Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on January 18, 2008, 09:11:47 pm
-
http://science.slashdot.org/science/08/01/18/1943255.shtml
"When the researchers measured changes in 40 defined characteristics of the nematodes' sexual organs (including cell division patterns and the formation of specific cells), they found that most were uniform in direction, with the main mechanism for the development favoring a natural selection of successful traits, the researchers said."
Who wants to go first?
-
Well, it's about time someone provided some evidence for this "evolution."
-
Good, good...more proof!
And what about:
Vatican has widely accepted evolution and the possible existance of aliens so the only creationists left are mad fanatics living in the US? We could care less about their opinions. They should have their own Church, too.
-
wait a second, did anyone read that, it sounds like they are saying mutation is not random... I'm not sure if that's what it was saying or if it was just reconfirming again natural selection, but it sounded like it was saying that mutations (not there expression across generations) have directed trends.
-
wait a second, did anyone read that, it sounds like they are saying mutation is not random... I'm not sure if that's what it was saying or if it was just reconfirming again natural selection, but it sounded like it was saying that mutations (not there expression across generations) have directed trends.
, they found that most were uniform in direction, with the main mechanism for the development favoring a natural selection of successful traits, the researchers said.
Looks like reconfirming natural selection
-
Yeah, I don't think they're saying the trends are directed, just that evolution is deterministic, meaning that a given occurrence emerges causally from previous occurrences. I didn't realize this was still a debate; it doesn't sound particularly radical.
-
saying it's deterministic implies you can predict what will happen precisely, which to a degree is true. if an animal feeds from a tree and the tree gets taller, then the animal will have to get taller or starve, but it can not tell you if it will get long legs or a long neck, hell the animal could learn to climb and actually get shorter.
-
The term "determinism" only implies you could theoretically predict precisely what will happen if you had every possible piece of information, which no one ever has, in any situation.
-
in which case everything in the universe is deterministic.
-
Precisely. That's why the link strikes me as odd, but then again there isn't much of it.
-
I'd like to see a journal article rather than such a brief summary.
Genetic mutation is not deterministic; it is random. Mutation visible in the population at any given point in time will appear deterministic, however.
-
I'd like to see a journal article rather than such a brief summary.
Genetic mutation is not deterministic; it is random. Mutation visible in the population at any given point in time will appear deterministic, however.
Mutation is random, but natural selection is not, which is what this study was about.
-
It actually seems like poor word choice, seeing as "determinism" is a concept that still has one foot planted firmly in philosophy. Whoever wrote that summary opened up a whole can of worms that I doubt they meant to suggest.
-
Mutation is random, but natural selection is not, which is what this study was about.
Exacly, but that's not what that thread implies... So they bred worms and a majority started to developed certain advantages changes to their environment? What changes to what environment. Also isn't there also things called environmental genes that only "kick in" when the organism is under certain environments. Testing was done on twins that grew up in different environments.
Something to think about.
Yes, I do 'obviously' believe in God but also believe in not judging others for their belief in whatever, which in turn "not very Christian" I'm NOT here to get into any religious debate. Just always like to keep my ears open and learn
-
Mutation is random, but natural selection is not, which is what this study was about.
That's not what I got from the summary, but then again that's a VERY badly written summary (which is why I want to see the journal article, if they'd bothered to actually put down the names of the researchers *sigh*).
If the study honestly concluded that "natural selection is not random," then I'd like to award the authors the Captain Obvious Prize for 2008. That's the fundamental premise of natural selection, hence the "selection" part. If you read On the Origin of Species, Darwin himself states that natural selection isn't random. It can't be random for eveolutionary theory to make any sense.
Again... bad summary. I suspect this isn't what the researchers found at all. If it is, they need to be properly ridiculed for it.
So they bred worms and a majority started to developed certain advantages changes to their environment? What changes to what environment. Also isn't there also things called environmental genes that only "kick in" when the organism is under certain environments. Testing was done on twins that grew up in different environments.
I'm putting this as politely as I can.... pleeeeeaaaase don't talk about genetics if you don't actually know what you're talking about. It'll confuse people.
I don't know what you're getting at with your first two sentences, but your third is, I suspect, referring to environmental triggers? Gene cascades are frequently activated by external stimuli, ranging from touch, to temperature, to pressure, to salinity, etc etc ad nauseum. That in itself has little to do with natural selection wherein an organism with mutations that promote survival in certain conditions will reproduce successfully while those without will die.
