Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

[Halfcentaur]

Pixa, just saying I am wrong or must be wrong is not an argument. There is absolutely no reason for natural selection, for example, to cause the mammalian ear to independently evolve in the same design.

Same with other features that supposedly independently evolved.

It's not even the latest thing evos think any longer. They are abandoning what you claim is reasonable. You can read your textbooks or some internet site and parrot that, but environmental factors don't cut it any longer as an explanation. The idea now among evo researchers has to do with the convergent mutation effects, not environmental pressures.

I'd appreciate it if you'd quit acting like I'm the one not understanding the issues when you acted like you had never heard the term "genome" before.

You're completely ignoring the redundant vestigial features and other redundancies in biology and choosing to put your microscope on selective subjects which would seem improbable, hoping to pull the thread that will pull the sweater apart. But how you can ignore the redundant qualities (which vastly outnumber the improbable) in favor of a few improbable facts which in a vast random system would be expected just exposes you as having an agenda to champion rather than following the evidence. You're not being objective.

You're just saying I am right and you are wrong, with a lot of words to hide it.

 

[randman]

They're surprised that we're still using the same basic neural patterning genes used by a very early organism? OK, but there are many instances of gene sequences that specify the pattern of development of human systems that are found doing a similar job in far less complex creatures - the Hox genes, for example, which specify the placement of embryonic segment structures such as legs, antennae, and wings in insects (e.g. fruit flies), and also specify the equivalent development in humans and other animals.

If they're surprised at the complexity of the gene cluster necessary to specify the layout of this organism's simple neural net, so what? It's what this organism uses to pattern its neural net. It may be possible that a simpler gene cluster could do the job, but evolution doesn't always find the complexity minima in the genetic landscape. There's also the (considerably less likely) possibility that this organism's ancestors were actually more complex than expected.

I'm not quite clear what your theory claims - you seem to be suggesting that increasing complexity in evolution occurs via progressive elimination of genes. Doesn't this imply that the earliest common ancestor must have contained all the genes of all the descendants, and more (evolution hasn't finished) - or even all possible genes? That's a lot of genes - where did it keep them all?

Have you read the paper? First, they don't even say the genes for human nerve function are involved in the limited coral nerve function. You are just stabbing in the dark. Secondly, I am not the one saying the species that gave rise to animals had all the gene types that exist today. Evos are now. I wouldn't argue that all life evolved from a single ancestor in the first place.

I am simply addressing the data and trying to get you guys to look at it.

 

[dlorde]

Evolution explains every result?

Powerful theory, isn't it?

 

[randman]

You're completely ignoring the redundant vestigial features and other redundancies in biology and choosing to put your microscope on selective subjects which would seem improbable, hoping to pull the thread that will pull the sweater apart. But how you can ignore the redundant qualities (which vastly outnumber the improbable) in favor of a few improbable facts which in a vast random system would be expected just exposes you as having an agenda to champion rather than following the evidence. You're not being objective.

You're just saying I am right and you are wrong, with a lot of words to hide it.

Vestigal organs have absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand. How you could think they do is beyond me. We're talking specific traits among Marsupial and Placental pairs that are said to have emerged independently, and the reason that point came up is to show how evos often will have a heads I win, tails you lose, approach to the data.

Similar traits indicate common ancestry handing them down except, well, when they don't. In other words, you have clear irrefutable proof that the idea similarities must mean passing those traits down, and yet this is still held out as a viable theory.

If you conduct an experiment and your theory predicts all possible results, is that really science?

Look at the data. Discuss that and get a handle on it before going about calling people names like denialist or whatever.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Right. So there is little reason to think the same design would evolve, especially a whole bunch of the same designs, as there would be numerous other designs that would work.

And yea, I understand the position I am debating against. I suggest you think about what I wrote. If the mutations are random and there are tons of designs that could work because the current ones are not perfect or anything, there is no reason for the same designs to evolve over and over again, often with the exact same flaws to boot.

if you disagree, explain why they would repeat the same designs if the mutations are random?



This is really pathetic. A denialist? Must be, eh? Couldn't be that there are such things as Marsupial and Placental mice?

Do you really believe the pairs are not given as examples of convergent evolution?

Here is a link with pics of "convergent evolution examples." Please note the pic of the Marsupial mouse.

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Evolution/convergent_evolution_examples.htm

You seemed to be citing the placental mice as something used as evidence of convergent evolution, not the marsupial equivalent.

The reason we would expect to find the same designs is because in the same conditions you would expect certain features to work more efficiently than others. What works best, will be selected for. You're also positing this as if these convergences evolved from a clean slate independent of each other, ignoring the fact these species once diverged from each other.

What's pathetic is your need to cling to psychological constructs, like intelligent designers, and not recognize them as projections of anthropic bias.
What's pathetic is your dismissal of so many correlations in favor of your agenda while pretending to be objective, and pretending to be innocently discussing the issue while trying to lead people with manipulative tactics.

 

[randman]

They're not genes for human nerve function.

That's not what the peer reviewed paper says. I suggest you read it before you assume it says what you think it could not possibly because you don't believe such results and data could exist. It's true though it doesn't make sense and cannot possibly be true if NeoDarwinism is.

Yet there it is.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Vestigal organs have absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand. How you could think they do is beyond me.

You are the one who said this:

Keep in mind evos are always saying how imperfect designs are and so evidence against God in their minds.

Well, why would a random process of mutation lead to the same imperfect design over and over again? Surely a better design would have evolved in a different area? I mean it's not like they were programmed or anything to mutate in a certain way.

 

[PixyMisa]

Right. So there is little reason to think the same design would evolve, especially a whole bunch of the same designs, as there would be numerous other designs that would work.

