Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism?

[Sideroxylon]

The interesting bit has come when someone like Dinwar has had the time and inclination to reply.

 

[Patrick1000]

Well be specific, say something about my theme, my claims in detail

You really don't understand natural selection at all do you patrick?

Well be specific nvidiot, say something about my theme, my claims in detail. I do not know what if anything you mean unless you do.

My claim is not that natural selection is not a force in biologic informational change, it is rather that random/chance events, and now to be more complete for what it is worth, chance mutation/crossover/random distruibution of chromosomes at the time of meiosis, recombination at the time of fertilization, chromosome loss/gene or chromosome doubling/transposition, do not have the creative power to make a reptile into a bird, or a reptile into a JRandi poster such as yourself. If you know otherwise nvidiot, if you have evidence that evolution's mechanism as conventionally presented has such creative power, please, by all means, present that evidence.

If such evidence is not presented, we may all assume I am correct in my assertions. To date, such evidence, evidence countering my claims, has not been presented in this thread. I would suggest my review of the biology book as above is most supportive of my claims.

 

[Dancing David]

I pointed out that for the most part, such presentations involved the suggestion that evolution occurred by way of many many small random/chance mutations, their net effect accreting over time and the end result being nothing less than amazing creations, birds from reptiles, JRandi forum posters from reptiles. Insane and very much over the top stuff.

So, here it is again, why do you leave out all the rest?

You cite one case of 'evolution by natural selection' in one book, you have not shown that random mutation is considered to be the main driving force.

 

[Mojo]

My claim is not that natural selection is not a force in biologic informational change, it is rather that random/chance events, and now to be more complete for what it is worth, chance mutation/crossover/random distruibution of chromosomes at the time of meiosis, recombination at the time of fertilization, chromosome loss/gene or chromosome doubling/transposition, do not have the creative power to make a reptile into a bird, or a reptile into a JRandi poster such as yourself.

Selection is part of the process. When coupled with the variation it means that the variation is not, over more than one generation, just random noise around some "mid point", because some variations are favoured over others. The "mid point" for variation in a particular generation is not going to be the same as that for its predecessor if certain variations are favoured over others.

 

[Dancing David]

Well be specific nvidiot, say something about my theme, my claims in detail. I do not know what if anything you mean unless you do.

So why exactly doesn't a chihuahua look like a great dane, they have essentially the same genome.

Why do you exactly ignore that variation within the genome is another route of variation?

Why do you ignore the selection part of natural selection and then just return to your argument from incredulity?

 

[Dancing David]

Suite yourself. I think the topic of how living things came to be is so cool, and the most interesting of all by a long shot.

So , tell me this Patrick1000, what happens to the vast majority of random genetic variation through transcription errors and 'mutation'':

-is it neutral
-is it beneficial to reproductive success
-is it detrimental to reproductive success

What will the profile of retention be in future individuals?

Then answer this:

How much change, if we look at random variation, is going to be passed on to future individuals?

These are essential points to understanding possible pathways to variation amongst taxa.

 

[Patrick1000]

We can only answer such questions for a limited number of genes

So , tell me this Patrick1000, what happens to the vast majority of random genetic variation through transcription errors and 'mutation'':

-is it neutral
-is it beneficial to reproductive success
-is it detrimental to reproductive success

What will the profile of retention be in future individuals?

Then answer this:

How much change, if we look at random variation, is going to be passed on to future individuals?

These are essential points to understanding possible pathways to variation amongst taxa.

We can only answer such questions for a limited number of genes. This is why I brought up the cytochrome c protein example. In the case of that protein, the mutations which give rise to its different forms appear to be neutral and not affected by selection pressure. The mutations occur regularly like a clock ticking away, hence the name, "molecular clock".

 

[catsmate]

You really don't understand natural selection at all do you patrick?

About as much as the other evolution deniers.

 

[Patrick1000]

This is a VERY interesting post!

About as much as the other evolution deniers.

This is a VERY interesting post!

How many times have I mentioned in this thread that there is EXCELLENT EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION?! At least a dozen, and quite probably more. As a matter of fact, it is a point that I hammer, emphasize over and over and over.

This post and others like it starkly demonstrate that it is the posts' authors that do not understand "evolution". There is nothing in this thread written by me that suggests "evolution" does not occur. There is nothing I have written that suggests birds did not derive from reptiles, or that JRandi posters did not derive from lizards. Actually, I endorsed these notions by emphasizing time and time again that there was good evidence for common ancestry; homology, comonality of the genetic code.

catsmate1, you my friend are demonstrating that it is YOU who does not understand biology at its most fundamental level.

