Evolution

Author: Goldtop

Posts

Total: 148
#121
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
I don't believe that creationism and evolution are truly incompatible, I think it is a faulty argument. If God created everything through an evolutionary process, how does this detract from God's glory? If anything, it magnifies God's glory.

I think it is a shame that the debate over evolution has people debating about the existence of The Ultimate Reality. Especially since monotheists, as I said earlier in this topic, innovated the concept of biological evolution hundreds of years before Darwin. At least, the evidence can prove that. It was possibly believed even long before that.

The monotheists who originated the idea of biological evolution had absolutely no problem reconciling the reality that everything was created by God with the concept of biological evolution. Why is this an issue today?


Because people on both sides of the debate are superstitious. 


I think evolution makes a great deal of sense, but I can't say it is something that I should concern myself with. I think it would be under the category of "endless genealogies", which my faith tells me is not edifying for me to waste my time thinking about. It has no real application for me. Maybe moreso people who work in the medical field or something. I don't know.

#122
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac

If God created everything through an evolutionary process
Please provide bible Ch and Verse to support this claim.
The monotheists who originated the idea of biological evolution had absolutely no problem reconciling the reality that everything was created by God with the concept of biological evolution. Why is this an issue today?

What a joke. The bible is the word of your god? Claiming that your god used evolution is declaring unequivocally that the word of god is a lie.
Because people on both sides of the debate are superstitious.
Got any evidence, not for your side that's a given.
my faith tells me is not edifying for me to waste my time thinking about
Your faith tells you to reject all modern medical practices. I doubt that you adhere to that level of nonsense.
#123
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@disgusted
You don't get to tell me what my faith is, you don't even believe there is truth. Go pollute another topic, loser.

#124
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
I see it's time for another godist to run away. That's par for the course.
#125
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@disgusted
Believe what you want to believe.
#126
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Mopac
Everyone recoils at the stink, he never figures out he's the stink. Everyone else is the problem.
#127
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@ethang5
You’re projecting so hard iMax wants to charge royalties for that post.

#128
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@drafterman
Must---2} so is any of this speciation simple-to-complex evolution, complex-to-simple evolution, or just lateral evolution being niether more or less complex?
Draftman---There are examples of all of those.

Can please specify and evidence or at least a rationale of which are

1} complex-to-simple evolution _________________

2} simple-to-complex evolution ______________________,

3} lateral neither 1 or 2 above evolution _________________________

Drfm---Evolution is manifest through speciation events.

It appears your saying that speciation events   ---i.e. a new species appears from another---  is a special-case of evolution.

Are the other special-case events of evolution? What are they?

I suppose a new biologic kingdom via evolution is one you propose. Is there any direct observations of a new biologic kingdom?



#129
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@mustardness
Can please specify and evidence or at least a rationale of which are 

1} complex-to-simple evolution _________________
5.5.1 "Rhagoletis pomonella is a fly that is native to North America. Its normal host is the hawthorn tree. Sometime during the nineteenth century it began to infest apple trees. Since then it has begun to infest cherries, roses, pears and possibly other members of the rosaceae. Quite a bit of work has been done on the differences between flies infesting hawthorn and flies infesting apple. There appear to be differences in host preferences among populations. Offspring of females collected from on of these two hosts are more likely to select that host for oviposition (Prokopy et al. 1988). Genetic differences between flies on these two hosts have been found at 6 out of 13 allozyme loci (Feder et al. 1988, see also McPheron et al. 1988). Laboratory studies have shown an asynchrony in emergence time of adults between these two host races (Smith 1988). Flies from apple trees take about 40 days to mature, whereas flies from hawthorn trees take 54-60 days to mature. This makes sense when we consider that hawthorn fruit tends to mature later in the season that apples. Hybridization studies show that host preferences are inherited, but give no evidence of barriers to mating. This is a very exciting case. It may represent the early stages of a sympatric speciation event (considering the dispersal of R. pomonella to other plants it may even represent the beginning of an adaptive radiation). It is important to note that some of the leading researchers on this question are urging caution in interpreting it."

Maggot fly speciating into a new version that matures in fewer days.

2} simple-to-complex evolution ______________________,
5.1.1.1 "While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas."

The variant had twice as many chromosomes; more complex than the parent


3} lateral neither 1 or 2 above evolution _________________________
5.2.1 "Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes (N = 8). S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self-incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities."

Speciation into two breeds of plans with same number of chromosomes.


It appears your saying that speciation events   ---i.e. a new species appears from another---  is a special-case of evolution.
Sure.

