Evolution a hoax?

[dafydd]

I am not a biologist, so my understanding is limited, so please clarify some of these points.

1. Why not. My understanding is that evolution is driven by mutation, and focused by natural selection. since mutation is an ongoing process, why would evolution not be?

2. What are those constraints, why are they unsuitable for macro-evolution, but allow micro-evolution. As I stated, I am not a biologist, so I don't want to read a technical paper that I won't understand. Since you already understand this, please explain in a way that I, as a layperson can grasp.

Randman only refers to these matters,he never explains anything. He's like a signpost pointing the wrong way.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Randman only refers to these matters,he never explains anything. He's like a signpost pointing the wrong way.

He is not even really pointing, he is sawing off perfectly good signposts, and then pretending they were never there to begin with.

Or maybe "filing off the letters" is a better analogy.

 

[Acleron]

Randman only refers to these matters,he never explains anything. He's like a signpost pointing the wrong way.

Beautiful

 

[Dinwar]

Or maybe "filing off the letters" is a better analogy.

But no, see, signs can only be changed by DELETING letters! A sign has all the letters it will ever have--they can only be changed by erasing them!

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

But no, see, signs can only be changed by DELETING letters! A sign has all the letters it will ever have--they can only be changed by erasing them!

The how do you explain those new signs that sometimes appear on the posts?

I invoke signpost evolution.

 

[cwalner]

Randman only refers to these matters,he never explains anything. He's like a signpost pointing the wrong way.

so far, yes. I thought I would give him the chance to explain to a layman, his arguments, as Wowbagger has done already. The ability to distill a concept and explain to a laymen is a good measure of one's understanding of the matter. I want Randman to show me that he understands the links he is providing by distilling them for somebody who does not have the technical expertise to understand them himself.

 

[Wowbagger]

In conclusion (I hope): Creationists simply don't have an answer to the Pragmatic Approach for Debating Evolution.

There is no such thing as Applied Intelligent Design.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

In conclusion (I hope): Creationists simply don't have an answer to the Pragmatic Approach for Debating Evolution.

There is no such thing as Applied Intelligent Design.

At least not in biology.

I think in human manufacturing it's a different thing altogether...

No wait, even human manufacturing/development seems to follow some rules which are uncannily like evolution (just look at the development of the helicopter and auto-mobile).

 

[DeiRenDopa]

In conclusion (I hope): Creationists simply don't have an answer to the Pragmatic Approach for Debating Evolution.

There is no such thing as Applied Intelligent Design.

Tom Bridgman, in his blog Dealing With Creationism in Astronomy, takes a similar approach: mainstream science (mostly astrophysics, in this case) is astonishingly successful in terms of making things that work (that's a shorthand), or at the very least offering explanations that are entirely consistent (again, a shorthand).

Applied Creationism - whether Geocentrism, 'Electric Universe theory', YEC, etc - is staggeringly impotent; it explains exactly nothing, and has produced precisely no products that sharp entrepreneurs (or giant multinationals) have been able to produce and sell at a profit (apart from books, of course).

 

[Perpetual Student]

Randman is the Mozina of biology.

 

[bikerdruid]

Applied Creationism - whether Geocentrism, 'Electric Universe theory', YEC, etc - is staggeringly impotent; it explains exactly nothing.....

and all from a blind insistence that the bible, a politically compiled set of writings from bronze age desert dwellers, is the absolute, inerrant words of their desert god, a nasty bugger, by all reports.
it is anomolous in all rational schools of thought.

 

[Wowbagger]

At least not in biology.

I will agree with you there. My use of the term was in the context of biology. And, even then, mostly in the context of life's origins and natural development.

With genetic manipulation, and other technologies, we can pull off something like "intelligent design" of living entities, today. But, that has no bearing on how life emerged on this planet, nor how it diversified before intelligence came into the picture.



In architecture, the term has an entirely different meaning.

I think in human manufacturing it's a different thing altogether...

No wait, even human manufacturing/development seems to follow some rules which are uncannily like evolution (just look at the development of the helicopter and auto-mobile).

Yeah, but clearly there is a strong element of intelligence making design decisions in those cases.

Tom Bridgman, in his blog Dealing With Creationism in Astronomy, takes a similar approach: mainstream science (mostly astrophysics, in this case) is astonishingly successful in terms of making things that work (that's a shorthand), or at the very least offering explanations that are entirely consistent (again, a shorthand).

Awesome!

It's at this point in the debate I usually like to harp on the reasons why this is the case: Why evolution succeeds in real word solutions, and creationism can not.