And so we see lots of different creatures. Sometimes there are creatures that evolved via different paths and ended up with similar adaptations.

Whyever do you think this would be a surprise to anyone?

And yea, I understand the position I am debating against. I suggest you think about what I wrote. If the mutations are random and there are tons of designs that could work because the current ones are not perfect or anything, there is no reason for the same designs to evolve over and over again, often with the exact same flaws to boot.

Well, the designs are similar, and the flaws are there, precisely because the variability is limited. A tetrapod is not going to evolve another pair of limbs, no matter how useful they might be.

if you disagree, explain why they would repeat the same designs if the mutations are random?

They don't. The designs are similar, but never identical. There are 600 different species of mouse and mouse-like rodents. There are 400 species of shrew, which occupy a similar ecological niche. There are dozens of specials of mouselike marsupials. The world is very large and very old - particularly if you're a mouse - and there's been plenty of time for evolution to fill all the corners.

 

[randman]

The reason we would expect to find the same designs is because in the same conditions you would expect certain features to work more efficiently than others. What works best, will be selected for.

Except they are not the same conditions. As usual, evos posit something as an explanation and then go off repeating it without any substantiation of it.

Moreover, "what works best" has not been selected for. Something that works maybe but nowhere near "best." You are just ignoring the argument. Why would a process of random mutation with all kinds of different available designs not produce different designs instead of repeating the same?

More specific and please answer or admit you cannot and quit with the insults: what possible environmental advantage is there to the mammalian ear in it's precise design over something else?

 

[randman]

You are the one who said this:

In the context of near identical designs for Marsupial and Placental pairs....why is that so hard for you to get here?

And yes, it is considered an example of convergent evolution.

 

[AdinDraco]

Well, I've been learning lots about evolution and at the risk of derailing, I'd like to ask a question of randman. Once upon a time we had dinosaurs, but not people or dogs. Now we have people and dogs (and no dinos). Now it seems that the Theory of Evolution has a good explanation for this. Do you have an alternative explanation? "I don't know how" is an acceptable and honest answer as is "this is a derail - wish to stick to studying the details of the Theory of Evolution" - I was just curious.

 

[PixyMisa]

Moreover, "what works best" has not been selected for. Something that works maybe but nowhere near "best."

Traits that don't exist are not selected for at all. Of what does exist, what works best is selected for.

You are just ignoring the argument. Why would a process of random mutation with all kinds of different available designs not produce different designs instead of repeating the same?

It does produce different designs.

 

[randman]

he designs are similar, but never identical.

That's just semantics. No 2 human beings are the same, but that doesn't mean we don't all share an identical design in terms of the context of this discussion.

 

[PixyMisa]

In the context of near identical designs for Marsupial and Placental pairs....why is that so hard for you to get here?

The designs are not identical.

 

[Halfcentaur]

In the context of near identical designs for Marsupial and Placental pairs....why is that so hard for you to get here?

And yes, it is considered an example of convergent evolution.

I already told you it seemed you were saying something otherwise to me. Which means my posts further on would follow that, before you pointed out the distinction.

 

[randman]

Well, I've been learning lots about evolution and at the risk of derailing, I'd like to ask a question of randman. Once upon a time we had dinosaurs, but not people or dogs. Now we have people and dogs (and no dinos). Now it seems that the Theory of Evolution has a good explanation for this. Do you have an alternative explanation? "I don't know how" is an acceptable and honest answer as is "this is a derail - wish to stick to studying the details of the Theory of Evolution" - I was just curious.

I think it's just a matter of dinosaurs going extinct and that evolution doesn't really have much an answer for that. Things that go extinct is not evidence or a strong argument that they evolved into something else.

 

[PixyMisa]

That's just semantics. No 2 human beings are the same, but that doesn't mean we don't all share an identical design in terms of the context of this discussion.

No, it's not just semantics, it's central to the point.

If the designs were identical, marsupial mice would be placental.

I think you see the problem there.

Look, I live in Australia; I kept mice as a kid and I've caught marsupial mice with my bare hands (they got into the house sometimes). They have a similar overall body plan, but they're not at all the same.

 

[randman]

You're also positing this as if these convergences evolved from a clean slate independent of each other, ignoring the fact these species once diverged from each other.

They weren't these species when they supposedly diverged. That's my point. They theoritically diverged long before all these different species ever evolved, millions of years. It's like you had mice, wolves, wombats, anteaters, etc,...that split and one developed a placenta. These forms didn't exist at all.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Except they are not the same conditions. As usual, evos posit something as an explanation and then go off repeating it without any substantiation of it.

Moreover, "what works best" has not been selected for. Something that works maybe but nowhere near "best." You are just ignoring the argument. Why would a process of random mutation with all kinds of different available designs not produce different designs instead of repeating the same?

More specific and please answer or admit you cannot and quit with the insults: what possible environmental advantage is there to the mammalian ear in it's precise design over something else?

You're ignoring the fact these organisms at one time diverged from common ancestors. What works best as in what works best for these animals and the possible mutations which may emerge in them and be selected for in similar conditions. Not what works best universally. You're pretending convergent evolution emerged in different places from a clean slate. You continually demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding against what you're talking about, favoring what gaps you're able to find as if this a sword fight and not a trail of evidence we're following. You've started with an agenda to assert and support, rather than arriving at what the evidence led you to first. And you're getting defensive about it now.

 

[Halfcentaur]

No, it's not just semantics, it's central to the point.

If the designs were identical, marsupial mice would be placental.

I think you see the problem there.

Well stated.
* Edit*

To be more precise, they are not exactly the same, which is what demonstrates the basic flaw for Randman's position. They are only similar. What would support Randman's agenda would be if marsupial mice were not mouse like, but actual mice. I predict the subtly will be lost.