Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

[A'isha]

The past half a billion years is probably, very vaguely, in some sort of equilibrium in regards to "complexity".

Indeed.

For instance, it's generally accepted that the avian lineage descended from the dinosaur lineage, with the evolutionary divergence taking place over a period of several hundred million years.

What do you think that says about the relative complexity (genomic or morphologic) of a chicken vis a vis, say, a velociraptor, randman?

 

[Wowbagger]

Keep in mind a lot of the "complexity" arises from shifting selection pressures. A species might adapt well for one set of circumstances, only to find itself needing to survive in different ones. As time marches on, the heritage of these adaptations, and all of the jerry-rigs they require, start to make the species look a lot more "complex" in all sorts of various ways, than it would need to. Competition with other species locked in an "arms race" contributes to this.

If you think about it, it would be AMAZING if we did NOT see life become more complex over time.

 

[tsig]

By cells, I assume you mean "genes" here correct?

Isn't that that exactly what I posted except "genes" not cells? Hence the reference to human and vertebrate genes?

To others, not going to waste time responding to all of you. If you think it's wacky to refer to human genes, we really don't have anything to talk about. That's what the paper says, and it does so for a reason, namely to differentiate it from genetic sequences that are not vertebrate or related human nerve function. In other words, as Mister says above though he somehow didn't see his comment as what I have been saying all along, they were not surprised to find genes for nerve function at all.

They were surprised to find genetic sequences corresponding to human nerve function.

Why do you have so much faith in scientists?

 

[Dinwar]

If NeoDarwinism does not predict a general pattern of evolving complexity, then why couldn't we start out with man at the beginning of evolution and evolve single cell organisms?

We could, and evolution would work fine. The simple fact is that the data demonstrate that we didn't.

If I am so wrong, why is there a general pattern from simplicity to complexity?

Define simplicity and complexity. And you're wrong because you have no idea what the theory of evolution actually is. Also, because there isn't any such pattern--complexity (even loosely defined) increases based on the left-hand wall rule (if you don't know that rule you don't belong in a discussion of evolution). It's entirely possible that apparent increases in complexity are purely random.

But tbe general patter is indeed at the heart of NeoDarwinism.

You are equivocating here. There is a distinction between the theory and the data. The theory works whether we start simple or complex. The data demonstrate that we started with single-celled organisms and went to multicellular organisms.

 

[sphenisc]

...If NeoDarwinism does not predict a general pattern of evolving complexity, then why couldn't we start out with man at the beginning of evolution and evolve single cell organisms?

The evidence from paleontology is that we didn't. The reason we couldn't is more ecological, humans are dependent on numerous less complex organisms, e.g. intestinal flora. If, however, humans were taken to a pristine planet and the species on which they depend were substituted with nanotechnological equivalents, I don't think there's any reason in principle why they wouldn't evolve into less (and possibly more) complex organisms over time.

If I am so wrong, why is there a general pattern from simplicity to complexity?

Because we started with simple organisms and the statistical consequences of following a left-bounded drunken walk.

 

[Darkhole]

De Grasse was just one of the more prominent scientists and biologists of the 20th century and said those things in the 70s. .

Neil de Grasse was a astrofysicus, not a biologist.

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson

"Grasse quite plainly said "evolution was a myth."

What's your source?

 

[Simon39759]

Because we started with simple organisms and the statistical consequences of following a left-bounded drunken walk.

Indeed.
Other statistical might involve drunken yelling at passing cop cars and the singing of 'Danny boy'. More research is, however, needed.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You guys just don't want to admit, and go about saying I am claiming constant increasing complexity, etc, etc,...when I am not.

Okay, you're not saying that genomes have to become more complex as time goes on. That means that finding an example where an earlier genome is more complex than a later genome doesn't affect the Theory Of Evolution at all. Good. Glad we're on the same page with that. So...what's your point?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

However, in some circumstances, where smaller cells and/or smaller life cycles are required, this evolutionary pressure becomes stronger, with the expected results of significantly smaller genomes.

I can understand why smaller cells would create pressure for smaller genomes, but why do smaller life-cycles?

 

[Dinwar]

Because we started with simple organisms and the statistical consequences of following a left-bounded drunken walk.

I thought the drunkard's walk involved a threshold. The idea being, the drunkard is walking randomly on a sidewalk bounded on either one or both sides by a gutter. Eventually the drunk always winds up in the gutter, and the interesting stuff involves how he gets there. The left-hand wall model applies to things with no threshhold condition, and one hard boundary (for example, random motion with a wall to the left). The drunkad's walk is more applicable to conditions such as "You can only be X efficient, and if you're less than Y efficient you die". The left-hand wall rule is more applicable when you can only be a minimum of Y, but can be as much higher than that as you want.

I'm not saying this to say "You're wrong I'm right hahaha", and please forgive me if it sounds like I am. I'm just presenting how I understand the statistics so you can see where I'm cominig from. I'll gladly admit that my knowledge of the statistics isn't great--geologists are noteable in their ability to visualize complex processes while considering math a necessary chore.

 

[Mister Agenda]

I already tried pointing that out to him. He appeared to ignore it completely.

I now see where you did that, and better than I did, I think.

 

[Mister Agenda]

It's the slow accumulation of genetic changes. A loss of a gene is a genetic change.

Shazam! Exactly. I know you're not the only one to make this point, but the only person who seems to have trouble understanding that the accumulaion of genetic changes in no way means the same thing as an accumulation of genes, is randman.

 

[Simon39759]

I can understand why smaller cells would create pressure for smaller genomes, but why do smaller life-cycles?

Bigger genomes take longer to replicate hence making cellular reproduction slower.
It's a significant factor in microbes.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Wrong. You were trying to "correct" me and so contradict what I wrote, and you were factually wrong.

It appears the tactic of most evos here is to either correct their critic with false or mistaken claims so they can claim their critic is not informed. I exposed a few of them early on.

Or, they make up stuff about what one has written, and then blast and mock that on and on while they themselves are the ones not grasping the arguments.

It's likely a waste of time.

I'm sorry our disagreement on this matter distresses you so much.

 

[Mister Agenda]

We have very few behavioural patterns that are genetic. -Avicenna

How do you then explain, say, a dog's hunting instincts such as pointing when the dog has been raised as a pet and never been taught to hunt? If not it's not in his genes, where does it come from?

'We' are not dogs. Humans have very few behavioral patterns that are genetic. Dogs do. Avicenna was not speaking about behavioral patterns in other species, but in us. And by 'us', I mean 'humans'.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Bigger genomes take longer to replicate hence making cellular reproduction slower.
It's a significant factor in microbes.

Cool. That makes sense. Thanks.

 

[Mister Agenda]

randman, I have to give you props for starting and maintaining such an interesting thread. Although there seems to have been a lot of difficulty coming to any agreement, you are definitely a cut above many of the others who come here to represent a similar position. We don't agree on very much, but the dialogue has still been fruitful.

 

[patchbunny]

i don't refuse to try and understand evolution, therefore i conclude that it must be magic that accounts for origin of species.

ftfy.

 

[randman]

randman, I have to give you props for starting and maintaining such an interesting thread. Although there seems to have been a lot of difficulty coming to any agreement, you are definitely a cut above many of the others who come here to represent a similar position. We don't agree on very much, but the dialogue has still been fruitful.

Thanks.

Btw, I wanted to see how to add "link" after hitting quote but don't see it. I'll figure it out eventually I suppose.

 

[Lowpro]

I don't know how many of you read the SMMT section, but here

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88911&page=22

I think there's a more fruitful discussion in that thread, specifically because it cuts to the chase rather quickly.