Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism?

[Dancing David]

"Lizard" is a figure of speech.....a literary and not a scientific reference....But it does the trick I think anyhoo.

So you are saying that the theraspids were lizards, that's what I thought.

 

[Patrick1000]

No, what I am saying is, that given the opportunity, "writing creatively"....

So you are saying that the theraspids were lizards, that's what I thought.

No, what I am saying is, that given the opportunity, "writing creatively"....one doesn't want to use the same term/word, over and over. In this case, reptile reptile reptile reptile. One may want to "mix it up a bit". It is a literary thing Dancing David.

The substance is bird from reptile, but if you say lizard to bird, reptilian to avian and so forth, it makes for more interesting and "better" writing.

Try it yourself sometime, it is fun!

 

[Dinwar]

The substance is bird from reptile, but if you say lizard to bird, reptilian to avian and so forth, it makes for more interesting and "better" writing.

It makes for inaccurate writing, and someone who's petulantly demanding that we provide very specific information, then ignores it completely when it's provided, shouldn't allow themselves that kind of error. This is science. It's dry, and generally not literary writing. And if you use the term "lizard", you are by definition wrong in anything you say based on that word. This is not a trivial thing--this would be like saying "my family" and including your neighbors, co-workers, and mechanic, none of whom are related to you.

 

[Perpetual Student]

No, what I am saying is, that given the opportunity, "writing creatively"....one doesn't want to use the same term/word, over and over. In this case, reptile reptile reptile reptile. One may want to "mix it up a bit". It is a literary thing Dancing David.

The substance is bird from reptile, but if you say lizard to bird, reptilian to avian and so forth, it makes for more interesting and "better" writing.

Try it yourself sometime, it is fun!

When doing science, we try to define a term as precisely as possible and maintain a worldwide consensus for that definition. We then use that term whenever we want to refer to that thing/concept. Artistic considerations are irrelevant.

 

[Patrick1000]

I understand that, and I think most knew what I was up to.....

When doing science, we try to define a term as precisely as possible and maintain a worldwide consensus for that definition. We then use that term whenever we want to refer to that thing/concept. Artistic considerations are irrelevant.

I understand that, and I think most knew what I was up to.....and I was at the same time very much aware some might not like my taking such liberties, some might "object". But to a degree, this is about having fun on some level, even though I am sure many of us are serious about our hobies/interests.

I write habitually using metaphor, pun, satire and other literary devices. It is how this goes with me. It is how I think. How I work. It is part of my own personally evolved mechanism of expression.

 

[Dinwar]

I understand that, and I think most knew what I was up to.....and I was at the same time very much aware some might not like my taking such liberties, some might "object".

And yet you demand we present specific genetic changes, precise mutations, for how some random animal (because you've NEVER ONCE said something as precise as "dinosaur") turned into birds.

You don't get to demand excruciating precision on the part of everyone else, then play fast and loose with biological terminology in your own arguments. You either want precision, or not.

 

[AdMan]

I understand that, and I think most knew what I was up to.....and I was at the same time very much aware some might not like my taking such liberties, some might "object". But to a degree, this is about having fun on some level, even though I am sure many of us are serious about our hobies/interests.

I write habitually using metaphor, pun, satire and other literary devices. It is how this goes with me. It is how I think. How I work. It is part of my own personally evolved mechanism of expression.

Really, Patrick?

One thing we can handle however is being precise, clear, accurate with our use of words/language.

So which is it?

 

[Lowpro]

Ah I found it:

 

[steenkh]

Ah I found it:

Brilliant!

 

[Aridas]

If ID is a dead end then 175,000,000 are wrong about their world view....

Right, so... Logical fallacy! Totally unexpected, there! If the Flat Earth theory is wrong, many millions of others are wrong, too! If the sky isn't held up by pillars, lots of others are wrong, too! That's even going beyond the FACT that you're wildly exaggerating the numbers in the group that you're talking about.

Can you be so sure that it is a dead end Krikkiter? The majority of adult Americans(at the very least, 75%) say you are wrong. The majority of adult Americans believe they were created in the image and likeness of God, created with fabulous attention to every detail, with exacting purpose, with nothing less than LOVE!

So, you claim to be an atheist. What reason do you have to present their beliefs as an acceptable argument, in the first place, after already having rejected them, yourself? Unless you answer this, I'm going to officially take you not seriously at all, and call you a troll.

Are you sure they are wrong, and if so, how is it that you know they are mistaken in this world view of their's?

See above.

Well the point then becomes one of educating the public....

I'm all for educating the public. About things that are educational. Not things that are blatant logical fallacies, unless it be for responses to them.

