Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism?

[Patrick1000]

Science, falsification and the burden of proof....

Hmm. Does this mean you are going to repeat yourself again?

Ah. Yes. It appears you are.

Patrick, the balloon analogy was garbage when you first deployed it and has remained garbage every single time since. You are declaring that individual steps happen, but for some unexplained reason you refuse to believe that many steps can add up to a long journey. Why?

Your balloon cannot fly to the moon because it cannot rise out of the atmosphere. What limit in evolution is analogous to that limit on your balloon? Why must small, incremental changes stop? You have never justified your position on this point.

Well Jack by the hedge....., the burden of proof lies with the scientist. In this case the evolutionary biologist. It is his/her claim that a lizard became a reptile by way of mutation/meiosis/crossingover/fertilization/loss/duplication/transposition of DNA. so he/she must present us with evidence to that effect, demonstrate such is the case.

Evolutionary biologists are not entitled to claim that said bird was made from a reptile by way of citing as proof for this lizard to avian trasformation Warfarin resistant rats, bacteria in my hospital resistant to pencillin, or moths that turned from light to dark color with industrialization and the sooting of trees.

The changes are random remember, chance based, and most of the time when a random change/mutation does impact the phenotype it is detrimental.

Take a look at my posts on cytochrome c and you will see that when there is a mutation in the gene coding for this protein, there is not necessarily any phenotypic change at all, and additionally, in the case of cytochrom c, there is genotypic change independent of selection pressure that has no apparent impact on phenotype. How can that be if the current model for evolution's mechanism is correct? How can it be that selection pressure, environmental pressure, is not a factor at all??? So this is very much contrary to Darwinism, is it not? Environmental pressure is supposed to select for the best/most cable allele, the one giving the organism a survival advantage. But here, with cytochorme c, there is "no selection", one protein seems to be as good as another.

Evolutionary biologists must meet the challenge of designing experiments that wopuld confirm or disconfirm/falsify their claims. They have not done this.

Biologic systems may indeed change incrementally, but as far as anyone can tell at this point, it does not appear to be by way of the mainstream mechanism as conventionally presented. There is of now no evidence for this. This is the whole point of the thread.

Because orgasnisms evolve, because biological systems change over time, does not mean people understand why this is so. Objects fall to the ground, and as best anyone can tell at this point, with regard to the details, both Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein were incorrect with regard to their claims as to why. That is not to say that their theories are not useful. People use Newtonian mechanic based approaches to do lots of things, launch rockets to place satellites in orbit and so forth. But that does not mean that gravity travels instantaneously as Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation presupposes.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

<enormous, rambling attempt to avoid the question snipped>

I challenged you to justify your analogy. You can't.

So I take it you have no evolutionary barrier in mind which is represented in your analogy by a balloon's inability to travel into space. In other words, your analogy is rubbish.

Glad we got that sorted out.

 

[Patrick1000]

I think of it more as a metaphor....

I challenged you to justify your analogy. You can't.

So I take it you have no evolutionary barrier in mind which is represented in your analogy by a balloon's inability to travel into space. In other words, your analogy is rubbish.

Glad we got that sorted out.

I think of it more as a metaphor...., at any rate, some may find it helpful in terms of understanding limits. Regardless, the evidence for lizards to birds by way of mutation/meiosis/crossing over/fetilization/loss/duplication/transposition has never been presented by any biologist or scientist from any discipline for that matter. Whether the metaphor helps you or you reject it completely does not change the truth with regard to my point about the evidence everyone wishes to see. The evidence has yet to be presented, and in fact, this thread is more about that than anything else. It is a challenge. Present your evidence Jack by the hedge. Let us see what you can show us about birds from lizards.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I think of it more as a metaphor...

Fair enough. Your metaphor is rubbish.

Better?

 

[Lowpro]

Well Jack by the hedge....., the burden of proof lies with the scientist. In this case the evolutionary biologist. It is his/her claim that a lizard became a reptile by way of mutation/meiosis/crossingover/fertilization/loss/duplication/transposition of DNA. so he/she must present us with evidence to that effect, demonstrate such is the case.

Evolutionary biologists are not entitled to claim that said bird was made from a reptile by way of citing as proof for this lizard to avian trasformation Warfarin resistant rats, bacteria in my hospital resistant to pencillin, or moths that turned from light to dark color with industrialization and the sooting of trees.

The changes are random remember, chance based, and most of the time when a random change/mutation does impact the phenotype it is detrimental.

