Evolution (quick) Masterclass

[Dr Adequate]

By the way, is ned flandas still with us, and if so, does he have any questions so far?

 

[drkitten]

By the way, is ned flandas still with us, and if so, does he have any questions so far?

Not for the last fifty posts as far as I can tell -- but there's been a lot of material presented to absorb, so I'm perfectly willing to give him time to reflect. It's not like I'm going anywhere....

 

[Dr Adequate]

Don't you have a Warp Drive to invent?

* memo to self --- send Black Helicopters to kidnap drkitten *

 

[drkitten]

bump.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Let's play nicely here, people. If this is supposed to be a masterclass on evolution, attacking creationism without immediately providing supporting evidence is not going to be helpful. Just telling Christian Dude that "creationists suck" will probably not be convincing to him or to anyone else reading this thread.

Here is evidence that creationists suck :

My Top Twenty Favorite Creationist Arguments
Twenty More Wonderful Creationist Arguments
Tell Me Why I Don't Like Fundies --- Twenty More Wonderful Creationist Arguments
"Have You Been Simted?" : Twenty More Wonderful Creationist Arguments

The burden of proof, however, lies on Christian Dude --- to find a creationist argument which doesn't suck.

 

[Beerina]

Do you mean biologic evolution, which is the most common usage these days, or evolution of all things, which essentially means "change over time"?

Be aware that biologic evolution does not address the origin of life.

I think it does, and to pretend it doesn't feeds into the religious fundamentalist hardliners who grasp at it as one last thread -- perhaps life evolved once it got started, but we still need God to start it.

Yet there's plenty of work going on and at least half a dozen theories I've heard as to how it could have happened -- and all are just plane old chemical reactions where one finally started reproducing itself -- hardly an unusual occurance in a world with catalysts and whatnot.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I think it does...

Well, it doesn't. If you have reproduction ---- autocatalysis --- then you have life, and the theory of evolution applies to it. The theory of evolution clearly can't apply to the state of the world before there was autocatalysis, 'cos then you don't have things reproducing with variation, and natural selection doesn't come into it.

The production of the first system of chemicals which catalyzed their own synthesis must therefore be a question for chemists and biochemists --- Darwin is no help to us there.

 

[Humphreys]

What a strange claim. You seem to be saying that any dog breed can be produced by removing genes from the wolf, yes? Take away the gene for not-being-a-dalmatian and you get a dalmatian? Remove the genes for not-being-an-Old-English-sheepdog and you get an Old English sheepdog?

Okay, I'm not a creationist by any stretch of the imagination, but I've read a lot of their arguments, and can certainly argue on their behalf. Although it's a major struggle, for obvious reasons.

What Christian is referring to here, is the Creationist/Anti-Evolutionist claim that no new information is ever added by mutation. For example, when bacteria evolves and becomes resistant to antiobiotics, this is due to information being lost. Kent Hovind might say, preventing a man from breaking his leg by removing the leg, is not evolution, or something to that effect.

So, to answer your question as to how a monkey becomes a man, their point is, it doesn't, because they're completely different species, and one species changing into another requires macro-evolution, which they say does not occur.

I don't believe any of this, by the way, but that's where Christian was probably headed.

 

[Humphreys]

Just to add, a wolf changing into a dalmation by removing genes is where it gets very hazy for creationists, because there seems to be no reliable definition of what a kind is, exactly.

Is a wolf the same kind as a dalmation?

I never really get a straight answer. The last time I tried to get a Creationist to tell me how to tell the difference between kinds, he said:

"Any child can tell a dog is a different kind to a human"...

 

[Dr Adequate]

What Christian is referring to here, is the Creationist/Anti-Evolutionist claim that no new information is ever added by mutation.

I know. He specifically instanced dogs. Hence my question.

So, to answer your question as to how a monkey becomes a man, their point is, it doesn't, because they're completely different species...

I don't think this affects the point I was trying to make.

The point is, CD has merely turned evolution on its head. If bacteria can lose genes for not-being-resistant-to-penecillin, and wolves can lose genes for not-having-black-polka-dots, then why, under his scheme, can't monkeys gradually lose the genes for not-being-human?

'S a joke, see?

As for macro-evolution not occurring, I know they say that, but I've never seen an argument for it. Perhaps CD could supply us with one?

 

[Humphreys]

The point is, CD has merely turned evolution on its head. If bacteria can lose genes for not-being-resistant-to-penecillin, and wolves can lose genes for not-having-black-polka-dots, then why, under his scheme, can't monkeys gradually lose the genes for not-being-human?

Because for a monkey to become human, they say new information is needed, whereas for bacteria to become resistant, you need only remove something existing. It's like the fact it's far easier to remove someone's leg, than to graft on an extra working one.