-
I tracked down the article. Here's the tidbits I can legally reproduce:
Summary
Background: A surprising amount of developmental variation has been observed for otherwise highly conserved features, a phenomenon known as developmental system drift. Either stochastic processes (e.g., drift and absence of selection-independent constraints) or deterministic processes (e.g., selection or constraints) could be the predominate mechanism for the evolution of such variation. We tested whether evolutionary patterns of change were unbiased or biased, as predicted by the stochastic or deterministic hypotheses, respectively. As a model, we used the nematode vulva, a highly conserved, essential organ, the development of which has been intensively studied in the model systems Caenorhabditis elegans and Pristionchus pacificus.
Results: For 51 rhabditid species, we analyzed more than 40 characteristics of vulva development, including cell fates, fate induction, cell competence, division patterns, morphogenesis, and related aspects of gonad development. We then defined individual characters and plotted their evolution on a phylogeny inferred for 65 species from three nuclear gene sequences. This taxon-dense phylogeny provides for the first time a highly resolved picture of rhabditid evolution and allows the reconstruction of the number and directionality of changes in the vulva development characters. We found an astonishing amount of variation and an even larger number of evolutionary changes, suggesting a high degree of homoplasy (convergences and reversals). Surprisingly, only two characters showed unbiased evolution. Evolution of all other characters was biased.
Conclusions: We propose that developmental evolution is primarily governed by selection and/or selection- independent constraints, not stochastic processes such as drift in unconstrained phenotypic space.
And I conclude that the Slashdot and ScienceDirect authors need to learn how to read scientific papers, because their summary is about as relevant to this paper as pink elephants.
This paper is discussing developmental evolution, which is not the same type of evolution that non-biologists are familiar with.
Interesting paper though, I take back the ridicule =)
-
Mutation is random, but natural selection is not, which is what this study was about.
So they bred worms and a majority started to developed certain advantages changes to their environment? What changes to what environment. Also isn't there also things called environmental genes that only "kick in" when the organism is under certain environments. Testing was done on twins that grew up in different environments.
I'm putting this as politely as I can.... pleeeeeaaaase don't talk about genetics if you don't actually know what you're talking about. It'll confuse people.
I don't know what you're getting at with your first two sentences, but your third is, I suspect, referring to environmental triggers? Gene cascades are frequently activated by external stimuli, ranging from touch, to temperature, to pressure, to salinity, etc etc ad nauseum. That in itself has little to do with natural selection wherein an organism with mutations that promote survival in certain conditions will reproduce successfully while those without will die.
Duely noted, I'm not saying I know anything... In fact I was attempting to ask a question. btw, being misunderstood doesn't automatically put me in the ignorant category, again I was asking how they got this info. I ASK because I don't understand.
I'm not being biased so please before you quote me know I'm listening not attacking.
YES I was talking about environment triggers, thank you.
-
Alot words in there are brutal for my puny mind... :D
I'm having difficulty understanding the part about how all but 2 showed "biased" changes... :confused:
We propose that developmental evolution is primarily governed by selection and/or selection- independent constraints, not stochastic processes such as drift in unconstrained phenotypic space.
Someone please define this in laymen terms... thank you
-
It's still quite a leap from simultaneously developing the dozen or so chemical processes required to make blood clot, all in time to keep early lifeforms from bleeding to death.
-
early lifeforms didn't have blood.
-
Do we really need another evolution debate at HLP?
:sigh:
Why didn't we have all this enthusiasm when we actually had a debate forum? :p
-
Do we really need another evolution debate at HLP?
:sigh:
Why didn't we have all this enthusiasm when we actually had a debate forum? :p
Yes we do, and because the debate forum sucked
-
Yes we do, and because the debate forum sucked
Sorry to spill sunshine on your funeral.
-
Yes we do, and because the debate forum sucked
Sorry to spill sunshine on your funeral.
no i'm just hungover ok
-
Some may not have had blood, but you're telling me that the development of the bloodclotting reaction came BEFORE creatures even had blood? That's preposterous!
-
Some may not have had blood, but you're telling me that the development of the bloodclotting reaction came BEFORE creatures even had blood? That's preposterous!
You don't understand natural selection at all, do you?
And for the record: blood clotting reactions would have come before blood became an essential system in higher animals.
When blood became an essential system, animals that had the genes and proteins required for clotting would survive injuries that cause bleeding, while animals without those specific genes and proteins would have died out. Their descendants evolved into the animal species we see today. Those genes and proteins had and still have other functions besides clotting; clotting was merely a trait not under selection pressure which mutated in and out until it ended up under selection pressure.
This is why we see diseases where people (and animals) have either minimal or no clotting reaction - its a deleterious spontaneous mutation, which happens all the time, and is genetically analogous (or similar, but not identical to) circulatory animals which lacked the clotting reaction - and individuals today die out just the same way. (Of course, it's a recessive trait, and also caused by spontaneous mutation, so it will never be weeded out of the population entirely).
