It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is evolution?

page: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 



I can't stand it when people are moving the goalpost.


Oh, I don’t think I’ve moved the goal. My premise has pretty consistently been about the plausibility of DNA replication errors being a means to a functional end.

Once again, the paper you referenced does not mention mutations. But Nillson and Pelger do use the tactic of morphing natural selection into a fairy that will do the things that a nice fairy would do.

“If selection constantly favours an increase in the amount of detectable spatial information”

“…we expose this structure to selection favouring spatial resolution”

“We assume that the patch is circular, and that selection does not alter the total width of the structures”

“We would thus expect selection first to favour depression and imagination of the light-sensitive patch”

“Even the weakest lens is better than no lens at all, so we call be confident that selection for increased resolution will favour such a development all the way”

“As the lens approaches focused conditions, selection pressure gradually appears to move it to the centre of curvature of the retina, to make it spherical, and to adjust its size”

“Natural selection would act simultaneously on all characters that positively affect the performance”


Do you see the problem? Not only did they ignore all the statistical realities about mutations, they morph natural selection into a helper. This happens a lot, but the reality is that selection is not a wise, discriminating force. It does not favor or advocate anything. Selection is nothing more than organisms that are not suited for their environment not surviving. That’s it. “Selection pressure” cannot force beneficial DNA copy errors to happen on an as-needed basis.

What this means is that any system that is not fully integrated and functional is meaningless, and there is no mechanism or reason for it to keep improving. Contrary to the author’s happy thought, a weak lens is not better than no lens at all.




posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Loken68
 


I'm not a scientist Loken and neither are you. I don't have a degree in evolutionary biology and so I have to do my research via this wonderful thing called the Internet, you might have heard of it since we're using it right now. I get my information by reading science articles and encyclopedia's that contain a wealth of human knowledge and, of course, the occasional video supplement which condenses such information into easily digestible visual media.

The only reason you wanted my post removed was because it destroys your claims. In fact your statements have been laid to waste by various posters on this very thread, are you going to start demanding censorship on them as well?

Evolution is based on evidence.

Creationism is based on faith.

They aren't even on the same level. Attack Evolution all you want but no matter how many lies you spread about it it will still be a better explanation than Magic.

Edit to Add:



Edit add: I would also like to have all his post checked, involving evolution and creationism. I firmly believe he has violated several rules and standards of ATS. If not let me know and I will resign my membership.


I will take that bet. If it is found that I violated the rules the Mods can go ahead and edit or delete segments of my posts. I have tried, to the best of my ability, to remain civil in debating your claims and I feel that, for the most part, I have. I will gladly accept the consequences if I overstepped my boundaries and violated the rules... However I do find it rather odd that you've decided to invoke a witch-hunt against me and me only and no one else on this site... Do you want to steal my lunch money as well?



[edit on 26-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


Nothing you have posted is work of your own. And it shocks me now to discover that all your info come's from the internet. Yes I copy and paste, but it is all my own material that I have studied and verified myself. But you have not done anything but argue a false sciencetific study that most scientist will not even discuss openly, especially with some one who knows better. My call stands to deny ignorance.

Edit add: MODERATOR!
Edit add: Mods if I'm wrong in this one don't give me a warning just go ahead and ban me.
[edit on 26-5-2010 by Loken68]

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Loken68]

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Loken68]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Loken68
 




But you have not done anything but argue a false sciencetific study that most scientist will not even discuss openly


Which link or study did I post that is rejected by the scientific community? Surely you are not suggesting that Evolution is something scientists will not discuss openly or that science does not have a consensus on Evolution.

Read back over my posts you'll find that after I posted the links I typically offered my own assessments and opinions based on my research. Why does it surprise you that my research is done online? It is much easier to access information via the internet and many scientific papers, journals, articles and encyclopedia entries are submitted to and accessible via the internet.

This whole witch-hunt is just a distraction from the actual debate which is Evolution versus Creationism and an ad hom attack against my character (which is entirely irrelevant to the debate at hand). How about instead of attacking my integrity with this pathetic call for censorship you actually attempt to refute my claims or offer a counter-argument.

Or perhaps you have run out of counter-arguments and now are in full retreat, your last bastion some sad attempt to get the gavel slammed on me for non-offenses.

