Evolution problems

[biobengal]

That's not prediction. Prediction is when you predict that something that hasn't happened yet will happen.

I predict that (in the future) transitional fossils will be found linking fishes to tetrapods.

Semantics, my friend.

Predictions from evolutionary theory are made everyday in science labs across the world... Read a paper the other day where a marine stickleback (type of fish) was transplanted to cold freshwater lakes in Canada. PREDICTION: stickleback will become more cold tolerant through natural selection. PREDICTION SUPPORTED

Barrett et al. 2010. Rapid evolution of cold tolerance in stickleback. Proc. Royal Soc.

[biobengal]

What, what, what.... WHAT? Example?

Genetic drift, hitch hiking, biased mutation, migration... there are many mechanisms which lead to evolution. In fact, it is a bit more complicated than that, even.

We are talking about junk DNA for the most part (haven't made it past this point...yet).

That was my question to you. Where do you fall in the whole functional debate? You believe only 8% is functional, like the study linked previously in this thread, or the 80% like Encode says?

We are trying to deduce whether there is functional DNA or a ton of crap (jetsam, flotsam) like evolution predicted.

I don't care either way... in fact, I don't see where evolutionary theory mandates that DNA be mostly non-functional. We wouldn't say that about any other micro or macro biological pattern.

You are getting hung up on assertions that this pattern (like vestigial organs) refuted ID.... clearly, no intelligent designer would leave a bunch of junk lying around.

[SeattleGriz]

That's not prediction. Prediction is when you predict that something that hasn't happened yet will happen.

I predict that (in the future) transitional fossils will be found linking fishes to tetrapods.

Semantics, my friend.

Predictions from evolutionary theory are made everyday in science labs across the world... Read a paper the other day where a marine stickleback (type of fish) was transplanted to cold freshwater lakes in Canada. PREDICTION: stickleback will become more cold tolerant through natural selection. PREDICTION SUPPORTED

Barrett et al. 2010. Rapid evolution of cold tolerance in stickleback. Proc. Royal Soc.

So semantic word play is now accepted as evolutionary prediction.

Got it. Thanks!

[SeattleGriz]

We are talking about junk DNA for the most part (haven't made it past this point...yet).

That was my question to you. Where do you fall in the whole functional debate? You believe only 8% is functional, like the study linked previously in this thread, or the 80% like Encode says?

We are trying to deduce whether there is functional DNA or a ton of crap (jetsam, flotsam) like evolution predicted.

I don't care either way... in fact, I don't see where evolutionary theory mandates that DNA be mostly non-functional. We wouldn't say that about any other micro or macro biological pattern.

You are getting hung up on assertions that this pattern (like vestigial organs) refuted ID.... clearly, no intelligent designer would leave a bunch of junk lying around.

Please don't say tails in regards to vestigial.

By the way, GREAT to have you join our thread. The two people I most hope to run stuff by are you and JMUDJ.

[biobengal]

Please don't say tails in regards to vestigial.

By the way, GREAT to have you join our thread. The two people I most hope to run stuff by are you and JMUDJ.

Great, now pay attention!

[JohnStOnge]

Predictions from evolutionary theory are made everyday in science labs across the world... Read a paper the other day where a marine stickleback (type of fish) was transplanted to cold freshwater lakes in Canada. PREDICTION: stickleback will become more cold tolerant through natural selection. PREDICTION SUPPORTED

Yes that is a prediction. I don't know how they know that it occurred through natural selection but that's a prediction. However, it's also not a big deal. Natural selection has been observed many times. I don't think anybody doubts the idea that the characteristics of a population change through natural selection.

But talking about what someone expects to find at some point in the fossil record is not predication with respect to what will happen physically. It's "predicting" what you expect to find. But it's referring to something that happened long ago that you expect to see evidence of. It's not predicting what's going to happen. And that's not just semantics.

I can say that if I put a little container of water in my freezer tonight it will be ice when I wake up tomorrow. That's prediction. I say before it happens that it's going to happen then it happens.

[biobengal]

Predictions from evolutionary theory are made everyday in science labs across the world... Read a paper the other day where a marine stickleback (type of fish) was transplanted to cold freshwater lakes in Canada. PREDICTION: stickleback will become more cold tolerant through natural selection. PREDICTION SUPPORTED

Yes that is a prediction. I don't know how they know that it occurred through natural selection but that's a prediction. However, it's also not a big deal. Natural selection has been observed many times. I don't think anybody doubts the idea that the characteristics of a population change through natural selection.

