only becomes a problem when a population is decreased and isolated for at least a few generations.

    In bigger populations if it happens the chance that it happens two times in one line is decreased with approx the produkt of the first chance. If it was a chance out of thousend for the children to breed the chance two children of two of these parents breed again in the whole population is again one out of thousend. So the total chance for two times in a row is one out of million.

    In this case it would be one out of one. As you considered them isolated. Such a population would not survive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    You're suggesting that because the females don't have red heads they don't carry the gene that produces it in males, which isn't likely. All the genes necessary to produce facial hair exist within females of the human species, but they don't because of hormonal differences. It could very well be the same thing in the fish.

    Also, my examples were simplified to make it easier to understand, I doubt this happened overnight with one fish. Also, considering how salmon spawn, essentially just releasing ejaculate into the water and hoping for the best, inbreeding probably does happen fairly frequently. Not that I'm a specialist on fish reproduction though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    Also, my examples were simplified to make it easier to understand
    But - I reckon - you also know the risk of symplifying. You could be symplifying it to fit the model. Explaining the model by the example you,re at the same tme explaining the example by the model, adapting it to the simplicity of the model.


    You're suggesting that because the females don't have red heads they don't carry the gene that produces it in males, which isn't likely.
    So where talking probabilities now (no problem) because likely and not likely implies implies more or less likely and not certainty.

    All the genes necessary to produce facial hair exist within females of the human species, but they don't because of hormonal differences. It could very well be the same thing as the fish.
    You mean they don,t express I suppose. That's right. But we also saw with the donkey horse that can have pure and normal donkey fauls with a mule when the mother of that mule was a donkey that you still can distinguish genes purely by a mother and father line otherwise the chromosomes couldn,t be unravelled for a pure donkey gamete. So a gene also has a history where it first emerged beit in a father or in a mother and the other gender playing a role in the selection. Then the fathers give it through to the next generation of males and female offspring where it expresses different depending on how they are combined with hormones (for which other genes again play a role).

    In a way males and females don,t have the same natural environment because females are part of the natural environment for the males as they select them and other way round males select females just the same but different also. The selectivity of males and females is not the same and thus the natural environment isn,t as they are part of the environment..

    If you would explain it by consciousness (including of themselves, natural environment, gender difference dangers, feeding etc) the consciousness for selecting is also not the same consciousness. Just as if you go from natural selection the natural environment is not the same because of gender as the specie itself is part of the natural envirionment also.

    What you notice with the sockeye also is that the color is not coincidental, red is known as being easy visible by predators especially in water and the red is also concentrated on the back and head thus turned to the surface where most danger comes from in undeep water of upstream rivers. I can,t believe that to be coincidental as it would be if it had merely a function for "showing off" their fitness (as Dawkins explained the peacocks feathers if I remember correct in his book "the blind watchmaker").
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Edam, quote mining and quotation out of context = I move for you to be suspended. Make your arguments using empirical evidence and logic or you will make no arguments here.
    Very rich from someone who produces no argument to anything that goes against his big pool of evidence(lies).

    'People in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones'

    I've yet to see any argument contest this government named: pseudo-science, I only see flocks of the same people telling us it cant be correct. You're lying though, I've proved it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by FlorescentGreen
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Edam, quote mining and quotation out of context = I move for you to be suspended. Make your arguments using empirical evidence and logic or you will make no arguments here.
    Very rich from someone who produces no argument to anything that goes against his big pool of evidence(lies).
    How's that rich? I was speaking in my capacity as moderator. I am expected to ensure that decent standards of argument are maintained. I'm under no obligation to get involved in the debate itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by FlorescentGreen
    'People in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones'
    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush?

    Quote Originally Posted by FlorescentGreen
    I've yet to see any argument contest this government named: pseudo-science, I only see flocks of the same people telling us it cant be correct.
    Better sentence structure would help me to understand what the government has to do with this, if anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by FlorescentGreen
    You're lying though, I've proved it.
    I think you've proved that it is possible to write words without managing to communicate any meaning. And that was unintentional on your part.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    I have to correct myself. I realized my first assumption was that the mating selection started after these salmon,s reached the breeding grounds. I think it is more likely that the mating ritual and thus the selection allready starts earlier when they gather together before swimming up the river.

