The Evolution Delusion: conspiracy ?

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
(though even it dosent rule out GOD), mostly because in honesty I dont much understand all the others.

They don't understand the difference between 'GOD' and the 'voice of GOD'.

Some consider it as a 'voice of reason' either way.

Personally, this is obvious. I hate to prove it yet I love life.

Beancounter and Lannock

Great posts.
This is why I will demand a definition of creation from the OP.
I also believe there is a conspiracy more interested in destroying established beliefs than teaching science.
Much like the Bolsheviks did to religious freedom in Russia.
Just look and see who is running these policies and forcing them down the throats of school age children.
I have a giant fossil collection and even have a thread that uses evolution to plot human genetic evolution.
Like Beancounter has come to understand I have always countered any random mutation nonsense.
I have also noticed that feeble cry waning in scientific circles. At least openly.
If the OP ever answers the Creation definition question, I bet it will be with a pant load.

reply to post by Donny 4 million


So what drives evolution, then, if not random mutations being selected non-randomly?

Originally posted by CT Slayer

Originally posted by NorthStargal52

You don't know me enough to judge me like that .... I am not a radical person at all I do not adhere to any such darwinian religion as you put it. I am not a dogmatic fundamentalist either....

I speak my own mind .... I have never sided with any certain view. I will say this there are many people commenting on this topic and they all have a right to their thoughts because to them that is what they believe in.
I read the posts and I comment about things that match my own beliefs..
Just because we don't see eye to eye on things does not constitute for labeling me or bashing me ...

[edit on 2-3-2010 by NorthStargal52]

I wasn't judging you North, I was agreeing to your astute and wise consideration of something more than those who might otherwise think such ideas are radical. Sorry my being facetious about that radical part and not clarifying.

Sorry I misunderstood you... maybe it is radical thinking to go outside the decades of presumptions that we have been forced to believe or ya got your head chopped off... (10th century and so on) or before that even...FORCED to have to believe in a religion that did not allow other theory’s... Now we all know that happened that is a fact. Now we live in a society that wants us to adhere to those days of old. We have Biologists, Physicists, Archeologists, biochemists, Astronomers, ect., and the list is long looking into where it all started.
It did not start here on earth it started out in the cosmos.... everyone is discussing the Bible and religion or DNA or organisms… HERE is my take on all this THE answer is out in the cosmos.. The birth of galaxies.. the forming of a planet it has to do with the gasses and molecules make up of all that and more... we have planets in our universe and everyone of them could have had life on them at one time.. (My speculation)...
In very ancient times, only the Sun and Moon, a few hundred stars and the most easily visible planets had names. Over the last few hundred years, the number of identified astronomical objects has risen from hundreds to over a billion, and more are discovered every year. Astronomers need to be able to assign systematic designations to unambiguously identify all of these objects, and at the same time give names to the most interesting objects and, where relevant, features of those objects.
This guy -Aristarchus (~310 BC - ~230 BC) was a
Ancient Greek mathematician and astronomer.
All dynasties in ancient China carried a fine tradition of recording in detail the results of astronomical observations. From the Han to the Yuan dynasties...YET...Astronomy is the oldest of the natural sciences, dating back to antiquity, with its origins in the religious, mythological, and astrological practices of pre-history.
There are some who claim all the answers come from one book.... how can that be?????
So when we talk about evolution it is to the theory of what evolved here on earth.... My take on this is that it all started before that .... in a spiritual way and i am not even comfortable in saying that even but to me it was a very extrodinary process that took place and because we live in our bodies but without a brain we would be nothing we would of course have a body and all the rest of the stuff ... the brain holds the key to communication our liver dosn't tell us how to take a bath... I know we need everything in our bodies to funtion but do we really ???? whats the most important function we have ? it is our brain cause if we are brain dead they will terminate your life. Mental Telepathy is not supported by scientists I disagree....
.......
Here look at this reasoning they claim.....among the reasons the concept has not been accepted by the scientific community is that there is no accepted mechanism by which telepathy can work. As well, there is no definition which unambiguously distinguishes it from a number of other related concepts such as clairvoyance.
But reported cases of experiences of people that have been pronounced dead have came back to life and told their stories.....
Astro travel.... Not all people beleve in that...
Evolution is not a delusion it is UNPREDICTABLE cause there is no known proven theory .... yikes I like discussing the topic it is a way to hear all sides of everyones views.

