The Evolution Delusion: conspiracy ?

reply to post by Zenithar

no no i am not mistaking the two at all, What i m saying is even to get from a non cellular being to a cellular one surely still requires random mutations,(which is sticking within the realms of evolutionary theory) all im saying is i find it hard to see that happening, and i am not anti evolution at all in case your wondering , I just question a lot of things about it, because as you know in science theirs nothing that can be definitively proven, only dis proven!!

Sorry, I missed this.

Yes random mutation and natural selection. Mutation is random, selection is not. Natural selection favors the useful mutations and the harmful mutations fall by the wayside.

That you find it hard to understand is only a problem if you stop trying to understand it. If you only listen to people who don't want you to understand it, then you will never get there.

Quantum physics is hard to understand too, but the transistor is demonstrable proof of the usefulness of understanding it.

reply to post by dzonatas

Doesn't explain any evolution of:

* clock

Umm, it's all about clocks? Did I post the wrong video? Lemme go back and check.

* sex
* gender

It just assumed they existed.

Clocks don't have sex or gender. And it explained its assumption of pre-existence. The same pre-existence that the TofE assumes.
There is a lot of abiogensis assumptions made in this thread that don't seem acknowledged.

When they do, maybe they'll understand pregensis. (Oh, and progenitor conspiracies... oh my!!)

Evolution is change over time. We are specifically talking about the evolution of life. The Theory of Evolution describes the mechanisms in play that drive and allow that change to life over time.

The Theory of Evolution doesn't need to understand pregenesis. Before there was life there was no evolution of life. The ToE has nothing to say about anything other than life. It also has nothing to say about how non-life became life.

That is a different theory.

reply to post by CT Slayer

Do you know how many times the "ToE" has been given an entire re-vamp? Got any idea?

Several competing hypotheses, from many researchers, including Darwin's work, were synthesized into the 'Modern Evolutionary Synthesis' in the 1930's.

Since then the discovery of DNA by Crick and Watson has confirmed the central ideas of the MES even while revolutionizing the way evolution is understood and studied. DNA has allowed many incorrect taxonomies to be corrected and by doing so 'plugged' quite a number of 'gaps'.

It is currently undergoing a smaller 're-vamp' due to the 'punctuated equilibrium' work of Stephen Jay Gould. Gould's work is wide ranging and its impact is still being assessed in all sub-disciplines.

There are constantly adjustments and corrections going on as new data comes up. This is not a 're-vamp', this is natural gaining of knowledge.

So the answer to your question is twice.

Sorry.

Duplicate post.

[edit on 2/3/2010 by rnaa]

reply to post by CT Slayer

The possibility of a non-Darwinian, scientific theory of evolution is virtually never considered much less debated.

Please. Wake up to the 21st century.

It hasn't been Darwin's theory of evolution for almost 100 years. Darwin is an exceedingly important figure in Biology with regards to evolution, but the theory is as far beyond Darwin as Relativity is beyond Newton, perhaps further.

New and better idea's are accepted ALL THE TIME. Stephen Jay Gould's "Punctuated Equilibrium" is completely different to Darwin's slow change. And yet it is being accepted.

This doesn't mean that every idea is studied seriously. The idea has to have be a compelling improvement over a previous explanation, or has to thoroughly explain something that was previously unexplained (as did Gould's).

But your premise is completely and utterly wrong.

reply to post by Zenithar


I just thought your mention of the cells and protiens are all a part of the this issue... I am not a creationist either, I am not attached to any "fixed" religion. To analize the DNA or genetic process this has already been done it is called cloning...
snipet example:
Mice: (1986) A mouse was the first successfully cloned mammal. Soviet scientists Chaylakhyan, Veprencev, Sviridova, and Nikitin had the mouse "Masha" cloned. Research was published in the magazine "Biofizika" volume ХХХII, issue 5 of 1987

en.wikipedia.org...