Take a look at my posts on cytochrome c and you will see that when there is a mutation in the gene coding for this protein, there is not necessarily any phenotypic change at all, and additionally, in the case of cytochrom c, there is genotypic change independent of selection pressure that has no apparent impact on phenotype. How can that be if the current model for evolution's mechanism is correct? How can it be that selection pressure, environmental pressure, is not a factor at all??? So this is very much contrary to Darwinism, is it not? Environmental pressure is supposed to select for the best/most cable allele, the one giving the organism a survival advantage. But here, with cytochorme c, there is "no selection", one protein seems to be as good as another.

Evolutionary biologists must meet the challenge of designing experiments that wopuld confirm or disconfirm/falsify their claims. They have not done this.

Biologic systems may indeed change incrementally, but as far as anyone can tell at this point, it does not appear to be by way of the mainstream mechanism as conventionally presented. There is of now no evidence for this. This is the whole point of the thread.

Because orgasnisms evolve, because biological systems change over time, does not mean people understand why this is so. Objects fall to the ground, and as best anyone can tell at this point, with regard to the details, both Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein were incorrect with regard to their claims as to why. That is not to say that their theories are not useful. People use Newtonian mechanic based approaches to do lots of things, launch rockets to place satellites in orbit and so forth. But that does not mean that gravity travels instantaneously as Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation presupposes.

Gee, it's like saying "Look, we know mutations determine what an organism can do, and why it is what it is. But no, we cannot understand this, and I have no reason why other than that I myself don't understand it, and therefor it cannot be understood."

Troll on Patrick1000, troll on.

Oh, and bone homology of Therapods dinosaurs and birds throughout the fossil record indicates they were in fact related, and that birds evolved from them. You were already told this.

 

[Reality Check]

Take a look at my posts on cytochrome c and you will see that when there is a mutation in the gene coding for this protein, there is not necessarily any phenotypic change at all, and additionally, in the case of cytochrom c, there is genotypic change independent of selection pressure that has no apparent impact on phenotype.

Guess what - standard evolutionary theory!
Your posts on cytochrome c have already been addressed, e.g.
18th October 2011
Wow wouldn't you know it; Cytochrome C's function is conserved even with changes to its code because the changes are between isoleucine and threonine which are structurally similar and it maintains its function.

 

[AdMan]

The evidence has yet to be presented, and in fact, this thread is more about that than anything else. It is a challenge. Present your evidence Jack by the hedge. Let us see what you can show us about birds from lizards.

What this thread illustrates is your utter inability to understand basic concepts, no matter how they are explained to you.

You either have no capacity for basic understanding of the arguments presented, or, more likely, you are just trolling this thread, as you have trolled several others in the JREF forum. This is apparent to everyone following your absurd posts.

It was amusing for a bit, but it's now getting quite boring.

 

[Patrick1000]

So assuming I am way off target here......

What this thread illustrates is your utter inability to understand basic concepts, no matter how they are explained to you.

You either have no capacity for basic understanding of the arguments presented, or, more likely, you are just trolling this thread, as you have trolled several others in the JREF forum. This is apparent to everyone following your absurd posts.

It was amusing for a bit, but it's now getting quite boring.

So assuming I am way off target here......, you could get me to pack up my tent and go away if you presented some evidence. I'll make it easy for you. You don't even have to show me how a lizard becomes a bird. Present some evidence, real evidence, that supports the claim mutation/meiosis/crossing over/fertilization/loss/doubling/transposition can turn a "cold blooded" animal like a lizard into a warm blooded animal with a thermoregulatory system.

Show us all the evidence that this occurs by way of the conventionally presented evolutionary mechanism. I won't write a single further post here on this subject if you can do that.

 

[not_so_new]

I think of it more as a metaphor...., at any rate, some may find it helpful in terms of understanding limits. Regardless, the evidence for lizards to birds by way of mutation/meiosis/crossing over/fetilization/loss/duplication/transposition has never been presented by any biologist or scientist from any discipline for that matter. Whether the metaphor helps you or you reject it completely does not change the truth with regard to my point about the evidence everyone wishes to see. The evidence has yet to be presented, and in fact, this thread is more about that than anything else. It is a challenge. Present your evidence Jack by the hedge. Let us see what you can show us about birds from lizards.

I just don't understand. Why are some people so opposed to learning? Are you just so threatened by this that you can't let the idea in?

Others have posted to this very thread explaining where the holes are in your understanding yet instead of attempting to learn you proceed with dogged determination to assert the same mistakes and half truths as facts.

People have in fact presented you with evidence of birds from lizards. If you were honestly interested in learning something you would take this evidence and change your viewpoint to meet this newly presented evidence.

Read here...... and you can ignore the post YET AGAIN.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html

 

[AdMan]

So assuming I am way off target here......, you could get me to pack up my tent and go away if you presented some evidence. I'll make it easy for you. You don't even have to show me how a lizard becomes a bird, present some evidence, real evidence that supports the claim mutation/meiosis/crossing over/fertilization/loss/doubling/transposition can turn a "cold blooded" animal like a lizard into a warm blooded animal with a thermoregulatory system.

