Debate still rages over Darwin

Originally posted by noobfun

Originally posted by outsider13


its like saying you have to know how clay was formed befoire it an baked into bricks

it doesnt matter where it came from its what its doing now that evolution cares about

evolution doesnt care where life came from, how it came to be, when it came to be... it only cares and deals with what happens to it once its replicating and subject to enviromental pressure

Evolution is a behavior that applies to life, yes? Well what is life? It seems that it would be of some importance for scientists to define the term if they are going to attach certain properties or behaviors such as evolution to it. It also seems to me, that it would be very difficult to define without drawing a line between living and non-living, and the best place to start would probably be with the first "non-organic" compound that somehow changed structure to become "organic" and thus develop the capacity to evolve. What would you call that step, besides evolution?

gravity cant explain where the helium/hydrogen comes from it uses to make stars ... it doesnt have to it only cares about what happens to it once its there ... or are you going to claim that invalidates gravity too?

Of course not, and I never claimed claimed evolution was invalidated. I merely pointed out the extreme low probability of developing an evolutionarily viable trait through random mutation, and how this has caused me to question the claim that random gene mutation is solely responsible for the complexity of life as we see it today.


and well if you think evolution got it right time after time after time .. 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are extinct .. it gets it very wrong most of the time, birth defects just another way to get it wrong

Where did you get this statistic? By extinct do you mean that these species simply do not exist anymore? Some species may go extinct, like the dodo, while others simply evolve into new forms that we identify as a new species. The distinction is important, because only a species whose genetic line is completely terminated would be an instance of "nature getting it wrong." So, what percentage of animals actually go extinct, and what percentage evolve into something new?

lamarkism i wrong it so absurdly wrong its unbelievable, as mentioned above neo-neo lamarkism also refered to as evo devo has popped up and is showing some signs of progress, but rather then lamarkism and neo lamarkism they are not an alternative explenation evo devo fits within the frame work of evolution and this time it actually uses evidence for its statements

Would you mind taking the time to explain why its so absurdly wrong? And what is evo devo?

Also, some people argue that certain traits, wings for example, are difficult to explain by random mutation and natural selection. They argue that it seems highly unlikely that an animal could evolve a wing, because they would have to have gone through many steps, or proto-wings, before reaching the fully functioning form that is capable of flight. These proto-wings, it is argued, have no evolutionary benefit, because a half a wing is useless. So, the question is, how did these animals go through generation after generation of having a useless appendage that resembled a wing more and more and more, until finally it was a wing? I'm sure you have an explanation for this, and I'd enjoy hearing what it is. I'm here to learn, afterall.
Apologies for the format, still trying to figure out how to do the nifty quotes thing.

reply to post by outsider13


There is a little scripty doodad on the bar when you post that has a little picture of a text balloon that will allow you to post quotes

I merely pointed out the extreme low probability of developing an evolutionarily viable trait through random mutation, and how this has caused me to question the claim that random gene mutation is solely responsible for the complexity of life as we see it today.

Extremely low probability does not equal zero. Over the course of 4+ billion years that's plenty of time for these things to work themselves out. The timescale is something that's impossible to wrap your head around. Sure we can say the number 4 billion but it's an almost infinite amount of time as far as humans are concerned.

Experts agree that the majority of mutations are harmful. But when a mutation evolves that benefits an organism then that trait is passed on to the next generation. Simple genetics (testable and verifiable). So why don't we see evolution happen today? Because of the vast timescales involved. If one believes the Earth is only 4000 years old and evolution is true then we'd see it happen constantly...but that ain't so.

If creation was true why don't we see new lifeforms and species just pop into existence fully formed and ready to rumble now?

So, the question is, how did these animals go through generation after generation of having a useless appendage that resembled a wing more and more and more, until finally it was a wing?

Evolution.

Also you're assuming that the appendage or whatever would be useless until it evolved into a wing (just to use your example). That isn't how it would work. It would provide the organism some benefit as the evolutionary process continued. If said benefit played out then the organism would most likely not continue on that path...but if it did the end result would be (for example purposes) a wing or whatever.


[edit on 26-2-2009 by griffinrl]

reply to post by griffinrl

Extremely low probability does not equal zero. Over the course of 4+ billion years that's plenty of time for these things to work themselves out. The timescale is something that's impossible to wrap your head around. Sure we can say the number 4 billion but it's an almost infinite amount of time as far as humans are concerned.