This process was successfull and it has been for indifinate eons.
So we have proved that the duplicate process is in - fact possible.
Now how do you find how this process automated or regenerated itself billions of years ago.. what sparked this process weather conditions who knows but it happened. The process kept rolling along and new organisims popped up... this process took a long time.... Today we can't breed a dog with a cat ect. who knows what happend billions of years ago who's to say that this was not possible back then. We have in fact been doing the same thing over millions of years, humans of different races are mixing. Ever wonder how wierd things happen people born with extra limbs what causes this????
This web site discusses the origen of life-
Snipit: There are many people with strange mutations that cause them to grow extra limbs, gills, etc...This can be ... people with strange mutations that cause them to grow extra limbs, ...

www.biology-online.org...

I just thought I would add this cause it gives another perpective to this thread...
Personally I have my own views on this topic and it is a mixture of both and many deep thoughts of my own so it is hard to explain but when you have many explanations as to the right answer or who is right NO ONE CAN PROVE anything it is all assumtions Again >personal choice to believe in what you want to believe in thats how I look at it.

reply to post by dzonatas

You are the only one that is saying that Dinosaurs are unnatural.

That is not what was typed by me.

Yes it is. You said it here:


reply to post by dzonatas

We still got to make the distinction between natural life and not natural life. Dinosaurs are stated to be extinct.

and again here:

reply to post by dzonatas

The theory is obviously incomplete because whatever was natural about Dinosaurs can't be described by a theory that also claims they are distinct and unable to prove what is natural or unnatural about them.

So what do you mean that dinosaurs are unnatural? What needs to be proven?

You say "Dinosaurs are stated to be extinct." What does that have to do with natural or unnatural? In fact, it is an observation of the natural world around us that dinosaurs are extinct. though some of their relatives still exist.

The TofE has no problem with dinosaurs.

It is only anti-evolutionists that have a problem with them; severe problems.

The chemical elements that make up the enzyme do not come from the genes.

The entire point of why the ratio exists in the stated universe became ignored. Please, deny ignorance, apply the ratio, and reread what I wrote.

In apropos to this 10 byte universe case: closed systems are theory of evolution Open systems are creationism. Only have 10 bytes to live.

Lets try this again from a different angle.

How about

• DNA = blueprint for a building.
  
• Gene = diagram for part of the building
  

You understand that the blueprint is not the building I assume. The blueprint 'codes' for a particular building. If you change a bit of the blueprint you get a slightly different building.

You can change the building very easily by changing small things that don't take up any more storage space, for example, change the scale from 100:1 to 75:1, or the icon for a sliding door to the icon for a swinging door. These changes have significant impact on the building without requireing any additional storage space.

The builders dont use the blueprint for the materials in the constructions. They use the blueprint to guide them in the construction of the building.

That is exactly how DNA works. The chemicals in the DNA are not used in the construction of the enzymes the DNA codes for.




[edit on 2/3/2010 by rnaa]

Originally posted by nophun

okay, I will try to stay calm in this post.

If you believe Ken Ham and the rest of his clowns my post is directed to you.

This is just stupid at its finest, this idiot brainwashes other idiots children into believing dinosaurs and man lived side by side and all kinds of retard #.

All kinds of retard what? You want to appear scientific in the same voice you speak like a 7th grader?

This is correct.
The fact is we know is how erosion works. we know it is most likely (on a huge scale) that my rock was shaped with erosion not my god Ralph.

You have a very warped concept of design friend, it isn't the shape of the rock that we see as the designer of the rock no more than it is the brush that is the artist of the painting. But when I look at MT rushmore, I know it was designed and when I see science stealing the intellectual property of things in nature to design airplanes calling THAT intelligently made and giving credit to science, I call that the arrogance of fools

Yup, you proved science is working! good job. None of these monthly reports discredit evolution or natural selection. If they do please post a example. thanks.

The fact is, your reversing what evidence is used for, namely to PROVE claims is best when given for that reason but suggesting that evidence that can't "disprove" a claim doesn't mean it supports a claim the same way it doesn't prove an allegation for a crime when it doesn't disprove a crime was committed just the same. Pretty slick use of semantics but it shows you can't be trusted to be sincere or honest about this when such deceptions are attempted to put one over on us.