Quit calling things perposterous or unbelievable just because YOU don't understand them. The science is very well understood. This is not merely theory, it is biological fact. If that's inconvenient for religious nuts who can't be bothered to educate themselves for fear of disrupting their doctrinal beliefs, tough ****.
I'm tired of you and others trolling these threads and I'm tired of rehashing basic college-entry-level and high school biology because you people insist on being so damn think. My patience is wearing very thin, and I daresay it's probably showing in my tone right now.
Educate yourself, or quit posting about it.
Someone please lock this; the original report, thread and discussion has nothing actually to do with the article on which it was written, and now we're moving well beyond it into the usual tripe that appears in evolution threads around here.
-
Well, Ryan, FYI, I am entry-level college-educated, and am still in the process of educating myself, so forgive me if I don't know everything about everything just yet.
Now, to the topic: Why would blood have been formed if it wasn't essential? I thought natural selection was driven by necessity. So how could we grow to need blood if at one time we were fine without it?
-
That isn't the topic. Quit trolling.
MP-Ryan, I wouldn't mind hearing an explanation of what these guys actually discovered.
-
I thought natural selection was driven by necessity. So how could we grow to need blood if at one time we were fine without it?
If an individual of a species develops a trait that is advantageous, it's chances of survival will be better than those without it (hence why it is advantageous), and thus enable for that trait to propagate through the species' gene pool.
Simple isn't it? And to think I've never had a biology class above high school level as most people in this forum who seem to understand this. Makes me wonder what happens in science classes in other countries where people have doubts about evolution.
-
Note that this topic is a hornet's nest. But on the other hand, gasoline and matches tend to make a short work of them - and I have a lot of gasoline!
I don't even claim to understand everything about biology or the fine details of evolution. But I can answer your question with some accuracy, I hope. Rest of the biology people can fulfil and correct the used terms, if they bother.
Current understanding is that the life evolved from single cell type creatures that don't have a system that could be called blood. Instead inside the cell there is a type of liquid that fulfils the whole volume of the cell, minus the cell organs (and at this point my English vocabulary seriously sucks). The necessary information is carried from organ to organ through this liquid.
There are several steps of evolution between the invertebrate and the single cell creatures, but I'll try to make this answer short so. When you look at spiders for example, they have a kind of blood, but it flushes all around the body pretty much like with the single cell creatures. But spiders do have a heart and lungs, if memory serves, so here is already a quite evident difference.
If there exists creatures like the spiders and generally the invertebrate(=no bones around the spine if the fancy word was incorrect), why did we evolve to have such complex blood circulation system? This is a little bit of guess work, but I would suppose that the larger animals have had competitive edge at multiple points of history, and the spider type of blood circulation does not work with mammals whose brain are located much higher than heart. If it were like that gravity would keep blood concentrated on the lower part of the body and the brain would not function. You can continue with this line of thought by yourself by filling the evident gaps in the explanation, I suppose.
Mika
-
My point is, and I'm not trying to troll here, I'm honestly curious to see how tihs works out from your perspective, is how a system which requires A, B, C, D, E, F and G to be in place simultaneously, and not a single one of those can be lacking, can come to be, especially when A by itself needs its own group of things to be in place for A to function. I just don't see how it's possible for all the things we require to live to have come to be all at once. My example was blood clotting. In order to have blood, we need a pump (the heart), a way to infuse it with the things we need (lungs and hemoglobin), a way to keep from losing all of it (blood clots), and a system to transport it in (blood vessels). I get that this all wasn't necessary before organisms grew beyond being two cells thick, and seawater acted as "blood." But in order to be three or more cells thick, it needed capalaries. How then do we get this jump to the entire circulatory system?
-
Also, please note that the larger the volume of the animal, the harder it gets to get the fresh blood to circulate around every region. So the driving factor is not only gravity, but more correctly the speed of which you can get fresh blood to organs and the amount of blood needed to carry necessary amount of oxygen and nutrition to all regions. With large mammals the blood would not move quickly enough to sustain life of those areas with a invertebrate type of circulation. Also, the large mammal would need a massive amount of blood to sustain itself.
So, the standing position of human is quite recent evolutionary step, and I'm wondering how well does the human withstand the blood pressure gradients and what will be the next evolutionary step if you think human's blood circulation. Pushing blood more effectively from the lower limbs to heart perhaps?
Mika
-
Given that somewhere between 1 in 3 and 1 in 5 people die of heart problems (depending on who makes up the stats) it does seem likely. Although that said we tend to die after having children so the selection pressure isn't as high as you'd expect from that statistic.
-
Well, Ryan, FYI, I am entry-level college-educated, and am still in the process of educating myself, so forgive me if I don't know everything about everything just yet.
Now, to the topic: Why would blood have been formed if it wasn't essential? I thought natural selection was driven by necessity. So how could we grow to need blood if at one time we were fine without it?