Originally posted by Beancounter72
a) evolutionists' eyes glaze over and they mumble 'I don't know' when you ask them how the earliest pieces of dna, which resemble viruses, managed to created a much larger single-celled organism that has a protoplasmic outer layer and hundreds of different chemical processes going on inside.

Protomplasm is the stuff that's inside cells (among other things). The outer layer, cell membrane, is actually made of lipids and proteins. You can't call it "protoplasmic". So yeah, no wonder their eyes glaze.

Originally posted by Beancounter72
b)evolutionsts' eyes glaze over and they mumble 'I don't know' when you ask them how millions of single-celled organisms that are very generalized (like the ameba), suddenly all decided to stick together and specialize to form the first multi-cell organism.

Many (maybe most) single celled organisms form colonies in which they all work together. It's really not that different from what happens in multicellular bodies. Different cells express different genes. It all depends on their spatial location.

Originally posted by Beancounter72
c) evolutionists' eyes glaze over and they mumble 'I don't know' when you ask them how the first 46 chromosome ape-like ancestor managed to have 46 chromosome children when she(or he) was surrounded by 48 chromosome ape-like creatures. When you cross a 48 chromosome horse with a 46 chromosome donkey, you get a 47 chromosome mule which is sterile. Mules cannot produce other mules. But evolutionists would have us believe that our earliest 46 chromosome ancestor managed to have 46 chromosome FERTILE children all by herself or himself.

Oddly enough I'm starting to think you're just copy-pasting this stuff from some fundie website. This issues has been discusses many times over. Don't pretend you haven't heard the answer. The jump from diploid 24 to diploid 23 happened. All the proof you need is Human chromosome 2.

So what drives evolution, then, if not random mutations being selected non-randomly?

It would seem the 'being selected non-randomly' part is the mystery Dave.

I suppose I can accept mutations being random, in so much as that 'adaption requirements of a given species over a given time period' are random. IE habitat change or climate change, or introduction of invasive species (like my example.)

c) evolutionists' eyes glaze over and they mumble 'I don't know' when you ask them how the first 46 chromosome ape-like ancestor managed to have 46 chromosome children when she(or he) was surrounded by 48 chromosome ape-like creatures. When you cross a 48 chromosome horse with a 46 chromosome donkey, you get a 47 chromosome mule which is sterile. Mules cannot produce other mules. But evolutionists would have us believe that our earliest 46 chromosome ancestor managed to have 46 chromosome FERTILE children all by herself or himself.

in answer...

Barriers To Interbreeding

Now differences in chromosome number do not serve as reproductive barriers between all species. For example, lets look at some of the equine species ( horses and donkeys). Domesticated horses have 32 pairs of chromosomes and Donkeys have 31. Yet, they can produce offspring, mules, which have 31.5 pairs of chromosomes. One of the horse chromosomes goes unpaired. Wild mountain zebras have 16 pairs of chromosomes, while the last species of wild horse (Przewalski's Horse) has 33 pairs. However, all of these equine species can produce hybrid offspring. In all of these crosses but one, the offspring are sterile. It has long been argued that this sterility is due to the difference in chromosome number, but hybrids of the wild (33 pairs) and domesticated horse (32 pairs) are fertile, and have 32.5 pairs of chromosomes. So clearly, something more than just differences in chromosome number is contributing to the species interbreeding barrier.