[edit on 2-3-2010 by CT Slayer]

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by CT Slayer

 

Do you know how many times the "ToE" has been given an entire re-vamp? Got any idea?

Several competing hypotheses, from many researchers, including Darwin's work, were synthesized into the 'Modern Evolutionary Synthesis' in the 1930's.

Since then the discovery of DNA by Crick and Watson has confirmed the central ideas of the MES even while revolutionizing the way evolution is understood and studied. DNA has allowed many incorrect taxonomies to be corrected and by doing so 'plugged' quite a number of 'gaps'.

It is currently undergoing a smaller 're-vamp' due to the 'punctuated equilibrium' work of Stephen Jay Gould. Gould's work is wide ranging and its impact is still being assessed in all sub-disciplines.

There are constantly adjustments and corrections going on as new data comes up. This is not a 're-vamp', this is natural gaining of knowledge.

So the answer to your question is twice.

DNA has not allowed ANYTHING because DNA is not the one making the decisions to revamp anything PEOPLE namely Scientists do that. I can't discuss this with you if you are going to give DNA such authority as if you had already discussed the matter with DNA and DNA said so

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by CT Slayer

 

The possibility of a non-Darwinian, scientific theory of evolution is virtually never considered much less debated.

Please. Wake up to the 21st century.

It hasn't been Darwin's theory of evolution for almost 100 years. Darwin is an exceedingly important figure in Biology with regards to evolution, but the theory is as far beyond Darwin as Relativity is beyond Newton, perhaps further.

New and better idea's are accepted ALL THE TIME. Stephen Jay Gould's "Punctuated Equilibrium" is completely different to Darwin's slow change. And yet it is being accepted.

This doesn't mean that every idea is studied seriously. The idea has to have be a compelling improvement over a previous explanation, or has to thoroughly explain something that was previously unexplained (as did Gould's).

But your premise is completely and utterly wrong.

Punctuated equilibrium is being accepted?

Ha ha ha man I was in debates about this when you were in diapers and NO ONE except those reading and swallowing very old data, will give PE the time of day it was debunked long ago and for very good reason.

Their is NO evidence FOR IT

Oh and by the way slick, that wasn't MY premise, it was Doctor James Shapiro's assertion and he makes that assertion because it is true.

Now who is James Shapiro and why should I believe him over your un-scholarly "opinions"?

JAMES A. SHAPIRO
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
University of Chicago
920 E. 58th Street, Chicago, Ill. 60637
312-702-1625/Fax 312-702-0439/Email [email protected]


PERSONAL: Born May 18, 1943, Chicago, Illinois
Citizenship--U.S.A.
Married, 2 children
EDUCATION: Harvard College, Sept., 1960-June, 1964
B.A. in English Literature, Magna cum laude
Phi Beta Kappa, 1963

Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, England, Sept.1964-August,1967
Ph.D. in Genetics, October, 1968 (W. Hayes, supervisor)
POSITIONS: Postdoctoral Fellow, August, 1967-August, 1968
Service de Genetique Cellulaire
Institut Pasteur, Paris, France
Prof. Francois Jacob
Jane Coffin Childs Fellowship

Research Fellow, October 1968-June, 1970
Department of Bacteriology and Immunology
Harvard Medical School
Prof. Jonathan Beckwith
Jane Coffin Childs Fellowship

Invited Professor, August, 1970-April, 1972
Department of Genetics
School of Biological Sciences
University of Havana, Cuba

Research Associate, November, 1972-May, 1973
Rosenstiel Basic Medical Sciences Research Center
Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachussetts
Prof. Harlyn Halvorson

Assistant Professor, 1973-1978
Associate Professor, 1978-1982
Professor, 1982-1984
Department of Microbiology
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

Visiting Professor, March-April, 1980
Department of Microbiology
Tel Aviv University, Israel

Professor of Microbiology, 1984-1985
Department of Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology
University of Chicago

Professor of Microbiology, 1985-
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
University of Chicago

Darwin Prize Visiting Professor, May-July, 1993
Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology
University of Edinburgh, Scotland

Visiting Fellow, Jan. - June, 2000
Churchill College
Cambridge, England

EDITORIAL BOARDS:

Journal of Bacteriology, 1976-1983, 1986-1988
Enzyme and Microbial Technology, 1981-1988
Biotechnology series (Wiley), 1981-1988
FEMS Microbiological Reviews, 1985-1991
Research in Microbiology, 1996-2002
Environmental Microbiology, 1998-

PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES

American Society for Microbiology
Society for General Microbiology
Genetics Society of America
Genetical Society
American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Fellow, American Academy of Microbiology

OTHER:

Co-chairman, Molecular Biology Project, U.S. Working Group under the US/USSR Scientific Exchange Agreement on the Production of Substances by Microbiological Means, 1975-1978

Co-organizer, DNA Insertion Elements meeting, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, May,1976

Director, Business and Professional People for the Public Interest (BPI), 1978-1983

National Science Foundation Genetic Biology Panel, 1981-1984

Biotechnology Contact Group, Mayor's Task Force on High Technology 1982-1983

Organizing Committee, Third International Symposium on Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, August, 1982

International Commission on Genetics of Industrial Microorganisms, 1982-1990

Board, University of Chicago B'nai-Brith Hillel Foundation, 1983-88, 1996- (Chairman, Finance Committee, 1984-1988; Chairman, Fundraising Committee, 1996-2000)

Board, KAM-Isaiah Israel Congregation, 1990-1995, 1998-2002

Marshall Scholarship, Midwest Regional Selection Committee, 1984- ; chairman, 1991- .

Organizer, ASM Conference on "Multicellular Behavior of Bacteria: In Nature, Industry and the Laboratory," Woods Hole Marine Biology Laboratory, October 21-25, 1990.

Board of Visitors, Biological Sciences Division, Office of Naval Research, Jan. 15-16, 1991

Review Panel on "Genetic Ecology of Biofilms and Microbially-Influenced Corrosion," Electric Power Research Institute, Knoxville, Tennessee, Mar. 25-27, 1991

Organizing committee, International Conference on Genome Plasticity, Cancun, Mexico, December 8-12, 1991

Organizing committee, ASM Conference on "Interactive and Multicellular Behavior of Bacteria," Woods Hole Marine Biology Laboratory, March 28-April 1, 1993.

Organizer, joint Physical-Biological Sciences mini-symposium, "Dynamic Cell Systems: From Molecules and Motors to Networks and Populations," University of Chicago, May 20, 1994

Steering Committee, "Global Issues in Microbiological Water Quality for the Next Century" Colloquium, Guayaquil, Ecuador, March, 1995

Organizing committee, EMBO Workshop on "Evolutionary Engineering of the Procaryotic Genome," Retie, Belgium, July 3-5, 1995

Faculty, summer school on "Physics of Biological Systems," Humlebaek, Denmark, August 14-27, 1995

Organizer, workshop on "Cellular computation," Santa Fe Institute, October 5-8, 1997

Organizing committee, "The information revolution in midstream: An Anglo-American perspective," School of Information, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, May 29-31, 1998

Organizing committee, NY Academy of Sciences Symposium, "Molecular Strategies in Biological Evolution," Rockefeller University in New York June 27-29, 1998

Faculty, summer school on "Physics of Biological Systems," Humlebaek, Denmark, August 20-23, 1998

Lecturer, program on "Statistical Physics and Biological Information," Institute for Theoretical Physics, Santa Barbara, March 16-17, 2001
AWARDS & HONORS

Marshall Scholarship (1964-1966); Wellcome Research Training Scholarship (1966-1967); Jane Coffin Childs Memorial Fund for Cancer Research Postdoctoral Fellowship (1967-69); NIH Research Career Development Award (1976-1980); Darwin Prize, University of Edinburgh (1993); Fellow, American Academy of Microbiology (1993); Foundation for Microbiology Lecturer, American Society for Microbiology (1994-6); AAAS Fellow (1994); OBE (2001).

[edit on 2-3-2010 by CT Slayer]

reply to post by CT Slayer


"Our knowledge of DNA" then.