Show us all the evidence that this occurs by way of the conventionally presented evolutionary mechanism. I won't write a single further post here on this subject if you can do that.

More argument from ignorance, Patrick?

Come on, we all know you're never going to admit you're wrong. It's all part of your stupid games.

You're getting lazy, Patrick.

Yawn.

 

[Patrick1000]

Same offer to you not_so_new......

I just don't understand. Why are some people so opposed to learning? Are you just so threatened by this that you can't let the idea in?

Others have posted to this very thread explaining where the holes are in your understanding yet instead of attempting to learn you proceed with dogged determination to assert the same mistakes and half truths as facts.

People have in fact presented you with evidence of birds from lizards. If you were honestly interested in learning something you would take this evidence and change your viewpoint to meet this newly presented evidence.

Read here...... and you can ignore the post YET AGAIN.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html

Same offer to you not_so_new as I just gave to AdMan.....

Present concrete evidence here, it need not even need be remotely full proof, just reasonably plausible on some level, for cold blooded to warm blooded with a thermoregulatory mechanism by way of mutation/meiosis/crossing over/fertilization/loss/doubling/transposition. You are free to use anything you like; fossil evidence, embryology, molecular biology, even simple deductive reasoning as some do with Darwinism in general.

If you can present convincing evidence to the effect that cold boolded animals became warm blooded by way of these processes, then I will not post one more time in this thread about this subject.

 

[AdMan]

If you can present convincing evidence to the effect that cold boolded animals became warm blooded by way of these processes, then I will not post one more time in this thread about this subject.

This is a lie, and you know it.

Your body of work shows that you are trolling the forum with idiotic, unsupported assertions.

It's clear to everyone. No one is buying your ********. No one is buying your promises to stop posting if you're proven wrong.

 

[Patrick1000]

It is not a game AdMan....

More argument from ignorance, Patrick?

Come on, we all know you're never going to admit you're wrong. It's all part of your stupid games.

You're getting lazy, Patrick.

Yawn.

It is not a game AdMan....This is what the very thread is about. You yourself should not be posting here if you have nothing substantive to say.

Simply saying that I am incorrect does you no good in terms of how you are viewed by your peers. You must give an argument as to why it is that I am incorrect. So far, you have not done so, and to be frank, it would appear that you are the one who has never turned a page of Darwin.

 

[not_so_new]

Same offer to you not_so_new as I just gave to AdMan.....

Present concrete evidence here, it need not even need be remotely full proof, just reasonably plausible on some level, for cold blooded to warm blooded with a thermoregulatory mechanism by way of mutation/meiosis/crossing over/fertilization/loss/doubling/transposition. You are free to use anything you like; fossil evidence, embryology, molecular biology, even simple deductive reasoning as some do with Darwinism in general.

If you can present convincing evidence to the effect that cold boolded animals became warm blooded by way of these processes, then I will not post one more time in this thread about this subject.

I JUST DID!!!!!!!

There is a link on my post, open it, put on your reading glasses and learn something.... or ignore the evidence and keep asking for it over and over.

Here, I will post it again.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html

And I will point out something else. The fact that the folks on Talk Origins ALREADY HAVE A COUNTER ARGUMENT TO YOUR QUESTION means this isn't the first time someone came up with your argument. The Talk Origins folks see your question often enough that they already made a reply.

Not only is your argument completely WRONG, it's also completely UNORIGINAL.

 

[Patrick1000]

Give it a shot, you might become famous.....

This is a lie, and you know it.

Your body of work shows that you are trolling the forum with idiotic, unsupported assertions.

It's clear to everyone. No one is buying your ********. No one is buying your promises to stop posting if you're proven wrong.

Give it a shot, you might become famous....., "the man who shut Patrick1000 up" by demonstrating the conventional evolutionary mechanism can explain why a bird's blood runs hot.

Do you know why a bird's blood runs hot to begin with AdMan?

Do you know why the air goes through a bird's lungs in one direction?

Do you know why a bird's heart works better with 4 chambers than does the heart of an animal with 3 chambers?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Evolution is not the kind of natural law or theory that can be simply demonstrated through an experiment or two, some observations or some simple logic. The evidence for evolution by natural selection is both diverse and overwhelming. It is perhaps the most thoroughly demonstrated scientific theory we have. The scope of this evidence covers many diverse areas of study -- all to well known to most people who are science aware. Although the evidence is overwhelming and conclusive, by its very nature, having been the product of accumulation of over three billion years, the record cannot be complete. This where the window is open for pseudo-science.
Nitpicking the fossil record, the development of a particular species, organ or molecule, etc. is the gamesmanship of those who have a non-scientific agenda for disputing evolution by natural selection.
I have no idea what agenda this Patrick1000 may have, but after reviewing this thread, I can say that he is well over his head here and wasting everyone's time.