Are the other special-case events of evolution? What are they?
Hybridization, gene shifting, change in allelle frequencies, ring species, emergence of subspecies.

I suppose a new biologic kingdom via evolution is one you propose. Is there any direct observations of a new biologic kingdom?
No, that would tale millions if not billions of years.

#130
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@drafterman
Maggot fly speciating into a new version that matures in fewer days.

I'm not sure that is correct as being evidence of complex-to-simple evolution and  I certainly do not see anyone other than you claiming that for that species of fly.  Complex-to-simple is not stated in that article you supplied.

Drafman do believe that animals that have shorter lives, shorter gestation periods and shorter times of maturity are inherent less complex?

The variant had twice as many chromosomes; more complex than the parent
Ok numerically more complex example of observed simple-to-complex evolution.

Speciation into two breeds of plans with same number of chromosomes.
So a new breed is same as a new species?  Ok,  so numerically the same so just lateral evolution.

Hybridization, gene shifting, change in allelle frequencies, ring species, emergence of subspecies.
I would think sub-species evolution is same as new species. Either way that catagories of special-case of evolution that your aware of;

Hybridization,
gene shifting,
change in allelle frequencies,
ring species,
emergence of subspecies.

How do these relate, if at all,  to the following article;

..."He’s learned that naturalist Charles Darwin was wrong about some things. For one, evolution doesn’t always occur in steps so slow and steady that changes can’t be observed.

Lenski also learned that a laboratory freezer can function as a time machine.

....A professor at Michigan State University, Lenski has watched E. coli bacteria multiply through 59,000 generations, a span that has allowed him to observe evolution in real time.

Since his Long-Term Experimental Evolution Project began in 1988, the bacteria have doubled in size, begun to mutate more quickly, and become more efficient at using the glucose in the solution where they’re grown.

More strikingly, however, he found that one of the 12 bacterial lines he has maintained has developed into what he believes is a new species, able to use a compound in the solution called citrate — a derivative of citric acid, like that found in some fruit — for food."...



#131
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@mustardness
I'm going to have to ask you to clarify what you mean by complexity in this context.
#132
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
I'm going to have to ask you to clarify what you mean by complexity in this context.
This goes back to initial questions message #128 regarding;

1} simple-to-complex evolution,

2] complex-to-simple evolution, and,

3} lateral evolution, to which you gave examples of each.

So you obviously had something in mind, and gave examples ergo I would like to hear you clarify your definitions in regards to your given examples in msessage #129

Ive given mind in one of more other threads here at DArt.

1} numerical complexity ex 3 is more complex than 2 i.e. 2 has one line-of-relationship and 3 had three lines-of-relationship.  At 4, we quantum leap over four and five to six lines-of-relationship.
...see 227.01 at this URL

2} synergetic complexity ex humans degree of access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts where animals have so much less

here is the only geometric example of synergy that I'm aware of and have posted it in other threads here at DArt and DDO

There are movies titled 'Its Complicated' and we've heard that phrase since the 90's in movies and elsewhere.

The scenario of 'many factors involved'  may have both numerical and synergetic complexity.


#133
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@ethang5
Reduced to sniping from the grassy knoll and missing again.
#134
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
It was you who said everyone runs away, not me. That was your observation. Think man.

Nobody wants to talk to you. Most think you are offensive. You are repeating your history here. Everyone else can't be the wrong. Just resist the urge to be vitriolic. Remember that Ram and Stronn will be your willows and Keith and survive your leaving.

Ask yourself, why do they all "run away"? It isn't your "cutting questions". I've asked you before, I'll ask again. Is this really how you want your life to be?

Really?



#135
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@mustardness
Oh. You're talking gibberish again.
#136
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@drafterman
Oh. You're talking gibberish again.

You ask my definition and I gave them. Go figure.

Typical of those who apply ego based, irrational, illogical and lack of common sense, mental blockages in pathways of rational, logical common sense when the going gets tough. Go figure.

When you Dman, are asked the same, the ego based, irrational, illogical and lack of common sense, mental blockages are again placed on pathways to rational, logical, common sense. Go figure.

Ego is the greatest danger to humanities longer term survival on Earth.

Go figure.  Human ego.  What is its purpose? 

Defense? Offense? Divergent? Distractive? Denial? Darkness? D-man? D-not-a-man?

Silence? Nada? Zip? Nothing? Void? Vacuum? Empty-ness? Zero?

i = ego = metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept

.........................................................................................................
...........................................*  i  *......................................................
..........................................................................................................

