|
|
Re: Dino/bird evolution: new evidence
[Re: capanno]
#123850
04/19/07 13:25
04/19/07 13:25
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Pappenheimer
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
|
Quote:
"not by chance"
This seems to base on a not-understanding of how chance in combination with restricting conditions and repetition in time and space leads to measurable probabilities which can be observered even in short-range processes and which is already used in many creative processes.
Or, you cannot bear the possibility of 'senseless' chance as one of the ingredients of life and creativity, at all.
|
|
|
Re: Dino/bird evolution: new evidence
[Re: Pappenheimer]
#123851
04/19/07 15:13
04/19/07 15:13
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
This seems to base on a not-understanding of how chance in combination with restricting conditions and repetition in time and space leads to measurable probabilities which can be observered even in short-range processes and which is already used in many creative processes.
Or, you cannot bear the possibility of 'senseless' chance as one of the ingredients of life and creativity, at all.
I dont really understand your "measurable probablitites" and "repetition in time and space", but you are correct in stating that it is "chance combined with restricting conditions"
I am sorry to see this thread degrade into what some of you have made it. Obviously some of you are so flustered that you cant seem to think straight. However, none of this rhetoric is intelligent at all. Concentrate on the facts. What do you know about evolution really?
No answer?  Thats ok I will try to bring you up to speed with as much patience and kindness as I can muster. The first issue: Chance and probability. How is chance involved? Are mutations random? What causes mutation?
Mutations occur either from 1)inheritance from parents (mom and dad are mutants) or 2)acquired during the lifetime by environmental factors(radiation,etc) or through copying errors made during cell division.
Chance or random? Yes mutation is random if it has been acquired during your lifetime, but mutation is not so random if you have acquired it from your parents through inheritance.
So we can clearly see that mutation itself is very well explained as "random"
==================
Now natural selection is not_random_at_all. Natural selection is a very real, testable, observable scientific phenomena which arises from every species struggle for existence and survival. Natural selection is the process whereby favorable inheritable characteristics are selected as a result of whatever conditions of the environment would allow that species to survive.
**However you must understand the relationship between natural selection and mutation, if you do not understand this relationship, you will never understand evolution and creationists which accuse you of "not knowing your own theory" will be quite correct. So it is very important to understand that natural selection cannot work without mutation Why? Because natural selection can only select for traits which exist in the "gene pool". As an example, the galapagos finch cannot select for different beak shape without the genes for that beak shape existing in its own gene pool to begin with. How did the genes get in there to begin with? Through mutation.(as the theory states)
So you are going to appear stupid to creationists and evolutionists alike if you dont understand that evolution is really part random/part natural selection.
To recapitulate. The mutations themselves arise randomly, the selection is based on environment and other factors.
This is just the very beginning of it. A basic definition of the term "genome" is in order. The "genome" of an organism is the sum total of all of its parts, including all of its chromosomes, genes, and nucleotides.
The genome really is the instruction manual which specifies life. There is no information system which is designed by man that can begin to compare with it.
The reductionism seen by some evolutionists on this forum is staggering. Phemox had told me that "complexity means nada". To me that really can be interpreted to mean that you simply dont know anything about the genome and the real peices of this puzzle. 
The genome is very complex, so complex that it can only be appreciated in terms of how much it contains. A genome is the instruction manual of life, it details how an organisms body will be built. The specified complexity of even a small bacterium's genome is arguably as great as that of the space shuttle.
Now compare that the jump from the complexity of a bacterium's genome to a human's genome is probably about the jump from a little red wagon's instruction manual to a space shuttle's instruction manual. Not only including the steps to put the parts together, also the steps required to manufacture the steel, plastic and all the peices and also to deliver them to the place of assembly. There is simply no human technology which can make an adequate analogy for the complexity of human life.
So therefore:
1)complexity does not mean nada
Now listen because Phemox has said that I havent presented any evidence of intelligent design, well now I am just beginning to give such evidence so please pay attention. This is not something your going to understand from a one-sentence reply on a forum. You have no idea how much knowledge I have about this subject, it would probably astound you. What I am going to do is just gloss over the main points of genomic complexity, and I will end the post with a question.
So the complexity of the genome itself is astounding and many scientists call it the "book of life" because it contains all of the instructions that we need to live. This "book" is a linear sequence of 4 types of extremely small molecules called "nucleotides". These nucleotides make up the individual steps of the spiral DNA staircase. These individual steps are the "letters" of the "book of life". In the human genome there are two sets of 3 billion of these nucleotides and only a small fraction of them are used to encode the roughly 100,000 functional proteins of the human body and the countless amounts of rna molecules which essentially act as these marvelously complex miniature machines.