'S a joke, see?

Well, I agree with that. Creationism is a complete farce, and any remotely logically consistent Creationist theory becomes grossly complicated and muddled because they keep having to rationalize, and lump things on the end in order to explain away the discrepencies. Like they do with the Bible when they have to spend their time twisting passages to make some kind of sense that's inline with scientific findings, only to have to change everything and have a complete rethink when science tells them they're still wrong.

As for macro-evolution not occurring, I know they say that, but I've never seen an argument for it. Perhaps CD could supply us with one?

They cite lack of evidence. I've never seen a proposed mechanism to prevent micro-evolution from accumulating into macro-evolution though, so it all falls back to their claim that "no information-adding mutations have ever been observed", at which point, you cite a few observed examples, and they're forced to change the defintiion of information.

On and on it goes, from there.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Because for a monkey to become human, they say new information is needed ...

Yes, but why do they say that?

If they claim that traits such as, say, herding sheep, or digesting coal, can be acquired through loss of information, then why not big brains, too?

so it all falls back to their claim that "no information-adding mutations have ever been observed".

Yes, well, they can kiss that goodbye.

 

[Humphreys]

If they claim that traits such as, say, herding sheep, or digesting coal, can be acquired through loss of information, then why not big brains, too?

Of course, there is no logical explanation given, but it's necessary for them to claim this anyway, because doing so conveniently explains away the evidence (evidence they requested, of course), which shows clear and undeniable proof of beneficial-information-adding-mutations, whilst staying consistant with the Bible's claims that micro-evolution must occur (otherwise, there'd be far too many animals to stick on the ark).

So, it must be impossible for some traits to evolve, but possible for others to (the ones we have evidence for and have observed!), otherwise the Creationists are without argument.

Their other option is simply to move the goalposts, which they're also big fans of:

Believer: There are no beneficial mutations
Evolutionist: *Shows examples of beneficial mutations*
Believer: Ah, but that's just micro-evolution and adaption within a kind, no speciation occurs
Evolutionist: *Shows examples of speciation*
Believer: Yes, but, we haven't created a new kind. No new information is being added, it's just variation within the gene pool and loss of information.
Evolutionist: *Shows examples of information-adding-mutations*
Believer: That doesn't count as new information. New information requires XYZ...

...and so on.

Pushed hard enough, the believer will eventually ask for observed macro-evolution, in a lab. They'll actually want to see an ape turn into a human, regardless of the fact this being observed would be evidence of Creationism more than evolution!

It's absurd.

 

[drkitten]

Of course, there is no logical explanation given, but it's necessary for them to claim this anyway, because doing so conveniently explains away....

It's absurd.

Gentlement, I already asked you once to play nicely. Don't make me come over there.

If you want to put your own words into the mouths of those you disagree with in order to make fun of them -- well, there's a word for that particular rhetorical technique, and it's not especially polite. And it's not going to encourage any participants with genuine questions to ask them, because it makes you appear like you already have a closed-minded pat answer that you will give to any question they might ask.

If you want to make an intelligible statement about why, for example, Kolmogorov complexity is a better definition of "complexity" than is "Complex Specified Information," or discuss specifics as to why the definition of "macro-evolution" is problematic, or try to set up an intelligent framework for discussions, I encourage that. But the past nine posts have all been on the lines of

: "Creationists suck!"
: "Yeah, they suck! And you know what else? They suck!"
: "Yeah, and you know who else sucks? Creationists!"
: "Yeah, they suck!"
: ...

You're not adding to anyone's knowledge. Not mine, not your own, and certainly not to any of the Creationists that have managed to put up with this so far....

 

[Dr Adequate]

Pushed hard enough, the believer will eventually ask for observed macro-evolution, in a lab. They'll actually want to see an ape turn into a human...

Yes ... "prove your theory by demonstrating something which your theory predicts is impossible!"

Weird, isn't it? There was a funny one on talkorigins a while back where the woo required that scientists should take two bacteria which had a common ancestor two billion years ago, take one of them, evolve it backwards 'til they got to the common ancestor, and then evolve it forwards again to get the other bacterium ... "in the laboratory", thus replicating four billion years of evolution ... except that half of that would have to be evolution in reverse ...

"You say the vase fell off the shelf and smashed? Prove it by showing that the pieces of a vase can spontaneously assemble themselves and jump onto a shelf."

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Heck, I'll be impressed if the IDers can just prove their theory by demonstrating something it says is possible. That would be cool.

~~ Paul

 

[jimlintott]

Gentlement, I already asked you once to play nicely. Don't make me come over there.

.....snip....

You're not adding to anyone's knowledge. Not mine, not your own, and certainly not to any of the Creationists that have managed to put up with this so far....

