Why Are Evo's Ignorant of Mendelian?, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

reply posted on 8-5-2008 @ 04:46 AM by Thousand

Originally posted by Howie47
If Evo's want to make claims

Okay, hold the damn boat for a second. Stop saying Evo's. One, it's incorrect grammar to begin with, it should be Evos. Secondly, it's completely insulting. You're throwing it around as a derogatory term and the fact you've made it this far in this thread without being called on it appalls me.

We're not Evos, we're not even Evolutionists...we don't believe in Evolutionism, which is what you're implying, any more than we believe in Electricityism, Gravitationism, Chemistryism, or Sunrisesintheeastandsetsinthewestism. What we are called is Rationalists. It's a real term, please pick it up and use it.

While you're at it, please take your blunt ignorance elsewhere. You don't see me saying "Jesus-freaks" or "Bible-thumpers", let alone starting a thread called "Why are Cross-Huggers Ignorant of Recorded History?", do you? No, I say Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu. You know, proper, respectful terms, because I want to have my point taken seriously.

reply posted on 8-5-2008 @ 09:16 AM by Howie47

reply to post by Thousand

If you had bothered to read this very short thread, You would have seen this had been already addressed!

That (Evo's)lutionist, Darwinist? or maybe Darwinians,

Of course you want to think of yourselves as the rational ones! But that is in high dispute. So you haven't (earned) that title!
It was Evos themselves who coined the terms, "evolutionist", "Darwinist". etc. Not "creationist", which is a term also coined by evolutionist!
I only used the "Evos" to save typing. Sorry if your ashamed of what you
believe. I've been called everything from, "Jesus Freak" to cultist, and everything in between. I don't get offended that easily. Some labels are helpful in communication. So we know what we are talking about. Like a "Darwinist", is someone that believes in classical Evolution, and not just
micro evolution. However Evolutionist squirm at that term, so I choose the lesser of two evils. Evos!

But thanks for your little contribution to the discussion. I'll leave out
the apostrophe for now on.

''''

[edit on 8-5-2008 by Howie47]

reply posted on 8-5-2008 @ 09:37 AM by Howie47

I just learned something new about this subject. There is a actual scientific theory of how isolated populations change due to Mendelian
inheritance. It is called "Founder effect" Oh, and where they use the term evolution, in this
article, they are talking about micro. Just enough change that they can
label a population, a separate species!
Also I've learned that not just the tortoises are found on widely scattered islands. With only slight differences in their appearance. Also
the much tooted "iguanas", are found all over the Caribbean islands. With
each isolated group (inheriting) specific traits. That makes them a unique
family. But still just part of the bigger iguana family. Of course finches,
and all the other Galapagos animals aren't unique to that island!

reply posted on 8-5-2008 @ 10:52 AM by dave420

reply to post by Howie47

So let me get this straight - you accept scientific evidence that you think helps your case, and you ignore scientific evidence that you think doesn't.

And you expect us to take you seriously. That's hilarious.

reply posted on 8-5-2008 @ 11:17 AM by Howie47

"now let me get this straignt"

i]reply to post by dave420

OK, then. Here it is to you straight. True good science has been hacked by the atheist party, who are spreading their "viruses", of misleading information, lies, half truths, counterfeit science and delusional
hypotheses. It takes a honest engineer to try and straiten out all the tangled up, (spaghetti monsterish), corrupting influence; that is slowing down the whole process of scientific advancement.

[edit on 8-5-2008 by Howie47]

reply posted on 8-5-2008 @ 11:36 AM by dave420

reply to post by Howie47

Seeing as you have no evidence, may I counter?

I put it to you that the corruption of science is by Christian fundamentalists trying to pervert the study of any scientific theory that is contradictory to the literal stories in the Bible.

My evidence? This thread, the many like it, Ben Stein's movie, and the entire evolution "controversy". You yourself are guilty of ignoring scientific evidence that disproves your argument, and focus on evidence you think is damaging to evolution. That is a perversion, a corruption, of the scientific method, and it was not committed by atheists.

In fact, the only people on this thread who consistently defend the scientific method are atheists. That's not to say there are no Christians out there who also understand the benefit of the scientific method, they just don't seem to be so vocal about their personal beliefs, and don't try to thrust them where they don't belong.