Your desperation is showing. That was a perfectly understandable word shortcut. Please don't pretend you are so stupid that you didn't understand exactly what was meant.

It demeans you.

Originally posted by rnaa



The Theory of Evolution doesn't need to understand pregenesis. Before there was life there was no evolution of life. The ToE has nothing to say about anything other than life. It also has nothing to say about how non-life became life.

That is a different theory.

You are missing the point and most likely it is an area where darwinists fear to tread for they have a phobia when it comes to this. The point isn't about the excuses we see being used to recuse yourself from the debate but how did matter evolve into a sentient life form. If you can not say matter evolved, then you can't assume life didn't come about from non living matter in evolutionary small steps that took a gazillion years.

Whats good or the goose.

reply to post by CT Slayer

Punctuated equilibrium is being accepted?

Yes, by mainstream adherents to the MES. Anti-Evolutionists, no, since it is part of the TofE and they reject the TofE.

Ha ha ha man I was in debates about this when you were in diapers

No. You. Weren't. I suspect my granddaughter was babysitting you when SJG presented his first paper on the subject.

and NO ONE except those reading and swallowing very old data, will give PE the time of day it was debunked long ago and for very good reason.

Majorly Fail.

Their is NO evidence FOR IT

That is a curious statement indeed, seeing as how Eldridge and Gould included a lot of evidence for it in their seminal paper. And of course there has been several decades of work since then.

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by CT Slayer

 

"Our knowledge of DNA" then.

Your desperation is showing. That was a perfectly understandable word shortcut. Please don't pretend you are so stupid that you didn't understand exactly what was meant.

It demeans you.

I have to disagree again because "OUR" knowledge of DNA has only proven beyond any doubt that natural selection doesn't even figure into evolution anymore and mutation doesn't happen anywhere near what was once believed. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but DNA simply doesn't work that way. Clonal dissonance in large populations have proven that competing mutations in a population of a species make the possibility of being fixed almost non existant. In fact DNA only allows such a mutation about twice before it completely reboots itself. Here read some of this and then tell me what is it I am not getting. I have read over 350 books on this subject been to the lectures of the likes of Dawkins and have had morning coffee with shapiro and what you are telling me is Barnes and Noble level entertainment reading for jaded atheists whom I have nothing but trouble with because they think they know everything already.

Originally posted by rnaa

Their is NO evidence FOR IT

That is a curious statement indeed, seeing as how Eldridge and Gould included a lot of evidence for it in their seminal paper. And of course there has been several decades of work since then.

Then show me what ya got hotshot. Ill take a serious look at it and if you have something I haven't seen and it is a compelling argument, I have no problem telling you I stand corrected. That is how science is supposed to be done.

Not this "major fail" commentary

[edit on 2-3-2010 by CT Slayer]

reply to post by CT Slayer

You are missing the point and most likely it is an area where darwinists fear to tread for they have a phobia when it comes to this. The point isn't about the excuses we see being used to recuse yourself from the debate but how did matter evolve into a sentient life form. If you can not say matter evolved, then you can't assume life didn't come about from non living matter in evolutionary small steps that took a gazillion years.

Whats good or the goose.

No you are missing both points.

1) You have never spoken to a "Darwinist" and no "Darwinist" has ever discussed or refused to discuss anything on this forum or any other. The "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" commonly called the "Theory of Evolution" has much, much more content than just Darwin's contribution.

If you refuse to allow me to use a perfectly understandable shortcut like 'DNA' instead of "Our knowledge of DNA" or "the idea of DNA", then you are not allowed to use the word Darwinist to refer to modern biologists whose subject matter includes input from thousand of researchers over more than a century since Darwin.

Especially when your intention is derogatory.

2) The title of the post is "The Evolution Delusion: conspiracy?". It does not address abiogenesis nor cosmology. Evolution does not discuss abiogenesis nor cosmology. If you want to discuss those topics, fine, start a thread about those topics.

The definition of evolution in biology is about change in populations of living organisms over time. It does not address how life came to be. How is that difficult to understand.

Dismissing evolution because it doesn't address abiogenesis is like dismissing your car mechanic because he doesn't know which factory your engine was built in. The mechanic starts with the assumption that your car has an engine. The biologist starts with the assumption that life exists.