Translocation
Translocation is what happens when two chromosomes that are not part of a pair get stuck together as if they were a pair, and exchange segments. If the segments that get exchanged are large enough, you can have most of both chromosomes moved onto one single chromosome, as shown below. In this figure, the blue and red boxes are cartoons of two different chromosomes. The black dots in their centers represent the "centrosomes" where the cell attaches filaments that drag the chromosomes around. When these chromosomes cross-over, the result is two chromosomes are very different size. One larger chromosome, contains almost all of the genetic material of the two chromosomes, while the other smaller chromosome contains almost none. In this example, the material from one chromosome has been moved or "translocated" onto another chromosome. In dramatic cases like this one, the resulting tiny chromosome is usually lost, and the resulting chromosome count is reduced by one.

Summary

So, to wrap up, changes in chromosome number are not really caused by mutations. Mutations are changes to the DNA sequence that occur during DNA replication and repair. Some people might argue that translocations result in large additions and deletions of DNA sequence, but that is not what people are generally referring to when they use the term mutations. Instead, changes to chromosome numbers are brought about when errors occur in the process of chromosome duplication (of which DNA replication is only a small part).

Finally, it seems like changes in chromosome number are not the ultimate barrier to species interbreeding. Some hybrids of species with different chromosome numbers are fertile, and chromosome pairing is still possible even when the number of chromosomes is different.

www.madsci.org...

[edit on 3-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

reply to post by wayaboveitall


How is that part a mystery? If an organism has a mutation that is somehow beneficial to its survival, it will be more likely to be passed on to the next generation than a harmful mutation.

Yeah I understand that dave, this much is obvious, but what I meant by 'mystery' is, what causes the mutations that result in genetic change which suit the specific adaption need.
With my example, herein lies the mystery, atleast to me, How is the mutations causing genetic change, resulting in a smaller gape width in the black snake exactly what seems to be needed, after the fact of the introduction of invasive toads?
Is this sheer coincidence? Is this random, or is it the 'being non randomely selected' part ?
The mystery is what is doing the selecting non randomly.



[edit on 3-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

So what drives evolution, then, if not random mutations being selected non-randomly?

Natural selection.

reply to post by wayaboveitall


If we look at the example of the Peppered moth we can see how a species evolves a "needed" trait, rather simply. In this case the moths have changed to a far more suitable colour to avoid predation. They didn't choose it, but the most camouflaged individuals weren't eaten, and so their mutations became more and more common, until their mutated camouflage became the most common camouflage.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by wayaboveitall

 

If we look at the example of the Peppered moth we can see how a species evolves a "needed" trait, rather simply. In this case the moths have changed to a far more suitable colour to avoid predation. They didn't choose it, but the most camouflaged individuals weren't eaten, and so their mutations became more and more common, until their mutated camouflage became the most common camouflage.

OK, this is the same as my lizard example earlier, and I assume this how you define 'natural selection' or more crudely, survival of the fittest?
I agree with this but what bugs me is that this implies that camo mutations were already happening anyway, randomly', is that right?

If so, again, how to explain the apparent coincidence, or synchrinicity of mutation, as in the case of the snakes, since the specific change has been recorded only in the last 70 yrs since the toads introduction.
Or in the case of mimicry, a 'random series of mutations' that happened to
be making one creature look much like different one? Both types,
1. Batesian - the mimic (palatable) resembles the model (unpalatable) and only the mimic benefits.
2. Mullerian - both the mimic and the model are unpalatable and both benefit.

Examples
1. monarch and viceroy butterflies (see Fig. 48.13 in Curtis, Barnes. 1989. Biology, 5th Ed.)