This linear information alone is only the first dimension of complexity within the genome. The genome is not just a linear string of information, it is actually multiple linear codes which overlap and constitute an exceedingly complex information system.
It also has a self-regulating, recursive type of inbuilt management system which is full of countless loops and branches like a computer program. It has genes which regulate genes which regulate other genes. Some genes sense changes in the environment, and then instruct other genes to react by setting in motion complex cascades of events that can modify the body's environment.
To top it all off, DNA folds into two and three dimensional folds and such folding probably encodes even higher levels of information.
The bottom line is that the genomes instructions are not just a simple, static, linear set of nucleotides, but also a self-regulating, three dimensional system of the likes of which is simply not seen in any human made information system. The genome's highest level of interaction and information coding is probably beyond human comprehension The human body is filled with a galaxy of 100 trillion cells with each one carrying a complete copy of this "DNA manual" which, as Carl Sagan said, is probably the equivalent to more than all the books in the library of congress. The burning question is this:
Where did all this information come from? And how can it be maintained?
|
|
|
Re: Dino/bird evolution: new evidence
[Re: capanno]
#123852
04/19/07 15:25
04/19/07 15:25
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
I can reccomend dr Lee Spetners book "not by chance". A pretty good explanation on the genome, mutations and variations.
I've already read that book, the socalled 'refutation' of Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker. I wasn't impressed at all. It's full of errors, outdated information, misunderstandings and 'conspiracy this conspiracy that' kind of attacks. Science is not a religion, nor do we ignore evidence that allegedly doesn't fit the theory. And complexity doesn't say anything about whether or not something is possible to evolve. Could we ever have imagined when living in the year 1400 what the world of today would look like? No, off course not. Well, that's only 607 years and already a huge huge difference. I know the analogy might be slightly off, but I was talking about complexity, there's abundant evidence that evolution does happen all around us.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Dino/bird evolution: new evidence
[Re: NITRO777]
#123854
04/19/07 17:00
04/19/07 17:00
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
( I could say exactly the same about Capanno here, so right back at you.  ) Okey, well the reasons why I was totally unimpressed it because of the misunderstanding of statistics, the way complexity works and the evolution theory in general. The whole book is centered around the wrong assumption that evolutionists believe mutations are the primary donor of new DNA information, whereas gene duplication (as well as other duplications) is the primary source of new information in DNA. Let me give a quote of someone who tried to explain what's wrong with the 'statistics vs. complexity vs. evolution theory-approach (and yes it's from amazon.com); The central tenet of Dr. Spetners book is that sophisticated mathematical and statistical analyses "prove" that Darwinian evolution by natural selection is not possible. Well, as it happens, this is exactly what one would expect from this type of analysis, and for a very simple reason.
Let's say that I get I get in my car and begin to drive down the road without any particular idea about where I am going. Every time I reach an intersection, I have a set of choices: I can turn right, left, or go straight on (Notice, my choices aren't unlimited, I can't turn "up" for example. At each intersection, I must choose from a limited set of choices). Now, every time I make that choice, not only do I determine a new direction of travel, but I also change all my future range of choices.
Now, let's say I drive for thirty days straight. What are the chances that I will arrive in Akron, Ohio at the end of those 30 days? Well, practically no chance at all. But, I have to end up SOMEWHERE. If, at the end of 30 days, I do end up in Akron, what can we deduce from this?
Nothing much. I am in Akron, but it would have been impossible to predict that I would arrive here in 30 days. By the same token, even though I am actually in Akron, it is still statistically impossible to show that I should be there. Statistically, I shouldn't be in Akron. When I look back at my journey, my arrival in Akron came about through hundreds of separate decisions at hundreds of separate intersections. Just one different decision might have sent me off to Orlando, Florida. Statistically, I shouldn't be in Akron. In fact, statistically, I shouldn't be, well, anywhere.
By the same token, evolution has been through millions of intersections. The chances of us arriving at this particular stage in our evolution would have been impossible to predict at the beginning. Now that we have arrived at our current location, statistics are useless in telling us if we could have gotten here through evolution. But we had to be somewhere. It just happens to be here.