The key word is empirical.

Despite any foibles anyone thinks evolution may have, its findings can be isolated, measured, touched, tasted, smelled, scrutinized, taxonimized, and customized. That gives it a real edge in being more reliable, even in spite of its inherently provisional nature.

Creationism, and I.D., are entirely ontological in nature. At its core are ideas that may feel right in the minds of its proponents. But, there is nothing there to actually do anything with, in the real world. (Oh sure, they may try to make claims otherwise, but when pressed, they never pan out.)



Most Evo/ID debaters like to compare piles of evidence. And, such debates are only mildly successful at switching anyone to any other side. To help the audience understand why one of those piles upholds to higher quality standards, one must be able to communicate the above. That, I think, becomes a force few people can ignore.

 

[CapelDodger]

You think genetic distance measurements still "confirm the family tree"? You ought to get up to speed a little more on that, at least if you are talking about things such as the proposed molecular clock, and even if you are talking relational distances, there are discrepancies which shouldn't be there.

This is simply the opinion of people you choose to believe.

As far as your 2nd question, please consider evos first proposed the Universal Genome and said that showed evolution and then have had a couple revisions from there.

Tht makes no sense at all. Who proposed a Universal Genome (whatever that is), and how did they become the "evos"?

History teaches us that the ToE predates the concept of a genome by a considerable period.

Why is it totally contradictory views on data always nonetheless, according to evos, confirm evo theory?

Because the differences concern the course of evolution, not the fact of it. As you may be aware, the fact of evolution by natural selection has been mainstream science for over a century. Nobody sensible doubts it.

Shouldn't something that is used as strong evidence for evolution at least mean the exact opposite is not strong evidence for it, if not evidence against it?

See above. This is simply another example of what you don't understand. Evolution is not in doubt (it's only questioned by people with absolute conviction). Efforts to provide some scientific disproof always fail dismally, mostly because they do not understand the subject but fundamentally because they are arguing backwards from a wrong conclusion. A similar lack of understanding leads others to think they have an argument - and they never retire one just because it's been eviscerated.

The take-home message : uncertainty in the course which evolution has taken is not uncertainty in the reality that evolution by natural selection is what got us all here.

 

[Wowbagger]

The take-home message : uncertainty in the course which evolution has taken is not uncertainty in the reality that evolution by natural selection is what got us all here.

Perhaps an analogy might help:

There are two ways I could go from New York to Las Vegas: I can drive there or I can fly there. Or, I could do a mixture of both along the way. (We can ignore other means of transportation, for now.)

If some folks discover that I live in New York, but I am now saying in Las Vegas for a while, they might debate about how I got there; with different camps having different ideas about the ratio of driving vs. flying that I did. But, the fact that such a debate exists does NOT disprove that I travelled from NY to Vegas.

Can you imagine if someone actually said: "You see? They're still arguing over how Wowbagger got to Vegas. That must mean he really isn't there, at all!"

In a similar way, the course of evolution could be punctuated by rapid development, or it could always be slow and gradual. OR, it could be a mixture of both: The history of some species are more or less "punctuated" than others. That doesn't mean there isn't an evolutionary history there, at all. Clues about the history have already been found. Now, it is a matter of tracing its course accurately.

 

[randman]

I am not a biologist, so my understanding is limited, so please clarify some of these points.

1. Why not. My understanding is that evolution is driven by mutation, and focused by natural selection. since mutation is an ongoing process, why would evolution not be?

2. What are those constraints, why are they unsuitable for macro-evolution, but allow micro-evolution. As I stated, I am not a biologist, so I don't want to read a technical paper that I won't understand. Since you already understand this, please explain in a way that I, as a layperson can grasp.

cwalner, there are several constraining factors but will try to touch on 2 or 3 for you. The easiest way to illustrate one concept is what occurs with dog breeding. You can breed (evolve) numerous forms of dog breeds and dogs themselves can breed with wolves and perhaps all canines (have read different things). Certainly, wolves and coyotes can breed. Not as sure about foxes.

But what happens when you have a pure-bred dog that brings out certain features. Outwardly, there is microevolution or variation. But the more inbred the dog breed is, the more problems develop. In other words, the more it evolves in this direction, the less capacity for evolution the breed has.

Let's look a little deeper. Speciation by definition means subgroup isolation and separation. A new species is not a new species if it still lives with and mates with the parent species. Even before this, most consider evolution to occur by some smaller subgroup within the population becoming geographically or sexually isolated. Then, this group is said to have mutations that would not then be washed out. We could talk about the finer points of this, but for a layman's understanding, the key is the process involves a smaller group splitting off from a larger group.