If there indeed is strong evidence for purposeless, undirected, mindless, unintentional change of biologic systems, including the changes that created you and me Jack by the hedge, this is very important stuff. Obviously we are not doing a very good job with education, public awareness.

It's just funny, I think, that you persist in this folly, despite it having been addressed constantly. Your education, or rather, refusal to allow yourself to be educated, is the only reason why you seem to think that.

We have a gobbledygook world, where people are Christians and sort of buy into evolution at the same time. Not the best thing really. Very confused actually.

Pssh. We have a gobbledygook world, eh? Saying it like that rather implies that a friendly designer and purpose aren't the case, which seems to be heretical in your book, somehow.

I'll turn it around, though. We have a gobbledygook world, where people can make uneducated and uninformed claims, as well as claims that are not and could never be true, have them repeatedly corrected, at length, and still somehow repeat them ad nauseum and claim to be more enlightened than the people who actually know what they're talking about. Not the best thing, really.

 

[Wowbagger]

I don't but I would love to have a bit of a play myself. I have recently installed linux and have seen some in the libraries but not tried them. Wowbagger, do you have an idea?

The evolutionary algorithms I've played with came from text books. I'm afraid I can't think of any good resources for evolutionary source code on the Internet, at the moment.

AI Application Programming (Second Edition), by M. Tim Jones provided my first* introduction to actual code for such a thing.

(* Not counting stuff I only vaguely remember during high school.)

 

[Patrick1000]

So let's assume we all agree that your argument about the small changes is plausible.

Ah I found it:

[qimg]http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo324/chipkimble/colorevo.png[/qimg]

So let's assume now that we all agree that your argument about the small changes is plausible Lowpro. I certainly believe it to eminently plausible. This is indeed where I began with my very first introductory post in this thread.

I am totally bought in with respect to the idea, the notion, that evolution occurs, and for the most part, it makes more sense, it is more plausible, occurring one small little change at a time. So we all are in agreement here. ZERO ARGUMENT AT THIS POINT.

Now, you have to show that each, or the vast majority anyway, of small evolutionary changes, that constitute the path from reptile to bird say, are owing to mutation/meiosis/crossing over/fertilization/loss/doubling/transposition. Can you do that?

Again, I fully agree with part one. I am on board, many small changes, reptile to bird. However, he thread's theme is not one that challenges the model that evolution occurs by way of many many small changes per se. The thread's theme challenges how it is that those many many small changes come to be. The thread challenges the conventionally presented mechanism(mutation/meiosis/crossing over/fertilization/loss/doubling/transposition). Can you show that it is reasonable to assume all of the little changes happen in the context of mutation/meiosis/crossing over/fertilization/loss/doubling/transposition?

I say that you cannot.

I do say that there is good evidence for evolution. I agree that by way of many changes, things evolve, and for the most part, small changes make the most sense. But I also say that we cannot account for all of these changes occurring by way of our conventionally presented mechanism. I claim that mechanism is inadequate.

Can you show Lowpro that your small changes occur by way of mutation/meiosis/crossing over/fertilization/loss/doubling/transposition, by way of this conventional mechanism?

I say that we can reasonably expect a reptile to become a bird, they employ the same genetic code after all, birds and reptiles. But I also say, this did not happen by way of mutation/meiosis/crossing over/fertilization/loss/doubling/transposition. And you Lowpro have done nothing so far to show that. You have simply argued a point about which we all agree, evolution occurs, and it does so more likely than not by way of numerous small changes in a living system.

HOW IS IT mechanistically that a reptile becomes a JRandi poster?

I believe that you cannot show this occurs by way of mutation/meiosis/crossing over/fertilization/loss/doubling/transposition which was/is the mechanism available to living systems presented in the Star Biology textbook that I reviewed.

 

[Wowbagger]

mutation/meiosis/crossing over/fertilization/loss/doubling/transposition

I think all (or at least most) of us in this thread AGREE that you can't get from a reptile to a JREF Forum poster with those things, alone.

NO ARGUMENT THERE!

What we are trying to say is that there is more to the story, that you are leaving out!

The selection process, which is NOT random, carries a LOT of the power necessary to turn a reptile to an Internet poster.

Perhaps you don't understand what's going on in the entire evolution process? If you think you do, describe it for us, in your own words.

 

[Lowpro]

Um, I actually linked a good blog post of a new function of a protein from changes to existing proteins.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/10/20/how-to-examine-the-evolution-of-proteins/


And this isn't new science either...