It is telling, however, that despite his statistical analysis, Dr Spetner is forced to admit that there is both direct and indirect evidence for evolution. Even as he stands at the brink of declaring evolution to be a statistical impossibility, he steps back and acknowledges its truth, however grudgingly.And another reaction this:
The progress of evolution is not random at all. The genetic mutation and variation due to sexual reproduction may be random, but the environment selects those mutations and variations that enhance the reproductive outcome for the organism. When a population of some trillions of bacteria are subjected to an antibiotic, and one of those bacterial cells happens to wind up antibiotic resistant (our figurative trip to Akron), it survives and the others die. It multiplies and the other do not. A new population of resistant bacteria arises not by the vagaries of chance, but by the hard realities of adaptation in an unforgiving environment.
To extend the "trip to Akron" metaphor, imagine trillions of drivers driving in all directions and winding up all over the map except for one thing. The guy that made it to Akron lives and the others are killed.
Convergent evolution isn't so surprising either. It may well happen, and in fact does happen, that two, three, four, or more guys make it to Akron by completely different routes. That insects, birds and bats all have wings and can fly does not require a miracle. It only requires that there be parallel evolutionary pressures on these different classes of animals, and parallel advantages to those among them that can make that increasingly long leap into the air work for them.Again, Dr. Spetner attacks the wrong things using the wrong approach ... Quote:
Well Im glad no evolutionist in this thread was my lawyer in some important court trial because I would lose my shirt. You guys just give up way too easily.
I think most judges and juries would have little problems figuring out who's right actually and who's back paddling, using wrong arguments is misinformed about certain facts and sometimes even ignorant.  But hey, if you ever need a lawyer, you know where to find me, 
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Dino/bird evolution: new evidence
[Re: NITRO777]
#123855
04/19/07 17:13
04/19/07 17:13
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,205
Greece
LarryLaffer
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,205
Greece
|
Quote:
Where did all this information come from? And how can it be maintained?
I'm happy to see an informed post. To answer your question, the information was evolved with the method you have just described. The first organisms in earth didn't had the same information and complexity that is found today, some billiom years later.
I was very lucky to be the pupil of Dr David Corne, author of many EA books, and currently teaching in my university. Out of the many conversations with this poor guy trying to teach me the very beautifull concept of EAs, this is what stuck with me the most...
He said.. The theory is given:
1. a population of organisms which have a lifetime and which can reproduce in a challenging/changing environment
2. a way of continually generating diversity in new 'child' organisms.
And that's the only two rules that 'govern' our universe. Even the survival of the fittest principle has emerged by these two rules(organisms which tend to have healthy, fertile children will dominate(i.e. their descendents will).
So the answer to your question is, complexity of the genomes themselves has evolved through years by natural evolution. By following the principle i have just described, you can see how genomes weren't the start but something that has evolved over the years as well(don't ask me what started it all as EAs can't and don't attempt to answer this question).
Quote:
Mutations occur either from 1)inheritance from parents (mom and dad are mutants) or 2)acquired during the lifetime by environmental factors(radiation,etc) or through copying errors made during cell division.
Chance or random? Yes mutation is random if it has been acquired during your lifetime, but mutation is not so random if you have acquired it from your parents through inheritance.
Just want to clarify here, that mutations are always random, and never biased or inherited. I'm sure we're on the same page but maybe someone else would find this post informative.. Random mutations occur, as you correctly stated, through copying errors, although i wouldn't call them errors per se.. that's how natural evolution works. If there was no mutations, there would be no evolution.
Evolution happens by mix and matching the Selected pairs of a given population. The selection method of our universe is survival of the fittest. The children of the selected pair is a crossover of its parent's 'information' and a tiny percentage of a mutation happening(introducing some NEW information). The child is added to the population and the process begins again.
After the child has been mutated, it is not called a mutation any more. It's its new... 'data', and will possibly be inherited to its ancestors, depending on the crossover(which also has random elements).
Thus, mutation and cross-over are completely random. Natural Evolution is slightly biased to the fittest, only because of its selection method.
Makes you wonder, 'who' created this world, and why are these two rules in place(considering you accept this theory). I like to make my own theories depending on this very concept about God and our meaning of life. You're welcome to do the same.
Cheers,
Aris
|
|
|
Re: Dino/bird evolution: new evidence
[Re: LarryLaffer]
#123856
04/19/07 17:38
04/19/07 17:38
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Makes you wonder, 'who' created this world, and why are these two rules in place(considering you accept this theory).
This very question starts with the assumption that all this has to be created. We can see these rules are in effect indeed, but what makes you think these rules were 'made'. Why would that be the case? A lot of natural selective factors can be explained perfectly well, most of them are simply the results of reactions and co-existence of other reactions, events and what more. There are huge chains of reactions that made the world how it is now. Selective factors like climate changes, disappearing food sources for a certain adapted species and what more should be seen in it's context.