Because it isn't essential to all animals. For example: Ants
(from http://www.thesahara.net/ants.htm)
For example ants do not have any lungs. Oxygen is absorbed through minuscule holes that are all over the body; Carbon Dioxide leaves through the same holes, but ants do not breathe. They have no blood vessels and the heart is a long tube that circulates a plasma-like liquid from the head to metasoma.
Have you ever wondered why an ant doesn't bleed when it loses a limb or any other body parts?
-
MP-Ryan, I wouldn't mind hearing an explanation of what these guys actually discovered.
OK, a little background: the entire developmental lineage of C. elegans (one of the nematodes under study) is mapped. There are an exact number of cells in every adult, and we know exactly where they came from. You can trace the worm from single-cell to adult through its cell divisions, which is an extremely useful tool for studying developmental genetics, and subsequently developmental evolution.
More background: Believe it or not, not all species develop the same organs in the same ways. There's a rather famous example that plagues developmental biology students everywhere. Humans, chickens, zebrafish represent three very different vertebrates. During the first hours of embryonic development, they all look the same but their gene expression patterns are wildly different. In early development, they all look wildly different but their gene expression patterns are virtually identical. Mid-way through development they all look very much the same, but their gene expression is totally different again; and finally, in adulthood they not only look different but their gene expression patterns are totally different. Why? Because there are conserved genetic and physical stages of development, necessary steps which MUST occur to produce a healthy organism. Gene expression always preceeds the physical result, which is why we see the pattern we see. But the point is that we can produce the same systems in different ways, as long as certain essential points are reached.
This study goes a step beyond that - they are looking at the evolution of developmental systems in these worms. And what they've found is that the observed differences in how the worms produce their vulva (the vulva is essentially the same in adulthood for all of the species) are not random; random mutations do not account for the variance in vulval system development, but rather the system tended to evolve directionally in certain ways, partially depending on the presence or absence of selection pressure. The hypothesis they've partially discredited believed random mutations accounted for the variation in development of the vulva - that is, the development of the system would vary quite widely with the end result being the same. This paper says no - the system as a whole tends to evolve along very specific lines, which can revert and converge. Thus, developmental systems are evolving in a directional manner rather than a purely random one.
It forces a re-thinking of the problem I mentioned earlier in vertebrates, because the conventional wisdom is that only certain stages of each developmental pathway are required, whereas this is suggesting that, on a system level at least, the pathways themselves evolve as a whole and that individual elements are not simply subject to isolated changes. The whole pathway is pushed in a certain direction, even though the end result of it remains the same. Essentially, their phylogenetic analysis showed that certain pathway patterns tend to show up which can be traced in an evolutionary lineage through selection, rather than merely the result of random changes to the development of the vulva in each species.
Bottomline: If we see a different developmental system producing the same vulval structure in different worms, it's due to selection pressures acting on each developmental system which bias the direction of change, and not simply the accumulation of a series of random mutations within the system that have no impact on the end result.
I hope that explains it. I've been re-reading the article and I'm still trying to wrap my head around it myself, so I imagine my explanation here isn't all that clear. Kudos to you if you can decipher it.
For anyone with journal article access, here is the reference information:
Current Biology 17, pp1925–1937, November 20, 2007
Trends, Stasis, and Drift in the Evolution of Nematode Vulva Development
Karin Kiontke,1,* Antoine Barrie` re,2 Irina Kolotuev,3
Benjamin Podbilewicz,3 Ralf Sommer,4
David H.A. Fitch,1 and Marie-Anne Fe´ lix2
...and honestly, all you have to do is look at the title to see that the Slashdot article author was apparently on crack.
-
My God. Every time "evolution" is in a thread title, this happens. Every. Time.
-
:lol:
How fun to watch the anger in peoples eyes over this... :D
It isn't that hard to have a civilized discussion... errr... maybe?
-
Well, blood clotting becomes more clear when you bother to enter Talk Origins and search for it. (http://www.google.com/custom?q=blood+clotting&sa=Search&sitesearch=www.talkorigins.org)
-
ok, well lets look at it this way. lets say you want to make a "PECAN PIE" well you need 'P', 'E', 'C', 'A', 'N', 'P', 'I', and 'E'. ok now lets just assume that you have made one somehow, and thus you have the constituent letters, but now you find that you are lacking in some vital plumbing supplies, you need a "CLEAN PIPE" something totally unrelated to pecan pie, well if you look all you need to do is find an 'L' somewhere and you can take the parts you were useing for the pecan pie and make the clean pipe!
:)
just because removing one part causes a complex system to stop working as it currently does, it does not mean that it is totally useless without that one part.