Given a long enough time scale, highly improbable events will indeed happen. The question is, is 4 billion years a long enough time to explain the compexity of life as we see it today. Keep in mind that improbability multiplies with each successive event. So, if the chances of a mutation occuring to create the beginning of a wing (elongated fingers on a bat) are 1/1,000,000; then another mutation occurs (webbed skin between the fingers) which is also 1/1,000,000; then the chances of both of these things occuring is 1/1,000,000 x 1,000,000; or 1/1,000,000,000,000; an incredibly small probability, even given earths 4+ billion year lifespan. Those are just two mutations - consider the number of mutations necessary then for a single cellular organism to eventually evolve into a bat, and you have a an astromically low probability of occurance.
The human brain, I've heard, has made gigantic evolutionary leaps within remarkably short amounts of time, say a couple million years, a much shorter timespan than seems possible due to random mutation, which would have required a much longer timespan. I've heard this called the "brain explosion."

Also you're assuming that the appendage or whatever would be useless until it evolved into a wing (just to use your example). That isn't how it would work. It would provide the organism some benefit as the evolutionary process continued. If said benefit played out then the organism would most likely not continue on that path...but if it did the end result would be (for example purposes) a wing or whatever.

And your assuming that it would be useful, without an explanation as to why you would make that assumption, other than the fact that the theory requires it. But what would be advantageous about having half a wing? What are the chances of this trait catching on, leading to multiple generations of half-winged animals before way, way, way down the line something pops up that actually has the ability to fly. Very, very, very, very small, I would say.
I think the wing poses a connundrum for evolution by random mutation. If there is an explanation, I'd like to hear it.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by outsider13]

As you state (and which I agree with) the probability for "bad" traits is just as high but my opinion or belief is that these traits would cause an organism to die or if lucky develop positive mutations. I'm no geneticist so I'm only stating what I think would happen

And as far as "half a wing" or whatever as the example. I'd not think that would be an advantage. And again you're right about my assumptions but I am not an evolutionary expert. I drive a Nissan Xterra 4WD...I have no earthly idea how the transmission works but I know it does and that lack of knowledge doesn't hinder my ability to drive it. And no I'm not using a transmission as an analogy to evolution (but some on this thread will jump on that LOL) just as an example of the lack of understanding doesn't negate the process.

My issue with divine intervention is that there is no room for these kinds of discussions or the additon of new data into the theory. Evolution is a theory that is still studied and areas are still up for proof or disproof. It only makes more logical sense to me than to think that man just "appeared".

As far as the "brain explosion", etc. Again it doesn't make logical sense for a creator to just pick one part of an organism and ignore the rest. There isn't anything intelligent about that type of design work. I don't know the reason for the change but it happened. That's undeniable. But I don't believe that a creator did the change.

If you're interested to to youtube and check out a video Neil D. Tyson called "Stupid Design". I'm not suggesting this as proof but he does make some common sense arguments that you can think about for yourself.

Why design so few animals with thumbs? (hard to use tools without them)
Why can't we see harmful radiation? (eyes only see a tiny bit of the spectrum)
Why are there birth defects?
Why can't we smell things like carbon monoxide?
Why do your teeth fall out so that you can't eat and then die?
Why have only one hole in your head to eat, breath and talk with? (you'll choke if you try them all at once)

My favorite though is his comparison to reproductive organs and waste elimination in the same area...it's compared to having an "entertainment center in the middle of a sewer complex".

These are just logical things that make sense in the Intelligent Design world. Not very intelligent at all in my opinion.





[edit on 26-2-2009 by griffinrl]

reply to post by griffinrl

My issue with divine intervention is that there is no room for these kinds of discussions or the additon of new data into the theory. Evolution is a theory that is still studied and areas are still up for proof or disproof. It only makes more logical sense to me than to think that man just "appeared".

I agree, I don't think man just "appeared", or that there is some sort of "designer" sitting up there, tweaking our dna whenever he feels like it to create wings or brain explosions. I don't support creationism, or any I.D. theory that is creationism in disguise.

The big question for me is, are random mutations a sufficient explanation for the evolution of life as we know it, or are there any indications that some of these mutations were not random? If we decide any of these advancements cannot be explained by random mutation, then a whole slew of possibilities opens up - god, aliens, earth consciousness, species consciousness, universe consciousness, etc.

At present, we don't know all of possible environmental influences that could affect DNA. What if thought, or consciousness, desire, or will, could have an influence on DNA? This would be an example of intelligent design, in a sense, that leaves god out of it completely.