Since Ibn al-Haytham first created the scientific method over 1,000 years ago, it has not changed. Let me outline it for you:

1. Observation
2. Statement of problem
3. Formulation of hypothesis
4. Testing of hypothesis using experimentation
5. Analysis of experimental results
6. Interpretation of data and formulation of conclusion
7. Publication of findings

That's the scientific method. You should be able to clearly see there is nothing in there about atheism, or god. Both of those concepts have no place in science, for science is only concerned with knowledge, no matter which path that knowledge takes us down. Fundamentally religious folks, on the other hand, are scared senseless of going down a path that doesn't include their own saviour (Jebus, Great Green Arkleseizure, Flying Spaghetti Monster, whatever). And there in lies the fundamental difference between fundamentalists like yourself, and people who want to learn, like me. I want to learn everything. You want to learn only that which agrees with your pre-determined expectations of the universe, so much so that you will actively ignore demonstrated evidence that disagrees with you.

Keep on embracing ignorance, Howie. I wish you wouldn't, but then it's down to you. You've been given enough brain power to figure it out, yet you refuse to because you believe a book is the literal truth when there is no evidence for it, only the fact that it makes you feel fuzzy inside. Good job.

reply posted on 8-5-2008 @ 11:54 AM by Clearskies

O.K.,
I don't know much about these turtles.
But, if they ARE the same species with different latin names, then you see how 'unisolated' galapagos was.

Let's see the evidence that they cannot interbreed. Links. (I can't find any)
It sounds prepostorous to me.

reply posted on 8-5-2008 @ 12:12 PM by dave420

reply to post by Clearskies

Whether you think it preposterous or not has absolutely no bearing on the evidence.

Some species can interbreed - we have seen this with lions and tigers - it all depends on where the genetic differences are. The turtles on Galapagos might be able to interbreed, but because they've been seperated for so long, they've not had a chance to.

If you actually read about the subject you're trying to destroy, it might help your case.

reply posted on 8-5-2008 @ 02:00 PM by Howie47

reply to post by Clearskies

Some Evos (story on another thread about lizard speciation proving evolution) are trying to make a big deal about the slight differences of these isolated species. (and yes different species of the same family, can
interbreed.) (their boost about finch beaks, link above, to tortoises as proof of evolution) etc. etc. They are trying to use them as poster samples of classical evolution. The whole purpose of this thread was to expose that they are not examples of classical evolution at all. Which I have proved. They are
classic samples of "founders effect" which is genetic inheritance, or
Mendelian inheritance. As I clearly explained in my OP.

[edit on 8-5-2008 by Howie47]

[edit on 8-5-2008 by Howie47]

reply posted on 8-5-2008 @ 02:30 PM by Clearskies

reply to post by Howie47

Thank you.
That's what I thought you were getting at. Seems like another chink in the armor of evolutionary theory.

reply posted on 8-5-2008 @ 04:05 PM by Thousand

Originally posted by Howie47
If you had bothered to read this very short thread, You would have seen this had been already addressed!

Just because you explained where you came up with the term, doesn't mean its okay to use it. I can explain the sources of many derogatory terms, does that make it okay to use them? No, it doesn't.

Of course you want to think of yourselves as the rational ones! But that is in high dispute. So you haven't (earned) that title!

We are the rational ones. The title is sound, it's what we're called, if we must be called something. No matter if you believe it or not.

dictionary.reference.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

I only used the "Evos" to save typing. Sorry if your ashamed of what you
believe.

Actually, I'm fiercely proud of what I believe, and because of that I don't like it trivialized. I show Creationists here the respect of using proper titles, I would expect the same from them.

I've been called everything from, "Jesus Freak" to cultist, and everything in between. I don't get offended that easily.

Well congratulations. Just because you've been insulted in the past, you think it's fine to do so to others?

Some labels are helpful in communication. So we know what we are talking about. Like a "Darwinist", is someone that believes in classical Evolution, and not just
micro evolution. However Evolutionist squirm at that term, so I choose the lesser of two evils. Evos!

The term Darwinist is inaccurate, because the modern Theory of Evolution is light years beyond Darwin's theories. It would be like calling a Pharmacist an Apothecary. One came from the other, but they are far from the same thing. And why do you have to choose between the lesser of two evils, if I gave you the valid term to use?

But thanks for your little contribution to the discussion. I'll leave out
the apostrophe for now on. ''''

Ah, condescension. That's what this is all about, then? Superiority through belief? Right then, well if the only part of my post you took to heart was the grammatical correction, then take these few fine tips to heart as well:

You're using parentheses completely wrong. Figure those out.
While you're at it, figure out commas too.
Look into the correct use of you're and your. Spelling affects your credibility.
Work on your capitalization. A spell check would probably not hurt, either.

Thanks.

[edit on 8/5/2008 by Thousand]

reply posted on 8-5-2008 @ 05:08 PM by Howie47

reply to post by Thousand

All your trying to do is distract from the OP, because it hits the mark!
If you don't have any pertinent input. Other then trying to start a personal fight. Then get lost!