2. yellow jacket and sand wasp (see Fig. 48.15 in above reference)

3. syrphid fly and honey bee (see Fig. 48.11 in Campbell. 1987. Biology)

4. coral snake and colubrid snake (see plates I and II in Pough. Mimicry of Vertebrates; pp. 67-95)

5. cuckoo and various host birds (an example of egg mimicry)

6. red-backed salamander and red salamander

7. poison-fang blenny and Ecsenius blenny

8. gold-of-pleasure plant and the flax plant

9. mantid (insectivorous) and orchid (see Fig. 8 in Wickler. 1968. Mimicry in Plants and Animals)

10. ophrys (orchids) and female of some species

11. pipe-vine swallowtail butterfly and spice-bush swallowtail

12. caterpillars and catkins (see Geographica section of Oct. 89 National Geographic)

And thats only a dozen of possible thousands, think ocean life.
Does this not seem more than random atleast? It does to me, I must admit.

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
Yeah I understand that dave, this much is obvious, but what I meant by 'mystery' is, what causes the mutations that result in genetic change which suit the specific adaption need.
With my example, herein lies the mystery, atleast to me, How is the mutations causing genetic change, resulting in a smaller gape width in the black snake exactly what seems to be needed, after the fact of the introduction of invasive toads?
Is this sheer coincidence? Is this random, or is it the 'being non randomely selected' part ?
The mystery is what is doing the selecting non randomly.

[edit on 3-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

Mutations can be caused by chemicals or radiation. The possible adaptations don't specifically suit anything, the results are specific to the genes affected. It could affect something like hair color, or it may do nothing at all. Natural Selection is the non-random selection you refer to. Individuals with beneficial mutations are more likely to survive than individuals who do not have such beneficial mutations. Because of their increased chance of survival, they are more likely to pass on their traits. The new individuals born with these traits are better suited to their environment, and go on to pass their traits. So on and so forth. There is no mystery about it.

Thankyou piekeeper, thats perfectly clear, but to me its mysteriously convenient, infact, the perfect functioning, symbiosis of elements and life, of the entire planet, seems incredibly , mysteriously convenient to me, despite the understanding of natural selection.
It may be natural, but im sure nobody would honestly argue that its amazingly convenient and conductive to all life forms on this planet.
This inspires awe in me.

An example, different populations waterpythons, liasis fuscus in Australia's top end, same species, has two differing approaches to reproduction.
In one locality (L1)they lay the eggs in ready existing goanna burrows. these snakes dont incubate their eggs but move off immeadiately and begin eating again, thus resuming condition so that they can breed the following year. These snakes have much larger clutches and breed each year, but suffer greater rates of predation.

(L2) snakes lay their eggs on hollowed tree roots, these do incubate their eggs, which means they dont eat and lose considerable condition during incubation, and so only breed every second year. These snakes have much smaller clutches, but a better survival rate, since predators there search burrows for food.

Isnt that incredible and perfectly convenient? This kind of thing, which is common all over the planet, despite being, natural, seems 'designed', so you can hardly blame the religious for adding two and two and concluding a biased five. LOL




[edit on 3-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

reply to post by PieKeeper


Nature seems civil enough IMO to be guided by selection (choice of mate)
If a mutation occurs and is selected by a mate of choice then the chance of the survival of that change increases. I view nature as not indulging in rape. I would suggest that most mutations are driven by change in the environment or a void by the extinction or declining numbers in other life forms.
There must be studies on the total amount of bio mass over the eons. It would be interesting how that may track. If an ounce of this disappears does it get replaced by an exact ounce of that etc.
600 trilobites for one crocodile.

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
Yeah I understand that dave, this much is obvious, but what I meant by 'mystery' is, what causes the mutations that result in genetic change which suit the specific adaption need.
With my example, herein lies the mystery, atleast to me, How is the mutations causing genetic change, resulting in a smaller gape width in the black snake exactly what seems to be needed, after the fact of the introduction of invasive toads?
Is this sheer coincidence? Is this random, or is it the 'being non randomely selected' part ?
The mystery is what is doing the selecting non randomly.