I don't know very much about this subject, admittedly, but I do feel like there's something to it. When I studied evolution in college philosophy class, we came to the conclusion that evolution can not be forward thinking, purposeful, or intentional. Since then, I've come to reject this conclusion, mainly on the basis that life appears to me to be purposefully evolving to greater freedom and greater consciousness all the time, and if it did not have this purpose or intention nothing would have ever evolved past the level of the cockroach, or even the amoeba, or life have had no reason to come into being in the first place. Since I disbelieve in the idea of a creator God actively interfering with events on earth, I am still searching for an explanation of why evolution seems too orderly to be random, especially given the aforementioned probability problems.



[edit on 26-2-2009 by outsider13]

Given a long enough time scale, highly improbable events will indeed happen. The question is, is 4 billion years a long enough time to explain the compexity of life as we see it today. Keep in mind that improbability multiplies with each successive event. So, if the chances of a mutation occuring to create the beginning of a wing (elongated fingers on a bat) are 1/1,000,000; then another mutation occurs (webbed skin between the fingers) which is also 1/1,000,000; then the chances of both of these things occuring is 1/1,000,000 x 1,000,000; or 1/1,000,000,000,000; an incredibly small probability, even given earths 4+ billion year lifespan. Those are just two mutations - consider the number of mutations necessary then for a single cellular organism to eventually evolve into a bat, and you have a an astromically low probability of occurance.

The problem with the '1 in really big number' argument in evolution is that it fails to really take account of the issue.

The Snokes and Behe article tried to make a similar argument (with binding proteins), but essentially demonstrated that with an acceptable population size mutations can readily produce the variations to underpin evolutionary change. Indeed, they misfired and supported evolutionary mechanisms.

So, what am I saying...it's not just about '1 in big number', but that if the population is a big number then the mutations are quite possible, even likely, especially with time.

1/10^4 probability of positive mutation. Each population size of 10^4 will very likely have one.

Such post-hoc probability is essentially fallacious anyway. We're not talking about 1 particular individual picking up two beneficial mutations, but a population of size x in constant flux with each organism open to mutation and no real target.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by outsider13

Given a long enough time scale, highly improbable events will indeed happen. The question is, is 4 billion years a long enough time to explain the compexity of life as we see it today.

yes by a healthy margin

Keep in mind that improbability multiplies with each successive event. So, if the chances of a mutation occuring to create the beginning of a wing (elongated fingers on a bat) are 1/1,000,000; then another mutation occurs (webbed skin between the fingers) which is also 1/1,000,000;

why would that need 2 seperate mutations?

the mutation that lead to the lengthening of the fingers could have a side benefit of increasing the skin length, then as recombinante chromosonal mating happens some have longer hand and more skin ...

as the ones with longer bones and more skin get to mate for often the variation also restarts from a long more fleshy hands

not everything is a chain of specific mutations, chanes are your taller then your parents by a small amount thats not becasue you have a make me taller mutation

infact you dont even need a mutation for it

ok picture this bats ancestors for what ever reason saw long fingers as a turn on

ok a pair of bats mate they both have hands 27mm long, becasue of the way thier chromosone recombine the offspring will have variation of size, some will have shorter hands 24mm adn some will have longer hands 30mm

next breeding cycles all the big hand bats get laid and thier kids have the same 3mm up and down variation, but now it starts on 30mm so the kids are 27-33mm

no mustations and already we have the big hand gang, as the hands lengthen they wont just get longer there wil be phyical constraints so the hands will naturally start to deform in a way the structures and materials can handel and that wont casue problems to thier survivability

a the handds deform outward with thier long ass fingers the skin between them may develop differently also or maybe that was selected for at breeding time long hands with slightly longer skin

its not just a rnadom mutation that casues everything some times the mutation is the product not the cause,

rather then a mutation going ahh lets have long ass fingers and fleshy bits now the long ass fingers and fleshy bit encoded into the dna as the result of selective breeding

ok averages here,

in humans an average of 75 mutations per haployd genome each generation ... so say 20 years thats 3.75 a year

the figures similar for chimp over a generation of 15 years, and 5 per year

between our genome and chimp there are roughly 40 million mutation between us

how many years at 8.75 mutations a year(chimps 5 + our 3,75) will 40 million mutations take?