[edit on 8-5-2008 by Howie47]

reply posted on 8-5-2008 @ 05:18 PM by AshleyD

I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes here but I really see no problem with the term 'evolutionist.' I also use the term 'religionist' all the time although many have stated they have problems with it for one reason or another.

An evolutionist is one who supports or believes in the theory of evolution- not 'evolutionism' (not a real word and does not have to be automatically implied as being a real word or a belief system by having the word 'evolutionist'). 'Rationalist' seems too general and a misnomer in my opinion. Not to mention, then we would hear the complaint from non-evolutionists in that it is being insinuated they are not rational (hold the jokes). Another evolutionist requested we use the term 'atomist.' Uh... NO.

Do you get offended by the term 'Darwinism?' 'Darwinist?' I've never understood the sensitivity over that word.

reply posted on 10-5-2008 @ 06:36 AM by mdiinican

Originally posted by AshleyD
I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes here but I really see no problem with the term 'evolutionist.' I also use the term 'religionist' all the time although many have stated they have problems with it for one reason or another.

An evolutionist is one who supports or believes in the theory of evolution- not 'evolutionism' (not a real word and does not have to be automatically implied as being a real word or a belief system by having the word 'evolutionist'). 'Rationalist' seems too general and a misnomer in my opinion. Not to mention, then we would hear the complaint from non-evolutionists in that it is being insinuated they are not rational (hold the jokes). Another evolutionist requested we use the term 'atomist.' Uh... NO.

Do you get offended by the term 'Darwinism?' 'Darwinist?' I've never understood the sensitivity over that word.

I'd certainly be less annoyed by the term evolutionist than Darwinist. The dude was pretty clever, and more or less right, but the theory of evolution has progressed a fair bit since the 1800s, with, say, the discovery of the *MECHANISM OF THE PROCESS* in genetics.

It's like calling anyone who feels that relativity is a good description of what goes on in reality an "Eisensteinist", or someone who uses calculus a "Newtonist" or "Leibnitzist". It's a stupid label.

Furthermore, you'll note that only creationists call people who accept evolution as a good explanation for the diversity of life "evolutionists". The general public generally doesn't use a blanket descriptor at all. A fair amount of people use the term "creationist" though. Probably from all the business about creationism in schools appearing in the news.

reply posted on 10-5-2008 @ 07:23 AM by monkey_descendant

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Howie47

Darwin was ignorant of Mendelian genetics -- a historical accident.

Darwinians are not. Why do you think they are?

Mendel's work forms the basis of the science of genetics, which modern evolutionary theory draws upon. There is no conflict between them. In fact, you cannot understand how evolution happens if you don't understand genetics.

Like he said, I don't see where the conflict was. When I saw the title of this thread the idea that "evos" don't understand "mendelian" was what made me go into thread because I wanted to see how it could possibly be true.

Evolution doesn not always need mutations in dna. It could simply involve a trait that is already in existance but then is the majority trait in a population because those without it died. Those traits would be inherited in a mendelian way. Where is the conflict?

The finches on the Galapogos islands did evolve. In fact one researcher watched (over a period of about 10 years) how a population changed from being mostly small beaked and small bodied to mostly large beaked and large bodied. This was due to drought, small bodied and small beaked birds died out because when the seeds they ate ran out only the large beaked large bodied birds managed to crack open the larger remaining seeds. The bigger birds were more succesful and had more offspring, the new generation was mostly comprised of large bodied and large beaked birds. They had therefore evolved.

reply posted on 10-5-2008 @ 07:25 AM by monkey_descendant

Originally posted by Howie47
reply to post by Thousand

All your trying to do is distract from the OP, because it hits the mark!
If you don't have any pertinent input. Other then trying to start a personal fight. Then get lost!

[edit on 8-5-2008 by Howie47]

The origional post does not hit the mark. It totally ignores common sense. Look at my previous post, the answer is there.

reply posted on 10-5-2008 @ 07:48 AM by monkey_descendant

Originally posted by Howie47
I don't want to debate with you directly Astyanax.
Because in the past (other threads), I have found your post less then forthright!

I read it. I cannot make any sense of it, because -- to be honest -- it doesn't make sense.

However in case anyone else has trouble understanding Mendelian inheritance and it's laws. Here is a simple and clear explanation. As
my basic education on the subject, will allow.