To remind you and others once again, my claim is not that evolution does not occur, but rather, with respect to the big changes, no one understands how they come about at all. Evolution occurs, but its mechanism is not well understood. This is the theme of the thread. NOT that there is no evolution. This is not about denying biological systems change over time, it is about pointing out that no one understands how this occurs in the context of significant changes, reptile to bird say.

It's as though you want to claim that as a detractor of say Newton's, because I claim he cannot be correct because gravitational effects cannot be instantaneously transmitted across space time, that I am thereby denying things fall to the ground, denying the sun and the earth are related by way of their both having mass, or denying that "gravity", what ever it might be, even exists at all. I can deny Newton's explanation, and can do so for good reason. And, because I deny Newton's explanation, most decidedly does not mean I am denying gravity.

Mechanisms proposed for evolution, the hot air balloon stuff, those are quite good at explaining bacterial resistance to penicillin and the acquisition of Warfarin tolerance in Philippine rats, but such explanations go no where when we try to figure out how it is that a bird's heart/lung can be derived, someway, somehow, from that of a reptile.

At any rate, this kind of posting should no longer amaze me but it does, especially after the long post above in which I emphasized that my thread's theme accepted common ancestry/EVOLUTION as a premise.

Unbelievable this is , really!

 

[Sideroxylon]

To remind you and others once again, my claim is not that evolution does not occur, but rather that with respect to the big changes, no one understands how they come about at all.

Time and lots of small changes = big changes when viewed retrospectively?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

<rambling discursion snipped>
... I suggested a reptile becoming a bird was like going to the moon, a big leap, a huge flight from one state of being to another. There is no evidence that the mechanism of variation in populations generated by random/chance mutation and then subsequently acted on by environmental pressure, natural selection as conventionally presented, has such creative power. The power to turn reptiles into birds and reptiles into JRandi posters to boot.

This was and is my basic contention...

<even longer rambling snipped>

So your basic contention is merely a restatement of saying that natural selection can't climb mount improbable, but using a hot air balloon analogy. An argument from incredulity of such pitiful weakness that words almost fail me.

You are, in essence, saying that there is evidence for individual steps, but no evidence that many steps make a journey.

Wow.

 

[Patrick1000]

But changes to make say a wing, or a lung with unidirectional air flow....

Time and lots of small changes = big changes when viewed retrospectively?

But changes to make say a wing, or a lung with unidirectional air flow....seem to need to be "directed" for want of a better term.

First of all, why would flying be advantageous to begin with? In retrospect we say this, that, and the other thing. But there is nothing inherently advantageous about flying.

How many mutations would it take to make a pair of wings from lizard arms? And each of those is going to occur by chance? And what environmental pressure will press these changes into existence/maintenance and drive the dynamic of wing formation forward?

Based on the mechanism as now understood/viewed, the whole thing is too absurd, preposterous really. How could we ever have had entertained such nonsense as a possible solution for more than a moment's TIME?

 

[shadron]

Obviously, one must have mutation for this to make any sense at all, which of course was my implied point at the beginning of the thread. Mutation gives rise to that which is structurally and functionally WHOLLY new, whether detrimental or helpful. But even then; throw in mutation and mix and match and shuffle RANDOMLY, IN AN UNDIRECTED COMPLETELY BY CHANCE FASHION, wings? thermoregulation? unidirectional flow of air through lungs? 4 chambered heart? Impossible! And, there is nothing to support this empirically. There is zero evidence for it.

There are evolutionary biologists that claim some predatory dinosaurs can be shown to have had lungs with unidirectional air flow, but that does nothing to demonstrate that if it did occur, that if some dinosaurs had developed such lungs, that this was the mechanism whereby that took place. Far from it. The predatory dinosaur with unidirectional airflow through the lungs, were it true, would simply make my point. We don't understand how it happened! Perhaps this stuff occurred, but we have no idea as to how it may have come to be, no idea at all.

So looking at the Star/Evers/Star book has been helpful. Check some books out for yourselves. You'll see they are all about the same. VERY VERY VERY UNCONVINCING when it comes to this stuff, the mechanism part of evolution.

Interesting? No?