40,000,000 / 8.75 =

now take that answer and work out what percentage that is of the 1,200,000,000,000 years multicellular life has been around ..that we know of

0.0003958333333333333 ... thats us thats the percentage chimps and human take up from our last common ancestor from the above calculations,

i will freely admit though the calculation above was the all thing going well calculation, it took a couple more million years so using the top end figure for how long ago the split occured we actually took up at most

0.000625% ...... still think there isnt enough time for complexity?

and you have a an astromically low probability of occurance.
The human brain, I've heard, has made gigantic evolutionary leaps within remarkably short amounts of time, say a couple million years, a much shorter timespan than seems possible due to random mutation, which would have required a much longer timespan. I've heard this called the "brain explosion."

the increase of the human brain size is down to flexing of one single small bone in the skull

infact the size of our brain appears to be less a product of evolution more a side product of it, we are accidentally smarter then we need to be ^_^

And your assuming that it would be useful, without an explanation as to why you would make that assumption, other than the fact that the theory requires it. But what would be advantageous about having half a wing?

fall out a tree with 1/2 a wing and your gonna fare better then your buddy without it when you hit the ground

you can jump further and higher too becasue now you can glide a bit so all the energy you dont use jumping forward you can use to jump up

theres plenty of advantage

awww loook at the cute baby ducks who wongs arent developed enough to fly with ... effectivley 1/2 a wing ..can you spot the advantage?







everytime the wing gets a bit better the advantages improve too until you get a whole wing and can jut fly away intead of jumping out of trees to escape or running up them

hell heres an old clip of dawkins from back when i was a teenager explaining possible advantages of 1/2 a wing or a flap of skin

www.sciencedaily.com...

if your up a tree 1/2 a wings more then enough to help you jump/glide to the next one

if your on the ground it helps you run up steep surfaces or stabalises you in fast bipedal movment on uneven ground ala ostreich



[edit on 26/2/09 by noobfun]

[edit on 26/2/09 by noobfun]

I use a similar argument about how "convenient" it is our planet formed where it did so that life could survive. My religious friends always point this out to me that god put it in the right place. My view is the opposite...that life began and evolved on this planet because it happened to form in the right orbit. We are a product of the fact that it's parked in the right place. Not the other way around.

reply to post by griffinrl


griff!!! How profound, and true....

From a purely philosophical standpoint, you are spot on.

The Universe, as a whole, is exceedingly destructive to life as we know it, here in our 'little haven' we call "Earth".

My opinion: Religion looks at it backwards....the 'religions' say, "We are here, therefore there must be a God".

A more contemplative approach would be to ask....'Out of all the improbalities, we are here. Therefore, we are lucky! Let's make the most of it, and not wallow in some ridiculous voodoo and mystical BS, and get on to what really matters! Use our senses, build on our scientific knowledge, and grow....'

(I actually don't THINK we are improbable....just wanted to be theatrical).

Actually, Humans might be considered the 'late-comers' to the game....the 'has-beens'.....the 'rubes' out here in the suburbs of the Galaxy.....I mean, a Billion years can make or break a species!!!

reply to post by noobfun

in humans an average of 75 mutations per haployd genome each generation ... so say 20 years thats 3.75 a year

Do we assume that these 3.75 mutations a year are all traits that will be passed down, or are some of them birth defects that will not be passed down? If we aren't assuming that, then the number would have to be significantly smaller than 3.75. Where did this number come from?

how many years at 8.75 mutations a year(chimps 5 + our 3,75) will 40 million mutations take?

4,571,428.6 years. This would make sense, I just looked at an evolutionary timeline and this is about the age of the oldest known hominid.

now take that answer and work out what percentage that is of the 1,200,000,000,000 years multicellular life has been around ..that we know of

Where did you get 1,200,000,000,000 years? 1.2 trillion years? I'm guessing you added three extra zeros on accident. With 1.2 billion years, which is close to when we estimate the first multicellular organisms, we get .0038.

i will freely admit though the calculation above was the all thing going well calculation, it took a couple more million years so using the top end figure for how long ago the split occured we actually took up at most

.0076 according to my calculations, if I double the amount of time as you did, nearly 1 percent. This leaves significantly less time for evolution from multicells to apes. Now, the fact that this is the "all going well" calculation is also problematic. What are the chances of all going well, especially in terms of random mutations which are usually not beneficial. This goes back to that first figure of 8.75 mutations a year between man and chimps (why do we add them together, by the way?). Once again, does this figure only include advantageous mutations, or all mutations?
Here is another thing that perplexes me - if there are 75 mutations on average a generation, why would you think that all 75 of these mutations that occurred in one generation should be included in our genetic history? Why would 75 seperate, simulataneously occuring mutations all be of the same sort that lead to the evolution of man? It seems to me that the actual number of mutations/generation that were also advantageous, and were also directly involved in the ape to man transition would be far fewer (or, there could have been 75 seperate mutations, and we would have another example of astronomical good luck). Any variation of the 75 mutations/generation figure would greatly disrupt the rest of our calculations, and extend the time needed for chimp to man evolution.
One more thing - what are chances that an animal with a novel mutation, such as webbed wing flaps, is actually going to find a mate to pass on the trait, as you assume in the bat example? It seems to me, having a mutation of any kind would make an animal far less likely to find a mate, as the mutation would most likely be viewed as a birthdefect and undesireable for reproduction by the rest of the species. Instead, the mutations were somehow deemed desireable, another amazing stroke of luck for evolution!