So what happens then?

By definition, you are losing genetic variety within the new population because you are separating and reducing the numbers of those reproducing. This is generally very significant. Natural selection itself actually serves to reduce and conserve genetic variety, the number of available genes. It diminishes genetic variation as does genetic drift.

Now evos generally assume mutation can make up the difference, but they have never produced, nor conducted any peer-reviewed studies to show that despite the fact we have estimates on what are reasonable mutation rates which frankly, are quite low at best. In other words, mutations that confer some advantage or are neutral are fairly slow and rare compared to the loss of genes via natural selection, subgroup isolation (genetic drift).

Microevolution is evolution in the wrong direction genetically, as far as producing a complex genome from a simple one via Darwinian adaptationism.

Hope that helps.

This is not an original idea. Plenty of prominent scientists have pointed these things out for decades.

 

[CapelDodger]

In a similar way, the course of evolution could be punctuated by rapid development, or it could always be slow and gradual. OR, it could be a mixture of both: The history of some species are more or less "punctuated" than others. That doesn't mean there isn't an evolutionary history there, at all. Clues about the history have already been found. Now, it is a matter of tracing its course accurately.

The well-documented human history of the 20thCE is still a subject of passionate debate; in comparison, evolutionary history is known in fine detail. Which still leaves plenty of room for debate as to why they took the paths they did.

To the absolutely certain, any sort of disagreement is an alien concept. Debate within a subject, on however minor a detail, is enough for them to regard it as irrational.

 

[CapelDodger]

The how do you explain those new signs that sometimes appear on the posts?

Banksie.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Banksie.

Wow, I never thought about that. You blew my mind!

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

To the absolutely certain, any sort of disagreement is an alien concept. Debate within a subject, on however minor a detail, is enough for them to regard it as irrational.

Nominated.

 

[cwalner]

cwalner, there are several constraining factors but will try to touch on 2 or 3 for you. The easiest way to illustrate one concept is what occurs with dog breeding. You can breed (evolve) numerous forms of dog breeds and dogs themselves can breed with wolves and perhaps all canines (have read different things). Certainly, wolves and coyotes can breed. Not as sure about foxes.

But what happens when you have a pure-bred dog that brings out certain features. Outwardly, there is microevolution or variation. But the more inbred the dog breed is, the more problems develop. In other words, the more it evolves in this direction, the less capacity for evolution the breed has.

Let's look a little deeper. Speciation by definition means subgroup isolation and separation. A new species is not a new species if it still lives with and mates with the parent species. Even before this, most consider evolution to occur by some smaller subgroup within the population becoming geographically or sexually isolated. Then, this group is said to have mutations that would not then be washed out. We could talk about the finer points of this, but for a layman's understanding, the key is the process involves a smaller group splitting off from a larger group.

So what happens then?

By definition, you are losing genetic variety within the new population because you are separating and reducing the numbers of those reproducing. This is generally very significant. Natural selection itself actually serves to reduce and conserve genetic variety, the number of available genes. It diminishes genetic variation as does genetic drift.

Now evos generally assume mutation can make up the difference, but they have never produced, nor conducted any peer-reviewed studies to show that despite the fact we have estimates on what are reasonable mutation rates which frankly, are quite low at best. In other words, mutations that confer some advantage or are neutral are fairly slow and rare compared to the loss of genes via natural selection, subgroup isolation (genetic drift).

Microevolution is evolution in the wrong direction genetically, as far as producing a complex genome from a simple one via Darwinian adaptationism.

Hope that helps.

This is not an original idea. Plenty of prominent scientists have pointed these things out for decades.

Um, that makes absolutely no sense to me. Your conclusions do not follow from your premises (at least in what you posted here) and your explanation is extremely confusing.

Part of the problem is your assumption that there is a preferred direction for evolution to occur in (hilited). That to me indicates that you see a willful purpose in genetic change and are therefore already assuming ID to be true.

However, if we step back and look at that from a dispassionate, unbiased position it is not inconsistent with evolutionary theory. Let us assume that as you say, most micro-evolution reduces complexity. Let us assume that only .0001% of all mutations are beneficial and increase diversity. What will happen is that natural selection will favor those changes, making them successful, while the other 99.9999% are not and end up in evolutionary dead-ends. So it seems to me that even though very rare, those positive changes will be all that we will end up seeing over the course of millions of years, because they are what survived. (I may be a layman in biology, but my degree is in Math and I am not a layman in probability and statistics, so this part I do understand).