But talking about what someone expects to find at some point in the fossil record is not predication with respect to what will happen physically. It's "predicting" what you expect to find. But it's referring to something that happened long ago that you expect to see evidence of. It's not predicting what's going to happen. And that's not just semantics.

I can say that if I put a little container of water in my freezer tonight it will be ice when I wake up tomorrow. That's prediction. I say before it happens that it's going to happen then it happens.

Harumph... in other words... I nailed it: 1) clear prediction about a future event, 2) clear prediction about discovering evidence of a past event where no current evidence exists.

FYI, the Barrett study was nifty, complete with common garden rearing to verify actual genetic and not phenotypic change.

[SeattleGriz]

Please don't say tails in regards to vestigial.

By the way, GREAT to have you join our thread. The two people I most hope to run stuff by are you and JMUDJ.

Great, now pay attention!

As stated. Good to have you on this thread.

[Vidav]

Evolution makes perfect sense. The only objections come from people that don't get it.

[SeattleGriz]

Evolution makes perfect sense. The only objections come from people that don't get it.

Good try man, I have to give you props for stepping up!

Vidav is a man, all you others, are pussies.

[biobengal]

Vidav is a man, all you others, are pussies.

Ok, clearly others don't want to argue the point, mostly because your problem<<<<<< is not clearly identified.

NOW, AGAIN, where is the argument? Specifically!

No more X + 7 / 3 = 5 + Y * E.... etc., etc. etc.. Give us something beyond your a priori suggestion that God exists, therefore there must be a problem with evolution. At the very least, take the defensible argument that a soul was "injected" when Homo sapiens was evolved, however misguided.

[SeattleGriz]

Vidav is a man, all you others, are pussies.

Ok, clearly others don't want to argue the point, mostly because your problem<<<<<< is not clearly identified.

NOW, AGAIN, where is the argument? Specifically!

No more X + 7 / 3 = 5 + Y * E.... etc., etc. etc.. Give us something beyond your a priori suggestion that God exists, therefore there must be a problem with evolution. At the very least, take the defensible argument that a soul was "injected" when Homo sapiens was evolved, however misguided.

My point has simply been that evolution, as we know it, is not robust enough to go from a single progenitor, to all the diversity we have now. Mutation and natural selection are not enough.

I believe we have been barking up the same tree for so long, we have lost our objectiveness. When an evolutionary prediction is wrong, we turn ourselves inside out trying to explain away the issue.

[JohnStOnge]

We may need to make the distinction between the observed and experimentally verified fact that populations of organisms change in response to certain factors and the overall theory of evolution that says that the processes involved resulted in a situation in which we started off with single celled organisms then ended up with what we see today. So, for instance, a Blue Whale had a single celled organism ancestor.

And on the Intelligent Design thing: My understanding is it's simply looking at the probability of things happening by chance and saying it's not likely they happened by chance. I have seen it compared to techniques archeologists use in order to decide if an observed structure is "natural" or "manmade."

Don't know about that. What I do know is that the "falisfiability" angle is crap. There is nothing about "falsifiabiilty" in the scientific method. The scientific method is about positive inference. It's about showing through experimentation that your hypothesis is true. There is no "falsifiability" rule. That's just a philosophy introduced by philosopher Karl Popper during the 20th Century. It's not a "rule" of science.

To say that something can't be science because it can't be falsified is ridiculous. Yet because there was a need to dismiss "Intelligent Design" as science it became all the rage.

[SeattleGriz]

We may need to make the distinction between the observed and experimentally verified fact that populations of organisms change in response to certain factors and the overall theory of evolution that says that the processes involved resulted in a situation in which we started off with single celled organisms then ended up with what we see today. So, for instance, a Blue Whale had a single celled organism ancestor.

And on the Intelligent Design thing: My understanding is it's simply looking at the probability of things happening by chance and saying it's not likely they happened by chance. I have seen it compared to techniques archeologists use in order to decide if an observed structure is "natural" or "manmade."

Don't know about that. What I do know is that the "falisfiability" angle is crap. There is nothing about "falsifiabiilty" in the scientific method. The scientific method is about positive inference. It's about showing through experimentation that your hypothesis is true. There is no "falsifiability" rule. That's just a philosophy introduced by philosopher Karl Popper during the 20th Century. It's not a "rule" of science.

To say that something can't be science because it can't be falsified is ridiculous. Yet because there was a need to dismiss "Intelligent Design" as science it became all the rage.

Exactly! Suck it Cleetsdog!