I think luck and odds play a huge factor in the process. By taking out the "luck" factor we tangent into the "designer" idea. But yeah luck is a huge factor in this.

reply to post by griffinrl


How lucky do we get to be? To me, accepting that we were this lucky requires a leap of faith almost as large as believing in an intelligent designer.
What I propose, is that we take luck out of it and start looking at the possibility that besides random mutation and natural selection, there is a third force behind evolution that is as yet unknown.
This third force could be responsible for producing a larger number of beneficial mutations, or it could be responsible for increasing the likelihood that a mutation will be passed on through mating.
It doesn't have to be God or anything supernatural. My theory is that it is some form of "species consciousness" that somehow effects DNA. Their may have been what could be considered a "desire" within the species consciousness of early lizards, to get off the ground and fly so that these reptiles could catch more insects. Somehow this information was passed to the DNA, which mutates accordingly. This just a theory, and I don't really know exactly how it would work.
Apparently there is still quite a bit we don't know about DNA. Some people believe that DNA's shape makes it a perfect information receiver/transmitter. We don't know all of the environmental factors that might change and alter our DNA throughout our lives. It seems rather remarkable that DNA holds up as well as it does, throughout millions and millions of cell divisions, to be passed on to offspring to grow into near perfect examples of the original.

reply to post by outsider13


Now remember this is just my opinion....but that still seems like a mystical or divine intervention type situation. With all the negative feelings that humans generate we could have "thought" ourselves out of existence eons ago.

Originally posted by outsider13

Do we assume that these 3.75 mutations a year are all traits that will be passed down,

no we dont asume anything its called testing to confirm results

the 75 mutations a year are muataions found in the zygote o they are passed on and that do not have a negative effect, the 75 per generation are just the ones that make it into the sperm and eggs in a population size most of the mutation dont make it any further then your own genome

or are some of them birth defects that will not be passed down?

no becasue they wouldnt be worth counting now would they when your working out important things for the genetic clock calculation within a species

If we aren't assuming that, then the number would have to be significantly smaller than 3.75. Where did this number come from?

no the number would still be accruate as were excluding mutations that have negative effects on breeding potential

The average mutation rate was estimated to be 2.5 x 10-8 mutations per nucleotide site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation

www.detectingdesign.com...

These
direct estimates range from 0.5–3.7 × 10−8 and show the combined rate
of all mutations to be on average 1.8 × 10−8 per nucleotide per generation5.
This average direct estimate agrees remarkably well with the indirect
estimates of 2.5 × 10−8 determined by comparing pseudogenes in humans

www.nature.com...

The average direct estimate of the combined rate of all mutations is 1.8x10(-8) per nucleotide per generation,

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

www.indiana.edu...

ats hates pdf mathmatical symbols so the numbers are screwed up in the ex im afraid

4,571,428.6 years. This would make sense, I just looked at an evolutionary timeline and this is about the age of the oldest known hominid.

eastimates for divergance range somewhere between 5-7.5 my from our last common ancestor, as i say that equation a best view it cant take into account deaths before breeding and population flux

Where did you get 1,200,000,000,000 years? 1.2 trillion years? I'm guessing you added three extra zeros on accident. With 1.2 billion years, which is close to when we estimate the first multicellular organisms, we get .0038.

oopsie on the typo

.0076 according to my calculations, if I double the amount of time as you did, nearly 1 percent. This leaves significantly less time for evolution from multicells to apes.

didnt double it, its 5-7.5 my for the realistic divergance figures

the first calcualtion goes on 4.5my and gives 0.38% is based on the genetic clock

the top end calculation based on 7.5my and gives 0.62% is based on top end palentological calculations

Now, the fact that this is the "all going well" calculation is also problematic. What are the chances of all going well, especially in terms of random mutations which are usually not beneficial.

sorry only the 4.5 million is the all going well

the 7,5 my is the it all went bad as thats the max divergance dates, and as thats 0.62% of the available time from multicellular up to apes .....