Originally posted by CT Slayer
I have to disagree again because "OUR" knowledge of DNA has only proven beyond any doubt that natural selection doesn't even figure into evolution anymore and mutation doesn't happen anywhere near what was once believed.

Yeah? Care to point me some articles (preferably published in Nature or Science) that support your statement? It's a simple request. If you fail to do this it proves beyond any doubt that you're full of s*it.

Clonal dissonance in large populations have proven that competing mutations in a population of a species make the possibility of being fixed almost non existant.

Again show me some articles.

In fact DNA only allows such a mutation about twice before it completely reboots itself.

What does that even mean? What happens when DNA "reboots itself"? What are the mechanisms at work? What is the end result?

[edit on 2-3-2010 by rhinoceros]

Originally posted by nophun
Survival ... nothing more nothing less.
If a species stops evolving there is a good chance it will not be able to keep up. Likely resulting in extinction.

This would also include sophistication about non-survival tactics. If one generation doesn't evolve a secret then the next generation is stupid.

Unless Creationist and Intelligent Designers want to admit to Artificial Intelligence.

You just defined humans

We are a species that evolved the same way as any other species.

People have a problem with this. I personally think it is amazing.

Al Zhemiers used to have a space in the name until someone had a problem with it.

Some other species decides to take offense for how their country is spelled wrong.

Everybody tries to fix the mistakes and world war is inevitable.

That was good mistake... eventually.

However, people preached about perfection and doubt there was any mistake. Actually, they either forgot about the doubt or they hid the doubt as a secret. It didn't evolve.

We have senses to tell us that not all of our cells are the same, yet some reason that gets labeled as cancerous cells by doctors when under autospy... I mean autopsy Then so-called prescribed treatment is worse then the cure. See, I can say this because I understand the devastation caused by Magnetic Resonance Imag.... Instant devolution! (Depends on diet.)

MRI is probably about the only cure I have found for Major Depression Disorder, if we could call it a cure. It's kept me in historical laughter when there was just about 'nothing' left to be happy about.

I've rambled, it's all on-topic, yet probability of increased difficulty to explain increases with explanation if explained further.

"That's life" "No, That's half-life" "No, depends if it was ordinary." "What's unordinary about this!"

Originally posted by rnaa
Quantum physics is hard to understand too, but the transistor is demonstrable proof of the usefulness of understanding it.

Quantum physics is not needed to understand the transistor. Quantum physics is only needed to promote quantum mechanics.

Otherwise, we just say "quantum mechanics minus quantum physics equal evolved physical abstractions"

Transistor explained through simulation with applied quantum mechanics.

Originally posted by rnaa
Umm, it's all about clocks? Did I post the wrong video? Lemme go back and check.

Yes. If one assumes time just exists then that doesn't explain evolution of time. That would prove the theory of evolution wrong by that assumption.

Half-life obviously explains time. I talk, then you talk, then that is a clock. Tic tock.

Clocks don't have sex or gender.

The "blind watchmaker" was misunderstood or someone forgot to deny ignorance.

The same pre-existence that the TofE assumes.

Any assumption of pre-existence is creationism not evolution. We just exist.

Originally posted by rnaa
So what do you mean that dinosaurs are unnatural? What needs to be proven?

This is an interpretation of how we misunderstood each other. One says science hasn't proven dinosaurs as natural. The other claims then the first said dinosaurs are unnatural, yet still no proof dinosaurs are natural. One says dinosaurs are extinct by stated theory. The next says dinosaurs are proven unnatural despite the fact the theory implies no one can prove if the dinosaurs are natural because they are extinct.

This is no secret.

It is only anti-evolutionists that have a problem with them; severe problems.

Somehow anti-evolutionist say dinosaurs are fully natural despite the theory of evolution claims unprovable due to extinction. This should not be a severe problem, yet is has become an obvious scientific slap in the face to ordinary scientists that claim otherwise.

Lets try this again from a different angle.

The entire presentation of the problem changed and became totally misunderstood.