[biobengal]

We may need to make the distinction between the observed and experimentally verified fact that populations of organisms change in response to certain factors and the overall theory of evolution that says that the processes involved resulted in a situation in which we started off with single celled organisms then ended up with what we see today. So, for instance, a Blue Whale had a single celled organism ancestor.

Why? Why must that distinction be made? Populations change around us EVERY DAY, but we must make the distinction that it can't lead to "real" change. WHY NOT? In fact, contemporary rates of evolution observed everyday and in repeated fashion (Courtiol and colleagues 2012, Natural and sexual selection in a monogamous historical human population) suggest these current evolutionary rates are FAR greater than that measured in the fossil record. Of course, you know why contemporary rates are greater.

[biobengal]

My point has simply been that evolution, as we know it, is not robust enough to go from a single progenitor, to all the diversity we have now. Mutation and natural selection are not enough.

I believe we have been barking up the same tree for so long, we have lost our objectiveness. When an evolutionary prediction is wrong, we turn ourselves inside out trying to explain away the issue.

Again................... why? You've backed yourself into a corner, NAME THIS NAMELESS FACTOR/EQUATION/KNOWLEDGE/HUNCH that evolutionary biologists ignore.

WHY is it not enough? I presume you have read this: Rapid evolution of RNA genomes (Holland and colleagues 1982).

In fact, evolutionary biologists today ponder the fact that evolution appears TOO RAPID to account for the paucity of diversity on the planet. Of course, you and I know that natural selection often fluctuates, don't we?

[CID1990]

Ok, clearly others don't want to argue the point, mostly because your problem<<<<<< is not clearly identified.

NOW, AGAIN, where is the argument? Specifically!

No more X + 7 / 3 = 5 + Y * E.... etc., etc. etc.. Give us something beyond your a priori suggestion that God exists, therefore there must be a problem with evolution. At the very least, take the defensible argument that a soul was "injected" when Homo sapiens was evolved, however misguided.

My point has simply been that evolution, as we know it, is not robust enough to go from a single progenitor, to all the diversity we have now. Mutation and natural selection are not enough.

Just because it doesn't make sense to someone who still believes in magic doesn't make it bad science.

[JohnStOnge]

Why? Why must that distinction be made? Populations change around us EVERY DAY, but we must make the distinction that it can't lead to "real" change. WHY NOT? In fact, contemporary rates of evolution observed everyday and in repeated fashion (Courtiol and colleagues 2012, Natural and sexual selection in a monogamous historical human population) suggest these current evolutionary rates are FAR greater than that measured in the fossil record. Of course, you know why contemporary rates are greater.

No I don't know why contemporary rates are greater but the distinction is due to the need for some pretty significant leaps. One is the "leap" from single celled organisms to multicellular organisms.

If that can happen...and understand that I believe that it did...it should be possible to demonstrate that through controlled experimentation. Someone should be able to lay out the conditions under which such an event would occur, create the conditions in a controlled experiment, and have it happen.

There's a difference between saying populations of organisms can change and saying that the change can proceed over billions of years to the point of going from singled celled organism to Blue Whale.

[Skjellyfetti]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/01/ ... -2-months/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CID1990]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/01/ ... -2-months/

in articles like this i go straight to the comments section to pick up new expert trolling techniques

some of the ID crowd are experts at it

[Grizalltheway]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/01/ ... -2-months/

SG is gonna need to go on a hell of a bender to try and refute this one.

[CID1990]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/01/ ... -2-months/

SG is gonna need to go on a hell of a bender to try and refute this one.

No he wont

Faith and magic conquer all- even science- because no evidence required

also Jesus

and sodomy

[SeattleGriz]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/01/ ... -2-months/

SG is gonna need to go on a hell of a bender to try and refute this one.

This one is actually pretty easy.

They took a yeast (bread/beer) that has been highly refined over 1000's of years and caused it to go back to a more primitive state.

Not to mention the lose fitness and abilities (cleaving from mother cell and apoptosis).

So this study is pretty much telling us that by reverting back to a more primitive state, they have proven evolution from single celled to mulitcellular?

[SeattleGriz]

SG is gonna need to go on a hell of a bender to try and refute this one.

No he wont

Faith and magic conquer all- even science- because no evidence required

also Jesus

and sodomy

No, this one was pretty easy. See response above.

[CID1990]

No he wont

Faith and magic conquer all- even science- because no evidence required

also Jesus

and sodomy

No, this one was pretty easy. See response above.

Really

you type and type and type and type

and have yet to say anything that is not nonsensical, much less anything that refutes the theory of evolution

it is like Chitz said... what you believe is completely faith based and your arguments are just the latest twist on "cause the bible tells me so"