This goes back to that first figure of 8.75 mutations a year between man and chimps (why do we add them together, by the way?).

becasue they are diverging from one another ... its not 1 sat there doing nothing and the other mutating away

we mutate and they mutate, thier mutation rate + our mutation rate gives a yearly divergance figure from the start point

Here is another thing that perplexes me - if there are 75 mutations on average a generation, why would you think that all 75 of these mutations that occurred in one generation should be included in our genetic history? Why would 75 seperate, simulataneously occuring mutations all be of the same sort that lead to the evolution of man?

most of those mutations do nothing at all benign mutations are far more common then negative or posative mutations

Any variation of the 75 mutations/generation figure would greatly disrupt the rest of our calculations, and extend the time needed for chimp to man evolution.

let see we know the upper end of divergance is 7.5 million years

whats the lowet posible number of mutation per year over 7.5 million years to reach 40,000,000... 5.3 mutations a year

thats wiping off roughly 40% of the yearly mutation rate

still sticking within the palentological range of species division and still only taking up 0.62% of the span of multicellular life

One more thing - what are chances that an animal with a novel mutation, such as webbed wing flaps, is actually going to find a mate to pass on the trait, as you assume in the bat example? It seems to me, having a mutation of any kind would make an animal far less likely to find a mate,

not neccesarily if the mutation in some way lowers its survival chances then yes, if it increases its survival chances then thats really not going to be a problem

a handful of mutations wont stop breeding occuring in most cases, hell we only share 99.5% of our genome with other people we are not closley related too .5% mutant freaks

and as i also said it wouldnt even need a genetic mutation sexual selection is enough to account for lengthening hands which in time would deform naturally because of the increase in dimensions leading to constraint on the apendiges, the ones that defomr all funny and unhelpful get to die childless and the deformations that help you live to find a mate get to go on bieng wierdy hand mutants ... but as everyone else is a wiredy hand mutant as its the population changing not just the individual no one cares

change in the way the hand develops over time could have ramificaton for other parts of the hand not just the bone structure o the kin tretching could be the result of the skin geen expressing normally while working with a freaky deformed hand mutant population

as the mutation would most likely be viewed as a birthdefect and undesireable for reproduction by the rest of the species. Instead, the mutations were somehow deemed desireable, another amazing stroke of luck for evolution!

yes having hands 3 mm longer then the average is extremly freakish!! how ever would they get to mate .. especially if that 3 mm had advantage meaning they were better fed and healthier then the average male without that extra freaky 3 mm

bieng over 6'2" is really freakish how ever would they manage to procreate so thier childrens height variance starts based on 6'2" and not the average of 5'11" ... they are just social freaks and considered just lanky birth defects

dont forget its not the case that a mutation happens and you suddenly change into a different species totally unlike your parent, most mutations do very little if anything and make practically no change, it the minor advantage they give that gets bred into the population then acted upon by sexual selection or natural selection that brings out the large scale benfits you see later on


just look at the masai average height is way above those found else where 7foot is common, simply the action of sexual selection taller males get the chicks and low population numbers so less genetic drift to drown out the selections



[edit on 27/2/09 by noobfun]

reply to post by yogi9969


We are here to learn, evolve, and to realize what is important in life so we are not recycling souls who have to repeat repeat and repeat mistakes..Our goal should be to help all people to be the best they can be/ through hard work we can achieve this goal finally...

Originally posted by outsider13
What I propose, is that we take luck out of it and start looking at the possibility that besides random mutation and natural selection, there is a third force behind evolution that is as yet unknown.

sexual selection?

chromosone recombination?

evolution isnt just natural selection and random mutation theres a lot more fun to be had that the cut down version

horizontal drift in bacterial and protista

and if neo-neo-lamarkim finally get it act together and produces some real result evo devo alterations will become yet another factor

Originally posted by griffinrl
reply to post by outsider13

 

Now remember this is just my opinion....but that still seems like a mystical or divine intervention type situation. With all the negative feelings that humans generate we could have "thought" ourselves out of existence eons ago.

Yeah we certainly can't afford to let a divine foot in the door now can we!

Sorry dude but LUCK is as idiotic a mechanism as you say we are for saying "God did it" . In other words, in spite of noobfuns superfluous peacocks, weasel's and sloppy spelling, it is his math that is most fraudulent. He obviously doesn't realize.

Let’s Let’s say you sequence a very long stretch of DNA from three different dinos
After analyzing the aligned sequences you determine that there are 63
Synonymous polymorphisms detectable using these sequences. Now suppose the "Dumwitch Noob factory" is a biotech company Noobfundie owns and you want to find as many replacement polymorphisms as possible, but they want to know how likely it is that you will find anything before spending any money.

Let us assume that the synonymous mutations and 10% of the replacement mutations are
Selectively neutral.

What’s left of the replacement mutations would be selectively deleterious to
The extent they would kill the organism and can never be detected as polymorphisms.

Now let’s assume that 75% of all mutations in an average protein-coding sequence concluded in some replacement change.