-
The move to comments about blood clotting occurred after the original irreducible complexity argument about bacteria flagellum was conclusively proved to be complete and utter bollocks. The original argument was that flagellum required 54 separate parts in order to work and was therefore to complex to have evolved. Someone then pointed out that there were creatures alive right now which only had 8 of the supposedly irreducibly complex parts in it and the whole thing fell apart.
So now we get comments about blood clotting instead because although it's the exact same faulty thinking as it was with flagellum no one has found such a conclusive way of proving what utter bollocks the whole thing is and the people who seem to think it's a problem for evolution and therefore proof of irreducible complexity probably couldn't understand the explanation for why it's not a problem.
But make no mistake. This is the same argument again. And it's just as wrong. It's just not as obvious.
Bottomline: If we see a different developmental system producing the same vulval structure in different worms, it's due to selection pressures acting on each developmental system which bias the direction of change, and not simply the accumulation of a series of random mutations within the system that have no impact on the end result.
Thanks. That's mostly a little above my head but I was at least able to get the gist. And you're right. They need better science writers as what that paper was actually about is nothing like what they said was going on.
-
Well, blood clotting becomes more clear when you bother to enter Talk Origins and search for it. (http://www.google.com/custom?q=blood+clotting&sa=Search&sitesearch=www.talkorigins.org)
Ah. This blood clotting nonsense comes from behe. I might have known. The guy's a quack.
-
Yep. Like I said people who haven't realised he's talking bollocks have simply moved from one example to another without realising that the whole damn idea is flawed.
-
Yep. Like I said people who haven't realised he's talking bollocks have simply moved from one example to another without realising that the whole damn idea is flawed.
Huh? I'm missing something here. I'm just asking about complex systems that can't function while missing one part, and how, if that's the case, they could develop one part at a time and ultimately come out with this whole complex system.
ok, well lets look at it this way. lets say you want to make a "PECAN PIE" well you need 'P', 'E', 'C', 'A', 'N', 'P', 'I', and 'E'. ok now lets just assume that you have made one somehow, and thus you have the constituent letters, but now you find that you are lacking in some vital plumbing supplies, you need a "CLEAN PIPE" something totally unrelated to pecan pie, well if you look all you need to do is find an 'L' somewhere and you can take the parts you were useing for the pecan pie and make the clean pipe!
:)
just because removing one part causes a complex system to stop working as it currently does, it does not mean that it is totally useless without that one part.
I must be missing something here. I don't understand this metaphor at all.
-
Yep. Like I said people who haven't realised he's talking bollocks have simply moved from one example to another without realising that the whole damn idea is flawed.
Huh? I'm missing something here. I'm just asking about complex systems that can't function while missing one part, and how, if that's the case, they could develop one part at a time and ultimately come out with this whole complex system.
ok, well lets look at it this way. lets say you want to make a "PECAN PIE" well you need 'P', 'E', 'C', 'A', 'N', 'P', 'I', and 'E'. ok now lets just assume that you have made one somehow, and thus you have the constituent letters, but now you find that you are lacking in some vital plumbing supplies, you need a "CLEAN PIPE" something totally unrelated to pecan pie, well if you look all you need to do is find an 'L' somewhere and you can take the parts you were useing for the pecan pie and make the clean pipe!
:)
just because removing one part causes a complex system to stop working as it currently does, it does not mean that it is totally useless without that one part.
I must be missing something here. I don't understand this metaphor at all.
There's your question and answer. Complex systems aren't.
-
Huh? I'm missing something here. I'm just asking about complex systems that can't function while missing one part, and how, if that's the case, they could develop one part at a time and ultimately come out with this whole complex system.
Hemophiliacs of the world mock your example.
-
I would imagine, so do all the poor souls with incomplete circulatory systems.
-
I'm sure octopuses feel the same way about us and our eyeballs.
-
I must be missing something here. I don't understand this metaphor at all.
yeah, I was sort of jokeing around, the point I was trying to make is if you have a existing system that does something, adding a new part to it might not only add to it's complexity but also totally change what that system is and does. lets try another example, would you say a mouse trap is irreducibly complex? if you remove the wooden back board, the spring, the catch, the trigger, or the little arm of death, it will not work as a mouse trap. correct? well lets say you remove the catch, the metal thingy that holds down the arm down by getting stuck under the trigger. well as stated the trap will no longer function as a trap, however it would make for an exalent paper clip, you just lift up on the arm put the paper in and let go, the spring would hold the arm don and the paper would remain quite bound. and as you can see the jump from this stile of paper clip to the mouse trap is not very far at all.
so the point about irriducable complexity being BS is that, just because a system will cease to function if one part is removed does not mean that the system without a particular part can not function as something else. the issue is further clouded by things like the parts changing to better suit there new roles, perhaps several different parts merging into one part and becoming something totally unrecognizable.