    There the females may seek the males that are most colourfull (and thus select) before swimming up the river. Being colourfull attracts and the most attractive mails can have offspring from different females more easy as they are less "lonely at the top"
    and for the females being attracted by colourfull males gives them more protection against predators as the fish around them (the males are part of that as they climb the river) take a bigger risk, the risk for the females decreases.

    Red being the most visible is not just for the predators but also for the males so red is the most likely to develop. But the question that remains is why don,t these male salmons have the red on only their sides instead of on their back and head ?

    If they where only red on the side they would be visible for the females but not as much for bears and other predators (different point of view). Also most fish have predators and most I know both genders have a dark coloured back that makes them hard to see from above the water but are whitish on their belly to be less visible with the sky as a background.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    i think you are afflicted by a typical problem found in non-scientists. That is you think salmon behaviour is simple and determined by a reduced number of variables, parameters and conditions. In this case: colour.

    Unfortunately it seems that salmon mating behaviour is quite complex, there is not just an interaction between males and females, but also between males and males, and females and females. Moreover the behavioural pattern seems dependent on the density of the salmon at the spawning grounds, and also the ratio of males and females. And this is a really really short summary of some really really dynamic set of behavioural patterns.

    To reduce these complex patterns to attractiveness of a colour is probably a foolish exercise.

    i wouldn't do it.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    To reduce these complex patterns to attractiveness of a colour is probably a foolish exercise.
    Nevertheless, I quite like blondes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    Well maybe that,s always the point if you try to formulate theories and mechanism,s. Picking examples from nature to use to proof you,re ideas. Actually you use the same argument against non-scientists here that Dean seems to use against the scientific pretences.

    Read the blind watchmaker where Dawkins (a scientist) explains the colours of male Peacocks it,s even more simplified, he doesn,t even mention the relation with the safety the feathers offer the offspring.

    With any mechanism the question will always be if it is right or wrong unfortunately nature and live is not about wright and wrong it is what it is and goes it,s own way according to it,s own laws you can,t put that in a mechanism or a theory as you can,t put a theory to capture life with it.

    Finding and seeing relationships is much more interesting then explaining them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    With any mechanism the question will always be if it is right or wrong unfortunately nature and live is not about wright and wrong it is what it is and goes it,s own way according to it,s own laws you can,t put that in a
    You are incorrect.
    when a scientist asks 'is this right or wrong' he asking the equivalent of 'is this the way nature goes, or not?' You have presented these as being two different questions. They clearly are not. They are identical questions.

    The laws you refere to, nature's laws, are the very mechanisms that scientists seek to identify and explain.

    In short, you don't seem to understand what science is or how it goes about its business.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Finding and seeing relationships is much more interesting then explaining them.
    You're stating your personal preference here and not making a statement of absolutes, you know? For some of us, explaining things can be profoundly rewarding in its own right. Some people, and you seem to fit to this, seem to think that explaining something somehow takes away some of its beauty, worth or some such. Having an idea about why people love each other does not diminish the power or worth of love at all. You love clinging to the mysterious and avoid understanding on some issues. I can sympathise with this, but if everyone was like that we would all still be living in caves. Some of us (most I dare say) retain the sense of wonder even after some understanding comes into it. Often, the understanding enhances the experience even more. You are missing out man.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    Well I wouldn,t put the border two sharp here a mechanism is about the relations it funktions by also. You can explain a bike by how it funktions or is meant to funktion, And it is all about relationships. Between the biker and the pedal, the chain, the wheel, forces, mechanisms, energy.

    And it,s also common didactic knowledge that explaning things can get in the way between what is explained and who it is explained too. That doesn,t make what is explained dead but it can negatively influence the relation with what the explanation is about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Freshman Hauser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    Well I wouldn,t put the border two sharp here a mechanism is about the relations it funktions by also. You can explain a bike by how it funktions or is meant to funktion, And it is all about relationships. Between the biker and the pedal, the chain, the wheel, forces, mechanisms, energy.

    And it,s also common didactic knowledge that explaning things can get in the way between what is explained and who it is explained too. That doesn,t make what is explained dead but it can negatively influence the relation with what the explanation is about.

    i tried saying that 5 times fast and i totally failed.

    Interesting thread. :?
    i feel like a refugee from the Island of Dr. Moreau. Some morally inverted, twisted character from a Céline novel. The hot sauce helps.
    Reply With Quote  
     

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
  •