How many replacement polymorphisms would you expect to observe if you sample 15 alleles of the orthologous sequence coming from the exact same population of Dinos to begin to see what percent is left for the possible positive mutations in a dino to bat theory?

Take a guess?



Let’s take the idea of the dinobat flipping a coin to find the probability for the right kind of mutation in a heads the mutation is positive tails it is a bust.

Mel would have us believe that many populations of given specie will yield the right component to offer a plausible argument for such a phenomena to take place.

This is part of another fallacious step in Mel’s argument. In a heads or tails coin toss, the probability of tails must always be 0.5, never more or less, and the probability of heads must always be 0.5, no less and no more.

While a string of five heads is only 1 in 32, it is 1 in 32 before the coin is first tossed. After the first four tosses the results are no longer unknown, so they do not count. In other words, their is no memory in probability so the probability of five consecutive tails is the same as four successive tails followed by one heads. Heads is no more likely. In fact, the calculation of the 1 in 32 probability is based on the assumption that heads and tails are equally likely at every step. Each of the two possible outcomes has equal probability no matter how many times the coin has been flipped previously and no matter what the result.

Reasoning that it is more likely that the next toss will be a tail than a head due to the past tosses is the fallacy. The fallacy is the idea that a run of luck in the past somehow influences the odds of a bet in the future. Mel decides to add something to the fallacy to make it fit the theory so he says add a population of these gambling dino's all playing slots at the same time. This is known as the Big Number theory but what Mels fails to include is that this has two more in theory which are weak and weakest big number theory.

Noob is being Presumptuous here and choosing language that best suits his Godless agenda for proselytizing his faith of Atheism via lying for Darwin.

While these bat wings are nubs, other "adaptations" seem to just appear and while Noob says "Could" have happened, the fact is we simply DO NOT KNOW they happened at all much less know they could have or even can for that matter.

This is just more sophistry given by the nooOOOOOooB which is what we see the philosophy of evolution doing for the past 150 years. The all inclusive ever foreboding necessary changes for a dino to bird running around with those sexy nubs with a sign around his freakin neck saying "Future site for the grand WING!" All three narratives NooooooB assumes wanting something or having a use or opportunity for it would call for the necessary new genetic information to make it happen. So this too is just another "just so story", but there is MORE! In the meantime, while this nubbed dino is scampering up trees with his nubs being chased by a cat, he can no longer defend himself for the claws are gone where the nubs used to be! See I can make up evolution as I go tooooo! Can I take serious the importance of peer reviewed papers when the guy spouting this form of weaseled wiki wordsmithed verbiage can't write a sentence without me having trouble reading it as it is THAT bad when it comes to frequency of mis spelled words and how much they are mis spelled. I mention this to you guys and what did you do?? You mocked it.

Let me share with you why this is important for noob to consider taking some spelling course if he ever wants anyone to be impressed with his opinionated poorly written posts. You see grif, learning proper spelling is a traditional part of elementary education which emphasizes the importance of "sounding out" spelling in learning to read. Modern Academics puts a premium on the learning of spelling and do you know why? Of course not for if you DID you wouldn't have mocked me for suggesting he cleans his posts up for it because they are THAT BAD. I mean we all make typos and few mis spellings but Noob?? Ha ha ha Ill tell you what the reason is for as divergence from standard spelling is often perceived as an index of stupidity, illiteracy, or lower class standing. If he doesn't care to clean that up fine. His answer was to make my facts accurate when he hasn't refuted mine with anything more then his contradictions and opposite opinion.




Noob shows us some baby duck and says "can you see the advantage!"

NO! I DON'T!

Ill tell you what I see is a baby duck that can't fly when it flaps its little wings.

if survival of the fittest were true and macro-evolution were true, then this illustrates why they would be useless wings that do not have an advantage for if it were an adult transitional form of life in the evolution of a full blown duck, you know what we would have seen? Nothing but DEAD DUCKS! I think the reasons for this example not surviving are so obvious but it doesn't surprise me Atheist evolutionists are compelled to see the world in the way they must if they want to continue to believe we are nothing but a burp that the big bang expelled after spontaneous life forms were then told to evolve and replenish the earth.

The biggest cop out of this scam of evolution is they don't answer nor do they even attempt to find out the ORIGIN of life. They say anthropomorphically that "Science" (aka evolution but not really) doesn't speak to origins. Well I happen to know why as I am old enough to remember when they DID try and I know what scared them off of it.

They know looking for the Face of God holds ramifications for Science that for all intents and purposes convicts them and that their upside down world view is flawed.