-
Yep. Like I said people who haven't realised he's talking bollocks have simply moved from one example to another without realising that the whole damn idea is flawed.
Huh? I'm missing something here. I'm just asking about complex systems that can't function while missing one part, and how, if that's the case, they could develop one part at a time and ultimately come out with this whole complex system.
And you happened to pick blood clotting completely at random?
Like the claim that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics used to be a favourite argument from people who understood neither theory the claim that blood clotting is complex system that couldn't have evolved on its own is a favourite rallying point of ID proponents. The example of bacteria flagellum was a favourite until it was disproved in a way no one could argue against. Behe stated that the flagellum was too complex to have evolved being made up of 54 parts which were completely useless on their own as proof of intelligent design. His argument was proved stupid when someone pointed out that there was another creature with only 8 of those parts. So everyone simply moved onto blood clotting instead of actually wondering whether his whole idea was wrong.
So it's one hell of a coincidence that you'd suddenly decide to post about it on a thread which had absolutely nothing to do with blood clotting.
-
hmmmmm... silence.....
-
Well Goatmaster got distracted by the whole Pascal's Wager thread but I'm still waiting to hear an answer too.
-
Yeah, isn't this the stage of the evolution thread where the creationism proponent says, "Yeah that's a good point, I guess irreducible complexity sure is a crock of horse****! I really learned something today!"?
It's either that or the part where they stop posting. I can't for the life of me remember which.
-
Has anyone on HLP ever been convinced of anything positive in an evolution thread?
-
I didn't know that's what we were basing our evaluation of them on... :confused:
-
Forums exist to facilitate discussion. Threads pertaining to the theory of Evolution and religious opposition to said theory prompt considerable discussion. Logic would dictate that such threads would be expected, encouraged encouraged.
Yet, threads on Evolution and Religion are looked down on. Why? Because a few dogmatic, religious thickies get their feelings hurt?
-
BTW it's never happened on HLP as far as I know, but I did see it happen once on WS.
-
I don't think anyone who believed ID was ever convinced. I suspect a lot of fence sitters have shifted towards the scientifically accepted view. Watching ID proponents claim it's true and should be accepted only to see them actually prove unable to say what ID actually is generally doesn't do their position any good with the masses.
-
Well Goatmaster got distracted by the whole Pascal's Wager thread but I'm still waiting to hear an answer too.
Well, in that particular thread he said he didn't believe in man-made global warming.
Perhaps that should raise a few flags.
-
I don't think anyone who believed ID was ever convinced. I suspect a lot of fence sitters have shifted towards the scientifically accepted view. Watching ID proponents claim it's true and should be accepted only to see them actually prove unable to say what ID actually is generally doesn't do their position any good with the masses.
I thought Charismatic was convinced a while ago......
-
I thought Charismatic was convinced a while ago......
As you can see (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,39227.msg798898.html#msg798898), he had nowhere to go but up.
-
I thought Charismatic was convinced a while ago......
As you can see (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,39227.msg798898.html#msg798898), he had nowhere to go but up.
hahaha
that was unfair, but DAMN isn't that a glorious post
-
I thought Charismatic was convinced a while ago......
As you can see (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,39227.msg798898.html#msg798898), he had nowhere to go but up.
Man, totally forgot about that. That thread was so much fun........
According to Dwain L. Ford, in his section in the book "In Six Days", "Evidence for intelligent design is widespread in nature. For example:
A) The motorized rotating flagellum of some bacteria.
B) Blood clotting and its control.
Look familiar?
-
Forums exist to facilitate discussion. Threads pertaining to the theory of Evolution and religious opposition to said theory prompt considerable discussion. Logic would dictate that such threads would be expected, encouraged encouraged.
Yet, threads on Evolution and Religion are looked down on. Why? Because a few dogmatic, religious thickies get their feelings hurt?
If we keep it civil, that shouldn't matter. I'm fine with discussions on this topic. I'm fine with putting out facts and thoughts and my own beliefs without trying to force you to believe them. If that's what we did with these, that'd be fine. And I find it ironic that that's why you think these kind of discussions are looked down on, because it's not the, how did you put it, "Dogmatic, religions thickies" that are looking down on these threads. In fact, it's the atheist/agnostic types that I've seen complaining about these threads most. Just thought I'd point that out.
Well Goatmaster got distracted by the whole Pascal's Wager thread but I'm still waiting to hear an answer too.
Well, in that particular thread he said he didn't believe in man-made global warming.
Perhaps that should raise a few flags.
I never said that. I don't, but I never said I didn't. I haven't done enough research on the topic to start telling people we aren't and believe it myself.
-
and on the subject of irreducible complexity?
-
and on the subject of irreducible complexity?