In the end Evolution is still a scientifically supported and directly observed FACT.

And Creationism is still not science and has been disproved.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


There is no witch hunt. I simply called into play the idea that you have violated terms of use rules from front to back of this thread and others that you have taken part in. Now what I'd like to know if you know your subject so well is why you find it necessary to copy and paste others material and in most cases without even giving credit to the authors.

MODS?
MODS?

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Loken68]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Loken68
 


Where have I done such a thing?

I have not copy and pasted anything verbatim without posting a source link in this thread or in any thread that I can recall.

The reason I posted links and information from outside sources is because I am not an encyclopedia and am not an evolutionary scientist. My knowledge on evolution is limited and can be much better explained by the experts who actually study it for a living. So posting links is a way to get accurate information into the debate rather than baseless conjecture. You will see that type of thing being practiced all over ATS by our most brilliant minds. Even PHAGE, the great and powerful, posts links to academic sources in order to support his position within a thread.

Why you have decided to invoke the Mods, therefore, is just a witch-hunt, an attack on my character that has no bearing in the debate.

If you would, however, point out to me where I posted anything without a source link or where I copy and pasted directly from a source without using the External Content tags it might be easier to understand your attack as anything but a last ditch effort to get me censored.

This reminds me of the Planet of the Apes courtroom scene so much that I think I will find it on youtube and post it...

This was the only version I could find:




I stand by my original statements. After a preponderance of the Evidence it is clear that Evolution and not magic or any other mechanism whether natural or supernatural is the cause of biodiversity.

Edit to Add: This is the last time I will risk derailing the thread to address your attempt to get me censored so I suggest we both get back on topic. Any other posts you make about this little witch-hunt will be responded to via U2U since they pertain to you attacking my character and not the actual debate at hand.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Loken, your attempt at getting the mods to delete the evidence you like, or getting Titen banned is beyond hilarious. Just like arguing against evolution while believing that a super being created us (without providing evidence)...and if you don't obey his rule, he'll cast you down to eternal fire, where you'll be tortured, molested, burned...but he loves you



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


I again have a problem with your post since they are the generic text book explanations of a flawed theory. Easy to rebuttal but however you know and I know that you use no study or resource of your own. I am again done with this post and waiting for a moderator to either remove your sterile common arguminative statements or to ban me. Which comes first matters not. Mods please step up.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Loken, your attempt at getting the mods to delete the evidence you like, or getting Titen banned is beyond hilarious. Just like arguing against evolution while believing that a super being created us (without providing evidence)...and if you don't obey his rule, he'll cast you down to eternal fire, where you'll be tortured, molested, burned...but he loves you




I beg your pardon sir. Do you think ATS will continue much further if we just let folks copy and paste copy and paste copy and pastecopy and paste copy and paste copy and paste copy and paste copy and paste copy and paste copy and paste copy and paste copy and paste copy and paste copy and paste copy and paste copy and paste copy and paste



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Loken68
 




I again have a problem with your post since they are the generic text book explanations of a flawed theory.


And yet you rejected even the most generic and dumbed down explanations I could offer. I assure you they are no less accurate even though they are watered down to an elementary school level. Evolutionary science is extraordinarily complex and again, as I stated openly, I am not a scientist. I can, however, research scientific ideas and reach an educated conclusion,

I assure you that, like the scientific community itself, anyone who actually studies the evidence will find there is more than enough to support Evolution.

Merely the fact that Speciation has been DIRECTLY OBSERVED should be enough to thwart any opinion that Evolution is "easily rebutted".

It doesn't help, of course, that all the easy rebuttals have been debunked and shown to be merely ordinary rounds of pro-religious anti-evolution deception.

Evolution is the only theory explaining bio-diversity that supported by the evidence. Even within the scientific community there aren't any competing theories even among RELIGIOUS scientists. When something is evidently true you can adapt your religious beliefs to fit the evidence and be better in line with the truth - this is what religious scientists do.

Rejecting the theory out of hand is not a counter-argument. Neither is stating that I didn't do my own research. Neither is claiming that God did it, or that it was caused by magic. As for your more science based arguments they were all debunked or proven wrong invariably.

So once again I fail to see how Evolution is easily rebutted against. The scientific community, and anyone who has studied the evidence and reached the obvious conclusion, would tend to disagree with you there.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Loken68
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 
I know that you use no study or resource of your own.