Say dinobat or dino bird whatever the Machiavellian machination it is they call it this time for the lie of mutation events, just say for the sake of argument he gets to the top of the tree and the cat is about to pounce like the have with all this new brainchild of bird-brained ideas, the bats and dino birds get pounced on not because the birds got an advantage with his nubs but because he DOESN'T have one. In fact as it seems this Bird must also start developing the splayed shoulder apparatus and revamp his or her entire metabolism to accommodate the emergence of genus Brontobird!

But can this happen fast enough? Can the Bronto Bird jump to the ground and like the inescapably problematic statistics for Newtonian Theory, can it survive the fall without dying. Oooops! Nope Birds with nubs wouldn't glide and since the suitability of its environment is commensurate with its adapted features to survive in said environment yet we know the useless intermediary forms of life are a bane and not a boon to its survival and that saying something useless may make for an interesting tie clip on Ken Millers tie or as a paper weight, can only be the opinion of the intelligence that makes the assertion. The videos NooooB has shown are like most of his posts, incoherent, unintelligible mish mash of mis spelled mono syllabic diatribe and Darwinian semantics for the social constructs of his religion of Atheism advanced through the Dogma of dimwitted dolts who are so damn afraid they can't win an honest debate about it unless they are allowed carte blanche latitude to ridicule and insult us with impunity.

They won't even allow Dr Behe's rebuttals unless he surrenders to the Darwinists. Evolutionists INVENT crap like this so we won't get invited, accepted, validated etc. They refer to the Science community and say ID isn't a science because some idiot Judge in Hazard county or Dover said so because he is Boss Hog of Science! Gees how pathetically afraid of ID science does evolution have to get before the rest of us intelligent aware humans see this as fear of having their precious theory debunked. If ID can't get a peer reviewed paper it isn't because of it not being scientific, hell they won't even read it! So like we have started doing in public schools saying their evolution offends my religion, we need to do that with the science community also. This forces the Government to act the same way Atheists have used it as a club to discriminate against us, we can start giving them the very kind of Science they have always been afraid of. They say we are going to bring science back to the Stone Age?? Gee you mean you guys trying to re-invent the wheel haven’t caused American students to fall so far back we can call them neanderthologists today.



Science isn't like this, only THIS area of science is like this because it is the religion of Atheism, they know it and I know it.


Noob doesn't tell you that the batbird mutant thing can no longer pass its genetic defects on to other retarded brontobirds or bats because as you know,,, DEAD DON'T DO THE WILD THING! plot me a course Noob, from squirrel’s baggy skin to a bird’s wing as well as explain the bird’s unique limbs, lung and brain developing, all happening without entropy killing the idea as it must survive crucial exhaustive re-engineering of this kind while all these very slow very very small gradual steps must be completed at a synchronized time and simultaneously. I mean the luck that this planet which just happens to be at a precise axis and any closer to the sun within feet we are dead, never mind that our atmosphere is precisely what is needed not just for our lives but all life conceivable. That the rotation of this earth and the rate of rotation in relation to the way we orbit the sun is to the exact precision it is necessary to facilitate life. Wow and you think this just "Parked here!" while weedness says "how profound!" Yeah Ill remember that next time weed asks for proof of a miracle and Ill say God is real lucky like that so I get the big profoundness effect. Pfffft my my you guys the emperor's zipper is open and he has a mind to show it off but we're not impressed.


The inference was that similarities between creatures (homology) point to common descent-but why don't they point to common design, or just what works best? The laws of physics and chemistry are inflexible, so there are only so many ways to design an organ. Similarities between different creatures can easily be claimed to support design, just as many human designed objects include wheels but why this common sense, this conventional wisdom escapes atheists to the extent they not only do NOT get it,, they THINK WE are the ones that are ignorant! I have been watching you guys since my last post and I must say it is hysterical.

Ironically it is Biblical also, saying they are given to there delusions. In other words, rejection of God warped their vision to see truth, discern fact from fantasy and blinded them from seeing the common sense that everything that is made is made by God and if you guys think you can create life, Ill ask you what IS life?

You won't know, much less know how to repeat it.

By the way when you think you can,,

God will tell ya to get your own dirt

reply to post by atoms.2008

I'm afraid Darwin was wrong...

There has been No observation of Macro-evolution from one species to another:

There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world.

Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

Absolutely no transitional forms either in the fossil record or in modern animal and plant life have been found. All appear fully formed and complete.

evolution at work

reply to post by Aermacchi


How about let's assume you're completely wrong.
Oh...2nd line.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by griffinrl]

reply to post by Aermacchi


Really....there is a thread on ATS about 'closed minds'.

I suggest you visit it.

AND, I will let the slight slide....the 'weasle' reference....I assumed it was directed at me???