-
I never said that. I don't, but I never said I didn't. I haven't done enough research on the topic to start telling people we aren't and believe it myself.
Oops my mistake. It was WeatherOp!
-
If we keep it civil, that shouldn't matter. I'm fine with discussions on this topic. I'm fine with putting out facts and thoughts and my own beliefs without trying to force you to believe them. If that's what we did with these, that'd be fine.
Have a look at the thread I linked to last time. That's pretty damn civil, even with people who are genuinely trying to force their beliefs on others. Hell, that's a good 50 pages of people trying to inform and set-right some truly incredible misconceptions!
And I find it ironic that that's why you think these kind of discussions are looked down on, because it's not the, how did you put it, "Dogmatic, religions thickies" that are looking down on these threads. In fact, it's the atheist/agnostic types that I've seen complaining about these threads most. Just thought I'd point that out.
Oh, give it a rest. If you feel I insulted you, just take me to task! Don't go pussyfooting around the issue like some passive-aggressive sloth. I'm not calling you a religious thicky, since you have proven in the past to be able to post coherently without sounding like a dogmatic moron. When I say "religious thickies", I tend to refer to people like the aforementioned Charismatic (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,39227.msg798898.html#msg798898), or the even more troubling ZmaN (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,39227.msg798260.html#msg798260), the latter of whom posted seriously that the theory of evolution was "a lie from Satan". You may be pretty dogmatic, G0atmaster, but I certainly wasn't calling you a thicky.
Anyway, threads like this are usually looked down on by people because of a few bad eggs that refuse to be civil, meaning that it's generally mods that take issue with it because they have to clean it up.
-
In fact, it's the atheist/agnostic types that I've seen complaining about these threads most. Just thought I'd point that out.
now you see this is comeing to the wrong conclusions, the people complaining are people who have participated in arguments of this nature in the past. what you are seeing is not the atheist position, but the oldtimer position, they've seen probably somewere on the order of 50 major threads (no exaduration) of this nature in there time on HLP (and the VBB), that being more than 30 pages long go on for two or three months without either side budgeing, some of them grow tired of it.
now it just so happens that the vast majority of the oldtimers are atheists/agnostics/scientists, it's not that we didn't have religios people here in the past, it's just they didn't seem to be as durable in a general sence. the biggest one was a guy named Liberator, oh, the tales that could be told of the days of Kazan vs Liberator, that's part of were Kazan gets his reputation from.
but the point is you are makeing the wrong corelation here.
but anyway, this is way off course, and you have still yet to either try to defend irreducible complexity, or concede it to be BS. if you want to give up on it, just say so, but I want you to mean it, in the future i had better not ever see you use an IC argument.
-
but anyway, this is way off course, and you have still yet to either try to defend irreducible complexity, or concede it to be BS.
And let's not confuse the issue... "irreducible complexity" is a political phrase used by the likes of Behe to further a religious argument against evolutionary theory. It is not a scientific concept.
Of course, with a little research and understanding, the whole idea of irreducible complexity is crap. Essentially Behe and his ilk are saying that some biological structures and systems exist in a complicated, multi-part state that cannot exist if a single component of it breaks down or is rendered inert.
Now, Behe is a biochemist rather than an evolutionary scientist or a geneticist so you might think that we could forgive him for being a little thick on the building blocks of life (after all, biochemists spend most of their lives memorizing and deciphering the components of complex biological systems and how they interact with each other rather than how they came to be and what their genetic ancestry is), but Behe is unforgiveable in the sense that he spent a good deal of time in his post-doc actually working on DNA itself for the NIH. Tsk tsk.
Biological enzymatic systems are derived from proteins, which exist of course because DNA tells the cell how to make them. DNA is not a perfect system by any stretch of the imagination (here's another flaw with ID, mind you) and thus protein synthesis is not only prone to mistakes, but DNA itself gets altered significantly over time due to mutation, some of which occur in more areas than others. Had the Behe crowd paid attention in their first-year undergraduate biology courses, they'd know that. However, it seems they like to jump right to what is than what it came from. *sigh*
No system is irreducibly complex - at least, not in its evolutionary lineage. They all started from a set of proteins that took on new and eventually lost their old functions due to mutation. As it happens, selection pressures can cause whole regions of DNA to change rapidly, thus affecting all the genes (and the proteins producing them) in concert. Early systems had several functions. Over time, they have specialized from many functions with interchangeable parts to fewer and fewer functions with highly specialized components. Once that specialization occurs, and systems become dependent on certain single-protein components, and entire system can be disrupted by the loss of one. It's not uncommon. But if we look at ancestral species, we find their systems are much more flexible though less efficient.