You seem to be thinking that evolutionists believe that the parental stock of lizards and birds just sort of waltzed down the years until, one day, bang, all the huge physiological changes just happened one day, and then we had reptiles and birds. That is not how it happened, according to the model of bird evolution that is now theorized.

The separating event, the point where there started to be a line of lizarddom and a line of dino/birddom, happened far back in history; presumably some time in the Permian, or possibly earlier. Thereafter they had at least 200 million years of time in which to grow, independently of each other, their various physical features by which we know them today, just in the way you describe your minor "hot air balloon". Having already split completely apart that far back, the miracle would consist in them remaining so close in form over time, and indeed, the variations they experienced in their lines was a lot more tremendous than a comparison of their latter day specimens, which you describe above, necessarily shows.

200 million years is a hugely long time. Time for that many generations, more or less, of birds and lizards to hatch, grow to maturity and lay the next generation, each one with a level of random mutation, and experience living (or not) in the environments available. Time for millions of small experiments which lead to significant change.

As for your last argument, yes, it is difficult to infer soft body changes from the bones, but paleontologists aren't totally bereft of clues. They're there, and the paleos discuss exactly that evidence in their papers; it is not true that paleos do "nothing to demonstrate that if it [really] did occur". They, too, have to argue from hard evidence, and mere speculation that such-and-such a feature must have appeared will not do.

"Perhaps this stuff occurred, but we have no idea as to how it may have come to be, no idea at all." So in the final analysis, your argument boils down to the old canard that if we didn't see it happening with our own eyeballs, that it didn't, or couldn't have, that inference from the things we can observe directly are not valid. That just because we don't have the one fossil that will resolve whether this change happened first or that one, then the changes didn't happen at all.

That's not an argument. That's an illogical reaction to the evidence that does exist, an after the fact editing of the science to allow for some form or other of creationism.

 

[AdMan]

How many mutations would it take to make a pair of wings from lizard arms? And each of those is going to occur by chance? And what environmental pressure will press these changes into existence/maintenance and drive the dynamic of wing formation forward?

Based on the mechanism as now understood/viewed, the whole thing is too absurd, preposterous really. How could we ever have had entertained such nonsense as a possible solution for more than a moment's TIME?

Yawn.

The tired old argument of irreducible complexity, on top of similar arguments from incredulity.

If you're serious in your posts, Patrick--which I doubt--you have a lot to learn.

 

[shadron]

But changes to make say a wing, or a lung with unidirectional air flow....seem to need to be "directed" for want of a better term.

First of all, why would flying be advantageous to begin with? In retrospect we say this, that, and the other thing. But there is nothing inherently advantageous about flying.

How many mutations would it take to make a pair of wings from lizard arms? And each of those is going to occur by chance? And what environmental pressure will press these changes into existence/maintenance and drive the dynamic of wing formation forward?

Based on the mechanism as now understood/viewed, the whole thing is too absurd, preposterous really. How could we ever have had entertained such nonsense as a possible solution for more than a moment's TIME?

Personal incredulity is a mother, isn't it? When one can't see the advantages of flying to a small animal in a predatory environment chasing insects, perhaps, or looking at the myriad necessary small changes and recognizing how they filled different needs for the animal, a step at a time for millions of generations? This is just a failure of vision.

 

[Sideroxylon]

But changes to make say a wing, or a lung with unidirectional air flow....seem to need to be "directed" for want of a better term.

They are directed by the environment through survival and reproductive advantages they confer. Some of what you say next suggests you recognize this.

First of all, why would flying be advantageous to begin with? In retrospect we say this, that, and the other thing. But there is nothing inherently advantageous about flying.

The advantages seem trivially obvious and can be seen without retrospection. I can't understand why you would ask such a thing.

How many mutations would it take to make a pair of wings from lizard arms? And each of those is going to occur by chance?

I have no idea how many mutations though I have no doubt the answer is available in books or online. The answer has no bearing on whether big changes can take place given the billions of years available. Unless you are a young earther?

And what environmental pressure will press these changes into existence/maintenance and drive the dynamic of wing formation forward?

Predators,competition for food, food scarcity ... Examples again seem trivial.

Based on the mechanism as now understood/viewed, the whole thing is too absurd, preposterous really. How could we ever have had entertained such nonsense as a possible solution for more than a moment's TIME?

Argument from personal incredulity again. If you accept that small changes can happen through selection within human lifetimes and human history, why can't you accept they can lead to large change over billions of years?