The mutations don't simply appear at the moment they're needed.
The thing is, mutations happen all the time, but most of them are neutral - they don't affect the organism's breeding chance at all. Some snakes probably already had the smaller gape. But when a new pressure - the toads - is introduced, previously neutral mutations become beneficial. Those who don't possess the newly-beneficial mutation die out.
It isn't that the mutation suddenly appeared. It's just that it wasn't selected for prior to that time.

[edit on 3/3/2010 by Golden Boy]

The mutations don't simply appear at the moment they're needed.
The thing is, mutations happen all the time, but most of them are neutral - they don't affect the organism's breeding chance at all. Some snakes probably already had the smaller gape. But when a new pressure - the toads - is introduced, previously neutral mutations become beneficial. Those who don't possess the newly-beneficial mutation die out.
It isn't that the mutation suddenly appeared. It's just that it wasn't selected for prior to that time.

Ok, so the 'selection' is the survival and reproduction of the beneficial mutation, thats still awesome and incredibly 'convenient' somehow to my mind, that every lifeform in the planet, the entire biodiversity works like that. I beleive it, but it causes me to wonder how it should be so, that it works so well that life has evolved over the 4 billion odd yrs and flourishes here, when so much could go wrong. I appreciate the balance, you understand. That life 'took off' and never looked back, so to speak, since if it wasnt as it is, it would have crashed and left this a barren world like the rest in the solar system, and how just this particular world is at the perfect distance from our star to support the life, seems incredibly convenient.
Is it all so perfect by chance? This is my mystery.

reply to post by wayaboveitall


I think this story by Douglas Adams may clear it up for you.

. . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting hole I find myself in. Fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

Obviously, I'm focusing more on the opening lines than the ending. It isn't that the world is conducive to life - it's that life can adapt to almost anything, given enough time. And time is something life has had in abundance.

LOL, I love Douglas Adams

Obviously, I'm focusing more on the opening lines than the ending. It isn't that the world is conducive to life - it's that life can adapt to almost anything, given enough time. And time is something life has had in abundance.

I think thats a fair statement, although, a bit further, or closer to the sun, and it wouldnt be conductive to life, atleast to life as we know it, else we might expect a diversity of life like ours on other planets in our system. Mystery remains, why is life so perfectly adaptable? Theres a saying, 'Life abhors a vacume", I think it does!

So long, and thanks for all the fish!



[edit on 3-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

reply to post by PieKeeper

Creationism cannot co-exist with evolution. Creationism attacks science as a whole, not just evolution, and seeks to replace science rather than operate by science.

Wow, could you close your mind any tighter? I doubt it.

The problem with evolutionists is they see only one definition of creationism. You know it is possible to look at the bible and not take every word literally. Much like evolution(theory) has many parts to it. Creationism can simply be a belief in a god creating life, and unless you are talking young earth creationism, it does not have to be 6000 years old.

No big deal, you don't think they can co-exist. But since you are not the
allbeingmasteroftimespaceanddimension, it is simply your opinion. Perhaps there are some versions or parts of creationism as a whole that disagree with evolution, I would hardly use the term "attacks" that is a term left for evolutionists like yourself.

And micro evolution can exist without macro evolution. Even as you explain it. Micro = shorter time period. Well by that definition then micro evolution exists is every example at least for a short time.

If evolution was the complete and proven answer, this thread would not exist.

This discussion is futile

reply to post by wayaboveitall


I have never thought about mutations in waiting. I guess there is plausibility there. I have always thought it is the junk DNA that was such a brain tease for the geneticists. I always thought junk DNA was there to be recycled when needed. (external change)
I proved twenty years ago that a genetic mutation in the Chinese would be found that acts as a deterrent to the consumption of alcohol. It has been found as well as the distribution of the mutation as I predicted..
The last piece of the puzzle--- science is getting closer to as we speak.
And that is at the present rates mankind will be alcohol free in about 6,000 years or so
So stick around and see. lol.