When a group of individuals is isolated from a larger group. That new group provides the genetic information, that becomes the foundation or basis for a new population. That genetic information is more limited, then what was available in the larger group.
The limited information in the parents, causes certain physical traits
to dominate that population. They become a unique (family group). With
unique features that distinguish them from the beginning group they came from. Although, all those unique features can be found within the larger beginning group.
This explains the differences in the above tortoises, lizards, and also
the differences in the human family.
In the human family, this (fact) is represented by the different races, ethnic groups, up to smaller family groups. Each have inherited unique physical features. Skin color, hair type or color, bone structure,
facial features, even body size.
[B]None of that has anything to do with (classical evolution). Which maintains life is changing toward ever higher more complex forms.[/B]
That theory needs (new) more complex information to happen.
Mendelian inheritance can happen from a lose of information. Or the
addition of new parents from a outside population. Which brings in new
information. Which brings about changes. Mendelian inheritance does not rely on (mutations) to provide, hit or miss, information.
Classical Evolution, must explain how all (present life) evolved from something much less complex then bacteria. Which itself is very very complex. Mendelian inheritance does (not) explain classical evolution!
So Evo's need to (stop) trying to use it as evidence........................

[edit on 5-5-2008 by Howie47]

Wrong. Evolution does not say things continually evolve until they become more complex. Things evolve in whatever direction selective pressures take them whether this makes them simpler or more complex.

I think you're confused.

Have you heard of the biological species concept? This defines a species as a reproductively isolated population. An individual breeding with another species would produce infertile offspring.

The biological species concept is a good "guideline". However, species borders are flexible and breeding with another population does not necessarily cause infertile offspring. In such a case new genetic information would enter the population. This is called gene flow.

Genetic drift is when genes become more or less comon within a population becuase of random chance in inheritance. This helps make a population homogenous (similar) this helps to differentiate it from another population. Gene flow allows new genetic material into a population.

Mendelian inheritance allows certain traits (by random chance) to be inherited by offspring. It is random chance because each "child" has a similar chance as the others in inheriting certian traits.

Genes are made up of alleles. Alleles are variations of a gene. For an allele to go under selective pressure it must be dominant. This means that t will be expressed by the individual. This allows it to go under selection. This very process is why some people are lactose intolerant and others arent.

And mendelian inheritance has EVERYTHING to do with evolution. Traits need to be HERITABLE to go under SELECTION. If traits cannot be inherited they cannot go under selection. A new mutation within an individual will still be inherited by its offsrping, it doesn't matter if it's a mutation or an existing gene it's still heritable. For natural selection and evolution to take place you need heritable traits.

Now, you tried to get at these mechanisms in your thread but you are totally confused. I hope this little lesson in gene flow, genetic drift, inheritance and what a species is helps you.

There is no conflict with evolution. Biology recognises all of these processes and they are all apart of how individuals and species change.

[edit on 10-5-2008 by monkey_descendant]

reply posted on 10-5-2008 @ 08:01 AM by monkey_descendant

double post.

[edit on 10-5-2008 by monkey_descendant]

reply posted on 12-5-2008 @ 04:46 PM by Howie47

Evolution doesn not always need mutations in dna. It could simply involve a trait that is already in existance but then is the majority trait in a population because those without it died. Those traits would be inherited in a mendelian way. Where is the conflict?

reply to post by monkey_descendant

It is, Ye Olde definition shell game, of the word evolution. That you are using here. Maybe not consciously. As I stated in the original OP. Mendelian is being confused with, (classical evolution). I made that distinction on purpose. Sometimes people trying to explain evolution use the definition
(evolution = change). Or micro evolution. I am talking about Macro evolution, classical evolution, Darwinism.
Micro evolution, small changes brought on by speciation. Does not describe classical evolution.. Which is basically defined as; "All life having
evolved from a common ancestor. "
So it is wrong, possibly deceitful, evening purposely lying. To use Madenlian concepts to sell classical evolution. Mirco evolution also isn't equal to, or does it describe classical evolution. If you think it does; then
you just don't understand the subject that well.

Over at the Raving Atheist's forum, contributors have compiled a list of 50 evolution myths.13.) That there is an actual difference between micro and macro-evolution P. Z. Myers corrected them stating, "By the way, #13 is not a myth. There is a recognized difference between micro- and macro-evolution. "

[edit on 12-5-2008 by Howie47]

[edit on 12-5-2008 by Howie47]

reply posted on 13-5-2008 @ 06:01 AM by monkey_descendant

Originally posted by Howie47

It is, Ye Olde definition shell game, of the word evolution. That you are using here. Maybe not consciously. As I stated in the original OP. Mendelian is being confused with, (classical evolution). I made that distinction on purpose. Sometimes people trying to explain evolution use the definition
(evolution = change). Or micro evolution. I am talking about Macro evolution, classical evolution, Darwinism.
Micro evolution, small changes brought on by speciation. Does not describe classical evolution.. Which is basically defined as; "All life having
evolved from a common ancestor. "
So it is wrong, possibly deceitful, evening purposely lying. To use Madenlian concepts to sell classical evolution. Mirco evolution also isn't equal to, or does it describe classical evolution. If you think it does; then
you just don't understand the subject that well.