Again complexity, even complexity of the most complex kind, doesn't demand a creator. We know a lot about the weather and it's factors that influence the outcome, yet we can't predict it accurately because our knowledge is limited and bound to time (gathering info and calculating weathermodels costs time). Basically we don't know everything is what I'm trying to explain, and for example the weather system shows we can't accurately base conclusions or make assumptions like the one in the quoted text above.
It goes even further than that by the way. Just because something doesn't make sense doesn't mean it's not true.
Let's say you wake up one day on a street and you know completely nothing, all you know is you exist because you're parents gave birth to you and the street you're on simply was there before you were there. You've never seen anyone make that street, nor did you see any other street being made. Basically you don't know anything about that street. Except that it was there before you were there. You can see what the street consists of, but you can't see any tools. The only legit conclusion is that the street exists, you don't know if the street was constructed and even if you think so, there's absolutely no reasonable argument to assume God made that street. The only way to know whether or not the street was made and by who, is to actually have witnessed it.
Now replace 'street' with 'universe' or whatever other extraordinary thing we can see around us for which we can not see how it came into existence...
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Dino/bird evolution: new evidence
[Re: PHeMoX]
#123857
04/19/07 17:55
04/19/07 17:55
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Very good, thank you for restoring my faith some argumentative viability on this board. I think basically that anyone who replies to these threads with purely derogatory statements is a weak-willed loser to be perfectly blunt, and I am just generally speaking with no particular person in mind. We all have the tendency to get angry but anger is really just a manifestation of of an inability to cope with a situation IMHO. So, very good, back to the facts. Note that I havent read Spetner's book, but I have heard these arguments on both sides before. Quote:
By the same token, evolution has been through millions of intersections. The chances of us arriving at this particular stage in our evolution would have been impossible to predict at the beginning. Now that we have arrived at our current location, statistics are useless in telling us if we could have gotten here through evolution. But we had to be somewhere. It just happens to be here
I understand this point, but it is also a logical fallacy which begins with an assumption that evolution occured. When you begin with an argument that your theory of evolution happened then of course any statistics which calculate the probability of that occurence are useless. However evolution is the whole subject being debated here. Let me carry the analogy out further to demonstrate:
If I am in Akron it is useless to try to figure out the probabilities which got me there. I agree with that fully. 100%.
Yet you are not in Akron that is the whole subject under debate. Therefore his argument is a logical fallacy.
Quote:
Dr Spetner is forced to admit that there is both direct and indirect evidence for evolution. Even as he stands at the brink of declaring evolution to be a statistical impossibility, he steps back and acknowledges its truth
I didnt read the book and I dont agree with the ID crowd with their "guided evolution" fallacy. But it seems as if your guy has a good point here as far as ID'ers go, but not according to me because I dont acknowledge either direct nor indirect evidence for evolution.
Quote:
The progress of evolution is not random at all. The genetic mutation and variation due to sexual reproduction may be random
This statement is idiotic. In the first statement he says evolution is not random at all and in the second sentence he says that "...variation due to sexual reproduction may be random
So that is ridiculous, and I see it in both camps, for evolution AND creation. The alleged process is neither random nor directed, it is both. So creationists are entirely correct when we say that genetic information arises by chance. It indeed arises by chance mutation. It is selected by other processes.
This is where some evolutionists on this board just_dont_get_it, they continue to claim that evolution does not arise by chance belieing the fact that they just dont know their own theory. Mutation absolutely arises by chance. This is where you need to be honest with yourself and others. You are no scientist and you will never be one if you cannot grasp this so please dont claim an appeal to science.
Quote:
I think most judges and juries would have little problems figuring out who's right actually and who's back paddling, using wrong arguments is misinformed about certain facts and sometimes even ignorant.
What any judge needs is evidence and you cannot provide evidence. If you say I am ignorant or backpaddling that is not enough evidence without proofs. Yet I am giving the judge one peice after another in a steady stream and all you guys do is ignore it. Why? Because you cannot admit when your wrong. The precise reason why you cannot accept a God, because that would mean admission of guilt. You are basically so stuck on yourself that you cannot ever foresee yourself being wrong. However, this type of ignorance is exactly what will assure that you will never do anything substantially in science because you have no ability to learn. Learning involves throwing out what you currently know to replace it with things that you did not know. The quicker you can learn, the quicker you can adapt and overcome.  Think about it. This is my general opinion of some people, I am definitely not saying Phemox or anyone specifically. I think that our ability to learn and the speed in which we learn really is the definition of intelligence.
|
|
|
|