I know what you are saying but it seems that the creationists have left the thread quite some time ago.

The opening post wanted to know what evolution is. Very early I posted a link to Evolution 101 which is an excellent, well organised, thorough yet easy to understand treatment of the topic. While it doesn't take long to read it I'm sure they didn't because questions were asked that are well answered there.

I suspect that some of these questions were designed to set up an ambush of regular creationist rhetoric. Except, when they realised that they were dealing with people like yourself and Dr. Adequate, they were in over their heads. Myself, as a layperson has had this happen before, which is why I read threads like this carefully.

I agree that people can become a little harsh on this forum but it is likely the product of being sucked in before. I really hoped that Ned could learn something but where is he? Did he read evolution 101? I doubt it.

I have asked many questions on these forums and always received clear, polite, knowledgable responses. It is a great place to learn but first you must want to.

 

[brodski]

"You say the vase fell off the shelf and smashed? Prove it by showing that the pieces of a vase can spontaneously assemble themselves and jump onto a shelf."

actually that is their point, by "breaking the vase" you are losing information, the vase falling is not beneficial to the vase.
A batter analogy may be "OK you say you came from a sperm and an egg, go on then divide yourself back into that sperm and that egg, then reassemble yourself".

But we have to remember, that debunking the the argument of one particular evolution-denier, it is not a positive argument in favor of evolution.

This thread is supposed to be about teaching evolution and explaining common misconceptions, not attacking creationist arguments, especially not arguments which no-one here has seriously raised. This has the promise of being a thread about evolution where people may actually learn something (I know I have allready), can I repeat DR K's request that we stay on topic and keep it polite.

 

[UrsulaV]

Creationists can, perhaps, be forgiven for confusion about dog evolution being involved with "losing information" since I was under the impression that some dog behavior is a neotonous form of wolf behavior--i.e. they retain puppyish characteristics. It's not a huge leap to thinking that since whatever hormonal triggers shut off puppyish behavior in wolves don't get fully tripped in domestic dogs, therefore the genetic information that trips those triggers must have been lost, therefore the mutations are all about losing the information that makes them adult wolves.

But this neglects the whole positive side of the equation, of course--it's a bizarre mental contortion to think that if you remove half a wolf, you get a Chihuahua.

It's worth noting on the whole "beneficial" and "harmful" mutation front that dog genetics are a great example of this being turned on its head. Under most circumstances, we'd think that having a smooshed face with eyes that are more prone to popping out would be quite a harmful mutation. And in the wild, we'd probably be right. But among domestic dogs, this was considered a very appealing trait, and pugs and pekes and all the other little squishy-faced dogs were bred to capitalize on this mutation. The mutation suddenly became a beneficial one--i.e. it led to greater reproductive success for those individuals possessing it.

There's no absolute guide to what's a beneficial mutation, and what isn't, except perhaps "Does it kill you outright or make you sterile?" What may be a harmful mutation in some surroundings may be a beneficial one somewhere else. We can't really say that most mutations are harmful because it sometimes depends entirely on the circumstances where the mutations occur. If you're a dog who's mutation is found cute, even if it means the vet has to pop your eyeballs back on a regular basis, your mutation is beneficial and has increased your reproductive success.

If one of those dodos mentioned a coupla dozen posts back had been a jumpy, nervous dodo with a gene for hyperactive adrenaline function, for most of the history of dodos, it would have been a harmful mutation. It wouldn't have eaten as much as the other dodos since it was always running off, it would have had paranoid attacks that interfered with mating, it would have died younger from constant flooding of fear hormones or whatever. But as soon as humans arrived, that mutation would have become incredibly beneficial, and the dodo would have outcompeted all its mellow buddies.

What's a harmful mutation and what's a beneficial one can sometimes be dependant on context.

 

[Humphreys]

Gentlement, I already asked you once to play nicely. Don't make me come over there.

If you want to put your own words into the mouths of those you disagree with in order to make fun of them -- well, there's a word for that particular rhetorical technique, and it's not especially polite....But the past nine posts have all been on the lines of

Okay, I'm happy to stop "ranting" and wait for serious questions, although they seem to have dried up. But I really was trying to argue from the position of the Creationist, and I think I got it bang on. This is what they argue. Everything I said, is what the Creationists claim, and are all examples of the responses they really do make.

I'd be surprised to see a Creationist come in here and correct me on anything I've written about the way they reason in regards to evolution, but I'll wait and see. I don't think I was misrepresenting them, and if what I have written comes off as "mocking their position", well, maybe they should reconsider their position.

Oh yeah, and I'd suggest seeing how long you can last in a debate with the likes of Kent Hovind, before reaching for a shovel.

</rant>