#137
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@ethang5
It's my questions that make you run away in fear, always has been.
Carry on you have plenty more laughs to give us.
#138
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@disgusted
What about everyone else who treat you like rotten meat? Everyone's running from you?

Lol. Be happy in your delusion jasper.

#139
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@ethang5
Your fantasy world just gets funnier.
#140
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Yours just gets sadder.
#141
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@ethang5
As your spending all this time having a very scientific conversation calling people names, can I point out that you appear to have ignored the following issues I have pointed out with your arguments.

As you are so smart and so honest, you must have just missed the three times I’ve reminded you, and totally are not ignoring every flaw pointed out as you have no valid argument:

1.) You have dishonestly quote mined at least two examples of scientists in the media.

2.) you have dishonestly misquoted me: by omitting a line that put my statement into context. Using that omission to - twice- claim I was saying something I obviously was not saying.

3.) You and your blog post - made a claim about what should be seen in conserved proteins that relies on evolution stopping on one branch but not the other. And a claim that completely misunderstands the intent of CytC comparrisons.

4.) You’ve claimed earthworms and lizards and birds do not match Cytochrom C patterns - Deapite me linking you the ensembl genome browser, and giving you specific examples of what I’m doing, you haven’t bothered to provide any further details.

5.) Youve made claims about chronology that misrepresent what I’ve said: specifically that I’m claiming about relative times of divergence - and using this to claim I’m talking about absolute times.

6.) You dishonestly portrayed a list of dissenters to darwinism as significant and compelling; yet was dwarfed by qualified supporters of Evolution called Steve.

7.) Your discovery institute link ignore that we know virus insert the genes into our DNA - that’s how virus work. Both your links seem to object to the idea that viruses can inject genes into the genome, and if they do insert genes into the genome - they must not evolve - because the discovery institute said so.

8.) Your link on birds I’m sure was an accident on your part, as it is not talking about genes for the purposes of phylogeny, but to predict changes based on single gene changes. Genes work together - so individual changes are rarely down to single gene changes (though sometimes they are). This is not exactly controversial. So this appears to you simply throwing a link out without understanding what it even meant.

9.) You’ve claimed that a recessive gene copy has a 25% chance of being passed to a child - it has been shown by multiple people that this is wrong.


#142
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Ramshutu
And you are chasing me around with made up nonsense after you have been dismissed. Are you anal or just retarded?

OK, back on ignore you go.


#143
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@ethang5
Unfortunately, none of this is made up, this is all reflected in our previous posts. Also unfortunately, it appears to be necessary to bring up a the arguments and points you have utterly capitulated and dropped - which is odd as this is a debate website where the whole intent is to bring up issues and arguments. 

If you’re not willing to address any issues with the nonsense you blurt out, may I suggest that the comment section in YouTube videos about evolution, or disused doorways where you angrily shout at passers by would be a better and appropriate venue where you can do what you’re doing here without wasting everyone else’s time.

#144
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
That we have direct evidence of evolution is not in question, or shouldnt be.

The question is really about the following;

1} simple-to-complex evolution { synergetic? } i.e. when the whole is greater than sum-of-its-parts,

2] complex-to-simple evolution, and, reduction in complexity

3} lateral evolution no rise or lowering of complexity.

Its complicated and their are many factors to be considered.

To date, I'm the only person to have posted examples that explain/define complexity.

Humans are most complex biologics with woman { Xx } being more complex than man { Xy }.



32 days later

#145
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@Goldtop
The two main postulates of evolution are:

1. Natural Selection
2. Diversity of Species

You've got to include descent with modification as the 2nd step.
It's like saying:
1. Collect underpants
2. ?
3. Make profit

55 days later

#146
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@MagicAintReal
And "mutation" as the first.
#147
Bifolkal
Bifolkal's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7
0
0
4
Bifolkal's avatar
Bifolkal
0
0
4
-->
@Mopac
Evolution has exponential timing.

22 days later

#148
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@IlDiavolo
....“It’s not that surprising that the jellyfish didn’t just invent a whole bunch of new genes to make a medusa stage,” said Srivastava, “but we don’t know until we look.” She was intrigued by the finding that novel genes weren’t overrepresented in the medusa stage because it suggests that “very different body plans can arise by connecting the same genes in different ways.”

.....Gold’s results broadly align with those from another jellyfish genome, Clytia. That research, too, found no large role for novel genes. To add to the mystery, there were even hints that in Clytia, more ancient and conserved pathways played a larger role in medusa development."...


Sounds like epigenetics too me.