 

[Mojo]

But changes to make say a wing, or a lung with unidirectional air flow....seem to need to be "directed" for want of a better term.

First of all, why would flying be advantageous to begin with? In retrospect we say this, that, and the other thing. But there is nothing inherently advantageous about flying.

How many mutations would it take to make a pair of wings from lizard arms? And each of those is going to occur by chance? And what environmental pressure will press these changes into existence/maintenance and drive the dynamic of wing formation forward?

Based on the mechanism as now understood/viewed, the whole thing is too absurd, preposterous really. How could we ever have had entertained such nonsense as a possible solution for more than a moment's TIME?

All you have here is an argument from personal incredulity.

What is conspicuous by its absence is any sign of a "Wholly Natrualistic [sic] Alternative" to the current theory. Or indeed of any alternative.

 

[Dinwar]

ell be specific nvidiot, say something about my theme, my claims in detail. I do not know what if anything you mean unless you do.

You completely ignore specific criticisms, like when we point out that you spent most of your time here misrepresenting what evolutionary theory is, or that you completely ignored the fact that I provided several reference books that you could use to better understand the current version of the theory. Why waste time on someone who doesn't want to learn?

But changes to make say a wing, or a lung with unidirectional air flow....seem to need to be "directed" for want of a better term.

Only becuase you CONTINUE to completely ignore the fossil record.

First of all, why would flying be advantageous to begin with? In retrospect we say this, that, and the other thing. But there is nothing inherently advantageous about flying.

Right, right, that whole "fewer predators and easier access to prey" thing doesn't mean ANYTHING.

How many mutations would it take to make a pair of wings from lizard arms?

Jack Horner is working on this, as I've repeatedly pointed out to you.

And each of those is going to occur by chance?

More or less, yes--along with all of the mutations that you're ignoring because they aren't present in the current population. It's only surprising to you that these mutatoins occurred because you have no sense of how many mutations there were.

And what environmental pressure will press these changes into existence/maintenance and drive the dynamic of wing formation forward?

Gee, that sounds like something a dinosaur paleontologist could answer. Perhaps one should look into it...Oh wait, Jack Horner is currently doing so.

How could we ever have had entertained such nonsense as a possible solution for more than a moment's TIME?

I've highlighted the word that seems to be giving you the most trouble: time. Birds have been around since sometime in the Jurassic. That's nearly 200 million years. That's a HUGE amount of time. Remember, the average human has well over 100 new mutations in their genetic code, and that's not counting the novel traits arising from recombination. 200 million years+hundreds of mutations=a lot of evolution.

You seem to think that evolution is supposed to work at scales which can be observed in human lifetimes. It doesn't. Evolution acts on successive generations of populations, and on geologic timescales. If you continue to ignore paleontology, you're never going to understand any of the questions you're asking. They're not that hard, they're certainly not new (the only debate about avian flight was which of several methods it was), and they're nothing close to questions that will cause a paradigm shift.

But even then; throw in mutation and mix and match and shuffle RANDOMLY, IN AN UNDIRECTED COMPLETELY BY CHANCE FASHION, wings?

You sitll don't get it--evolution IS NOT RANDOM. Is that clear enough? Mutations occur more or less randomly, yes--but after that, the traits experience selection pressures. Sometimes it's neutral, sometimes it's directional, sometimes it's stabilizing, sometimes it's devisive (selection against the mean). So this sentence is a complete mischaracterization of evolutionary theory, yet again.

 

[Dinwar]

To remind you and others once again, my claim is not that evolution does not occur, but rather, with respect to the big changes, no one understands how they come about at all.

Yes, we do. Individual biologists may not, but paleontologists certainly do, and are working on it at ALL levels--morphologically, cladistically, taxonomically, genetically, all of them. This statement reveals a profound ignorance on your part of the work being done, an ignorance that is completely inexcusable in someone who pretends to want to shift a paradigm.

Go do your homework, learn what the state of the science actually IS, rather than what the Discovery Channel, Nova, and random websites say it is, and then think long and hard before making broad, sweaping generalizations again. And this isn't an insult--it's what every scientist is expected to do. Before I can talk about a formation I need to read the literature on that formation, and if I miss something all of my conclusions can be called into question. You missed more or less EVERYTHING, as I've repeatedly demonstrated. Imagine what my opinion of your conclusions is.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<SNIP>

Only becuase you CONTINUE to completely ignore the fossil record.

^THIS ^