 

[AdMan]

It is not a game AdMan....This is what the very thread is about. You yourself should not be posting here if you have nothing substantive to say.

Simply saying that I am incorrect does you no good in terms of how you are viewed by your peers. You must give an argument as to why it is that I am incorrect. So far, you have not done so, and to be frank, it would appear that you are the one who has never turned a page of Darwin.

Some people may be distracted by your wall-of-text ********, but I'm not. I see through your attempts at using scientific and pseudo-scientific language to make your nonexistent "points;" I see through your trying to pretend you are an expert at something you obviously know very little about.

You have brought little else but noise to this forum, and I for one am tired of it. You can keep your nonsense in the CT subforums and few will pay any significant attention to it, but when you bring your BS out of there, then it becomes a bit of a bother. When I notice it, I have no problem calling you out on the garbage you post.

I think it's apparent to most other posters that your posts are mostly empty nonsense.

 

[Dinwar]

Give it a shot, you might become famous....., "the man who shut Patrick1000 up" by demonstrating the conventional evolutionary mechanism can explain why a bird's blood runs hot.

Do you know why a bird's blood runs hot to begin with AdMan?

Do you know why the air goes through a bird's lungs in one direction?

Do you know why a bird's heart works better with 4 chambers than does the heart of an animal with 3 chambers?

Again, do I even need to say anything at this point?

Simply saying that I am incorrect does you no good in terms of how you are viewed by your peers. You must give an argument as to why it is that I am incorrect. So far, you have not done so, and to be frank, it would appear that you are the one who has never turned a page of Darwin.

Right, right. Because ignoring evidence and putting those who disagree with you on Ignore is MUCH better.

Who was the guy on here a while back who went on and on and on about frontloading? I get the distinct impression that Patrick1000 is a sockpuppet of that guy. They have the same MO--assert arbitrary things as The One True Theory of Evolution, accuse anyone who disagrees of lying, ignore every rebuttal, and when it gets to the point where they can no longer ignore the person's reasons, literally put them on Ignore.

If you can present convincing evidence to the effect that cold boolded animals became warm blooded by way of these processes, then I will not post one more time in this thread about this subject.

Anyone who still believes that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

 

[Patrick1000]

Your reference is about the absence of transitional fossils

I JUST DID!!!!!!!

There is a link on my post, open it, putrgument. The Talk Origins folks see it often enough that they already made a reply.

Not only is your argument completely WRONG, it's also completely UNORIGINAL.

Your reference is about the absence of transitional fossils not_so_new. So you are off topic there. Here in this thread, as emphasized many many times, we actually are assuming there are transitional fossils. We can assume there is an explicit fossil trail leading from a lizard to an eagle say.

My challenge is not about the lack of transitional fossil evidence. My thread is about the mechanism which transforms a lizard into a bird. Here in this thread, as mentioned many many times already, we take evolution as a FACT, including the FACT that birds came from reptiles. What my challenge is about, is the inadequacy of the mechanism as presently elucidated by mainstream biologists. It seems to be very much inadequate.

As I have said to several of your colleagues posting here already, you seem to be confused in that you are aserting that I am denying evolution altogether. Actually, evolution is assumed, the FACT of evolution is a given in this thread, right from the get go.

Your reference is off topic, and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution's MECHANISM. Nevertheless, the offer is still on the table and remains so for the next several months, or for however long the post goes on.

So, keep in mind here, evolution is a given, and we'll assume the transitional forms existed. We are interested in MECHANISM, bird from lizard, warm from cold blooded. Can you show with any means at your disposal, any evidence that you care to cite/show, that mutation/meiosis/crossing over/fertilization/loss/doubling/transposition are able to do the trick?

 

[Patrick1000]

It is hardly an arbitrary claim Dinwar.....

Again, do I even need to say anything at this point?

Right, right. Because ignoring evidence and putting those who disagree with you on Ignore is MUCH better.

Who was the guy on here a while back who went on and on and on about frontloading? I get the distinct impression that Patrick1000 is a sockpuppet of that guy. They have the same MO--assert arbitrary things as The One True Theory of Evolution, accuse anyone who disagrees of lying, ignore every rebuttal, and when it gets to the point where they can no longer ignore the person's reasons, literally put them on Ignore.

Anyone who still believes that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

It is hardly an arbitrary claim Dinwar.....debating evolutionary mechanism is something professional biologists do on a regular basis. AND they debate mechanism in the very terms that I am presenting here.

You are free to disagree of course, but calling my claims arbitrary is silly to say the least. They are the subject of serious debate in the scientific community among evolutionary biologists.