One of the wonderful things about Science is that conclusions can be reviewed, and if found false, will be rejected. A Physicist can rely on the works of a Biologist without having to do the experiments himself, because those experiments are reviewed by other Biologists. Because of this, Scientists can devote their studies to a particular subject and not have to worry about the validity of every other subject. A Physicist can rely on the works of a Biologist without having to do the experiments himself, because those experiments are reviewed by other Biologists.

If every single person in the world based their acceptance of Science on their own replication of experiments, our technological advancement would come to a screeching halt. With science, we can rely on others to validate research for us, so that we can direct our focus elsewhere.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loken68

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Loken68
 


You clearly have no idea what a scientific THEORY means. A scientific theory is made up of facts.



A scientific theory is not the same as a layman's theory, for instance GERM Theory of disease is taught in schools and we know that germs cause disease. We used to think that demons caused illness but I don't here many arguments in favor of that conclusion - while I see a great deal of people arguing that Evolution, which is proven just as well if not BETTER than Germ theory, should be replaced by magical Creation.

If Creationism were taught side by side with Evolution in schools it would easy for children to see the truth about the mountains of evidence in support of evolution and the complete and utter lack of evidence for Creation. Teaching the controversy, in other words, would only prove that there isn't a controversy, just a bunch of people clinging to bronze age superstition in favor of actual evidence and hard science.



Moderator please follow ats rules and remove this Titens post since clearly he is copying and pasting someone elses research without their permission. And it's clear that instead of doing his own research he would rather steal from others. No sources. 15% rule not followed. Thank you

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Loken68]

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Loken68]


Oh dear.

As it was in the dark ages of medieval Europe. This is the most important post here. Once you understand what a Theory is, you can stop using it in a derogatory manner to try and belittle evolution.

BTW if the moderators remove this post as the author "is copying and pasting someone elses research", "And it's clear that instead of doing his own research he would rather steal from others". I make the same accusation of every bible quote on here.

And how do you know he doesnt have permission....! I will make a statement right here and now, and I urge all evolutionists to do the same. I give my full and outright permission to anybody on any forum to replicate my arguments in full or in part in support of evolutionary theory when used to argue against the creationist mythology.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by txpiper
Once again, the paper you referenced does not mention mutations. But Nillson and Pelger do use the tactic of morphing natural selection into a fairy that will do the things that a nice fairy would do.

Lies won't take you far.

Indirect referrals to mutations:

An eye is unique in this respect because the structures necessary for image formation, although there may be several, are all typically quantitative in their nature, and can be treated as local modifications (here) of pre-existing tissues.

We have made such calculations by outlining a plausible sequence of alterations (here) leading from a light-sensitive spot all the way to a fully developed lens eye.

The amount of morphological change (here) required for the whole sequence is then used to calculate the number of generations required. Whenever plausible values had to be assumed, such as for selection intensity and phenotypic variation, we deliberately picked values that over- estimate the number of generations.

That's from introduction only (and it's not even all referrals from this section).



Do you see the problem? Not only did they ignore all the statistical realities about mutations, they morph natural selection into a helper. This happens a lot, but the reality is that selection is not a wise, discriminating force. It does not favor or advocate anything. Selection is nothing more than organisms that are not suited for their environment not surviving. That’s it. “Selection pressure” cannot force beneficial DNA copy errors to happen on an as-needed basis.

Selection favours those that are fitter. Fitter have greater reproductive output than their counterparts. Selection is very much a discriminating force that results as changes in gene pools. The second part you got right. Selection can't force mutations to happen. Mutations happen and then they're tested (by natural selection). Thou one could argue that natural selection has favoured the existence of endogenic mutation causing agents such as transposons and mutation allowing factors such as imperfect DNA repair mechanisms.



What this means is that any system that is not fully integrated and functional is meaningless, and there is no mechanism or reason for it to keep improving. Contrary to the author’s happy thought, a weak lens is not better than no lens at all.

You base this opinion on what? Article describes in great detail the gradual evolution of eye and explains how every step is beneficial (in sense that it results in better perception of surroundings and thus likely greater reproductive output). So how exactly is the "Model of eye evolution" section false? Statements like "a weak lens is not better than no lens at all" are meaningless unless you explain the reasoning behind them.