I have an example. The gene "hedgehog" is present in pretty much every living thing in kingdom Animalia. And it has dozens of purposes in many different species, though in every single one it is involvement in axis definition in the early embryo during development. In simple animals (sponges, nematodes, etc) hedgehog defines axes. In fish, hedghog defines axes and regulates parts of eye development. In humans we still haven't figured out every that hedgehod proteins do, because the gene has been duplicated and mutated into several different forms, all with different jobs. In each case, the ancestry of the gene leads back to one single gene with the same sequence, but over time it has diverged and kept its original role while also becoming involved in other systems. The protein has taken on new roles in addition to its old one. Does that make a system with a hedgehog variant involved along with 30 other proteins "irreducibly complex" if its required for life? No... it means that the system has become so specialized that without components that have changed over time to fit a particular functional niche, it will not work today. It by no means says that it's therefore impossible for it to have evolved, because we can trace the evolutionary lineage of hedgehog proteins and see where and when they diverged.
The same is true of many other proteins. Honeybees use a protein called "major royal jelly protein" to stimulate the production of queens. Turns out those genes are actually derivatives of another genetic system, "yellow" which is present in fruit flies and regulates abdomen colouration.
Irreducible complexity is a classic example of trying to pick at evolutionary theory by picking apart the details, but unfortunately for Behe and his brethren other people DO understand the details and can scientifically and factually demonstrate them... which leaves him and his ID crowd, as usual, standing in the corner shouting blithering nonsense with egg on their faces.
I've long since quit actually reading the nonsense that he spews in public because it has no scientific merit whatsoever.
That, and I have a burning hatred for biochemistry.
-
And I find it ironic that that's why you think these kind of discussions are looked down on, because it's not the, how did you put it, "Dogmatic, religions thickies" that are looking down on these threads. In fact, it's the atheist/agnostic types that I've seen complaining about these threads most. Just thought I'd point that out.
I grumble because the basic ideas behind evolution are so simple and many people seem like they can't or won't understand them (which oftentimes people arguing against it don't, although that has gotten a lot better in the last few years, whether because we've driven those people off or general understanding has improved, I don't know).
So these discussions evolve into great long posts of stuff, tiny nitpicking of specific things while even on a basic level, the vast majority of organisms and features are explained by evolution.
People arguing against it never have a degree in the subject and rarely do they have significant interest in the subject because it's not an accepted view of science. So it's akin to someone trying to argue that matter can't be converted to energy, or that quantum mechanics doesn't exist. While everyone else produces excerpts from multiple textbooks that say, yes, they do, and the people that believe this are the people who are researching it and know the most about it.
Hence, all too often what I see is page after page of massive posts explaining why people are wrong and providing links to the experts, and people still make arguments against the theory (and oh dear, the number of times I've heard "theory" used against evolution). The arguments make sense based on common sense, but they contradict experiments.
The only other alternative to evolution doesn't even try to explain things, can't ever be proved wrong, and doesn't contribute to people's understanding of the universe.
Whether or not God created the universe, I feel as though evolution has been proven about as well as it can be, and people should just get over it and accept it and not selfishly claim that it's not possible because it makes sense to them. It feels as though there's one kid in the class who's convinced that he knows more than the teacher, but doesn't bother to pay attention to what the teacher actually says.
And no, I don't have a degree in Biology, either, but like Bobb says I've seen about a dozen serious arguments on evolution and it usually seems to go the same way every time.
Now the debates have been interesting to read, and have let me learn better ways to explain evolution when somebody asks about it, but I feel as if there must be some other way to have a discussion about evolution that's just as interesting to read, but isn't as frustrating to read.
-
I've long since quit actually reading the nonsense that he spews in public because it has no scientific merit whatsoever.
Yep. And yet creationists will buy his book rather than something that actually explains evolution because it confirms the nonsense that they believe.
-
ok, it's been three days, I really want someone to try and respond, this is rediculus, if you really believe this **** you should be able to defend it not just run away at the first sign of problems. I can respect a person if they are willing to defend there position, even if they don't do it very well at least they are trying, but someone who just snipes at evolution and runs away is a ****ing coward. come on already if you really have faith in yourself and your position, you should be able to say something on the subject. don't just hide like a frightened child.
-
ok, it's been three days, I really want someone to try and respond, this is rediculus, if you really believe this **** you should be able to defend it not just run away at the first sign of problems. I can respect a person if they are willing to defend there position, even if they don't do it very well at least they are trying, but someone who just snipes at evolution and runs away is a ****ing coward. come on already if you really have faith in yourself and your position, you should be able to say something on the subject. don't just hide like a frightened child.
The REAL MAN defence is now obviously "but you are all piling on me!!"
-
fine, you have now forfeited your right to have a differing opinion on this matter in the future.
-
let the record officially state: any usage of arguments based on IC is an instant forfeiture of the discussion at hand - this thread should be linked as reference.