 

[Dinwar]

Now, you have to show that each, or the vast majority anyway, of small evolutionary changes, that constitute the path from reptile to bird say, are owing to mutation/meiosis/crossing over/fertilization/loss/doubling/transposition. Can you do that?

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT ANYONE CONSIDERS HOLY YES! Jack Horner can even show you the SPECIFIC genes necessary to do it!

I say that you cannot.

Only because you refuse to acknowledge that it's already being done.

But I also say that we cannot account for all of these changes occurring by way of our conventionally presented mechanism. I claim that mechanism is inadequate.

In what specific ways? What specifically prevents a therapod dinosaur from turning into a bird? Remember, Horner is discovering exactly which genes are involved in this process--so I expect you to be able to identify which genes, specfically, could not have been modified via the known mechanisms of genetic change.

I believe that you cannot show this occurs by way of mutation/meiosis/crossing over/fertilization/loss/doubling/transposition which was/is the mechanism available to living systems presented in the Star Biology textbook that I reviewed.

You DO realize that this is nothing more than "God of the Gaps", right? You're saying that because we cannot provide the precise genetic pathway, Goddidit magical-undefined-mechanisms-did-it. You're saying, without ANY evidence, that the known mechanisms aren't enough, thus your idea (which you never define, but I'm willing to bet has something to do with front loading) must be right. This is, from a conceptual standpoint, no different than a Creationist saying "You don't have a full lineage from ape to man--see, there's a gap in the fossil record here. Thus, God made man." I'm not saying that you are a Creationist here--I'm saying that if you understand why the Creationist argument is wrong, you understand why I'm saying YOUR argument is wrong.

You've done nothing but say that evolution isn't good enough. You've offered no proof, and you've offered no alternative mechanism. You compound that problem by continuing, even now, to flagrantly ignore the evidence that you say doesn't exist. Your argument style is almost identical to that of Creationists, the only difference being the conclusions you draw.

The evolutionary algorithms I've played with came from text books. I'm afraid I can't think of any good resources for evolutionary source code on the Internet, at the moment.

Drat. That means I have to actually do the legwork.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Still with that argument from personal incredulity/ignorance?

Been reading up and watching those clips on evolutionary computation and self organization? The demonstration of creativity that you don't believe can occur out of selection of random mutation is to be found there.

 

[Wowbagger]

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT ANYONE CONSIDERS HOLY YES! Jack Horner can even show you the SPECIFIC genes necessary to do it!

What's important isn't so much that the genes changed. But, they were naturally selected to survive and reproduce, at every stage.

I think we have to push that message at Patrick. Merely pointing at the actual genes won't be enough for him. He wants an evolutionary process by which the transformation can occur. We should focus on demonstrating how Natural Selection (ALL of it, not just the part where genes change) is that process.

 

[Lowpro]

What's important isn't so much that the genes changed. But, they were naturally selected to survive and reproduce, at every stage.

I think we have to push that message at Patrick. Merely pointing at the actual genes won't be enough for him. He wants an evolutionary process by which the transformation can occur. We should focus on demonstrating how Natural Selection (ALL of it, not just the part where genes change) is that process.

He doesn't care about that:

Again, I fully agree with part one. I am on board, many small changes, reptile to bird. However, he thread's theme is not one that challenges the model that evolution occurs by way of many many small changes per se. The thread's theme challenges how it is that those many many small changes come to be. The thread challenges the conventionally presented mechanism(mutation/meiosis/crossing over/fertilization/loss/doubling/transposition). Can you show that it is reasonable to assume all of the little changes happen in the context of mutation/meiosis/crossing over/fertilization/loss/doubling/transposition?

He thinks changes variance isn't the major player in the observed changes. Or so he said here...

 

[Patrick1000]

Do we see a hint of that in real time?????.....

Still with that argument from personal incredulity/ignorance?

Been reading up and watching those clips on evolutionary computation and self organization? The demonstration of creativity that you don't believe can occur out of selection of random mutation is to be found there.

Do we see a hint of that in real time?????.....Something more than hot air ballons, bacteria resistant to penicillin? Is that enough for you? Do we see anything more significantly substantive than this in our own 21st century experience? Is there any fossil or embryologic evidence that might buoy up the claim that the molecular evidence such as we have it is adequate?

I say no.

 

[Lowpro]

Do we see a hint of that in real time?????.....Something more than hot air ballons, bacteria resistant to penicillin? Is that enough for you? Do we see anything more significantly substantive than this in our own 21st century experience? Is there any fossil or embryologic evidence that might buoy up the claim that the molecular evidence such as we have it is adequate?

I say no.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html *

Real time morphological change of an organism.

*Originally posted by Sideroxylon