..I have this feeling that you're not even trying to understand how evolution works. Instead you've decided that it's wrong (maybe due to some old book?) and this opinion you'll take with you to your grave.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by rhinoceros]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Loken68
 





Wiki also has links to child porn if you like that to.


Forgive me. I missed the part of your sentence that is relevant to this discussion.

The Bible praises homosexuals and contains pornography if you like that too.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
The Bible praises homosexuals and contains pornography if you like that too.

The Bible also promotes genocide and rape (and killing your own children of course).

[edit on 27-5-2010 by rhinoceros]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 



"..Indirect referrals to mutations:"

The statements you noted are just inferences. The scenario in this paper assumes that a very long and completely random series of DNA replication errors can occur that will result in ever-more-sophisticated protein definitions. There is not one splinter of empirical evidence to support such an idea, certainly none in this particular paper. It is only differs in format from the 15 point fantasy presented here:
www.talkorigins.org...


"Selection favours those that are fitter. Fitter have greater reproductive output than their counterparts. Selection is very much a discriminating force that results as changes in gene pools."

It will help if you try not to personify selection. Fit organisms survive, and unfit ones do not. That’s it. There is no personality involved and no decisions are being made. There is no selection fairy, and evolution does not tinker. It is all random, all the time.


"Article describes in great detail the gradual evolution of eye and explains how every step is beneficial (in sense that it results in better perception of surroundings and thus likely greater reproductive output)."

That’s nonsense. There is no perception of surroundings at all unless the whole system is functional. If what you say is true, you should be able to note endless examples of worthless biological features that appear to be on their way to becoming useful. What would you use as an example?


"I have this feeling that you're not even trying to understand how evolution works. Instead you've decided that it's wrong…"

No, I just ask questions because I don’t have any ideological commitment to evolutionary theory. To me it is no different than Islam or socialism.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by txpiper
The statements you noted are just inferences. The scenario in this paper assumes that a very long and completely random series of DNA replication errors can occur that will result in ever-more-sophisticated protein definitions. There is not one splinter of empirical evidence to support such an idea, certainly none in this particular paper. It is only differs in format from the 15 point fantasy presented here:
www.talkorigins.org...

No. The paper makes a pessimistic estimation of how many mutations you need to get an eye (apparently not that many).



It will help if you try not to personify selection. Fit organisms survive, and unfit ones do not. That’s it. There is no personality involved and no decisions are being made. There is no selection fairy, and evolution does not tinker. It is all random, all the time.

You contradict yourself.



That’s nonsense. There is no perception of surroundings at all unless the whole system is functional. If what you say is true, you should be able to note endless examples of worthless biological features that appear to be on their way to becoming useful. What would you use as an example?

Again with the uneducated unsupported opinions. Refute the article and explain why it's wrong.



No, I just ask questions because I don’t have any ideological commitment to evolutionary theory. To me it is no different than Islam or socialism.

You either understand modern synthesis, or you do not (it's kind of like either you know what 1+1 is, or then you don't). You simply don't understand it. Also let me guess, in your books evolution, Islam and socialism are evil? I bet you were bashing the French too back when they were opposing an attack to Iraq.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by rhinoceros]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
I love how anti-evolutionists always end up with leaving the thread without a word, because they can't argue properly against the mass of evidence...

Ignorance it really is.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 



No. The papers makes a pessimistic estimation of how many mutations you need to get an eye (apparently not that many).

Yeah, not many at all according to Nilsson and Pelger, just “1829 steps of 1% change”. What is interesting is that that there are over 2000 genes involved in eye development. So I guess they must have been really big “steps”. I think I would have called them strides, or even leaps.

But the problem is (still) that in their pessimistic estimate, they lose sight of the fact that the “steps” have to be accomplished by DNA replication errors. Such things only happen in people's imaginations.


Refute the article and explain why it's wrong.

Well, rather than try to raise objections, let me ask you a question. Why do species isolated in a cave environment lose their eyes and pigment?


You either understand modern synthesis, or you do not

Well that’s fine, but modern synthesis is not the issue here. I’m trying to stick with the idea of DNA replication errors being a reliable production mechanism.






[edit on 28-5-2010 by txpiper]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   
It is interesting to see how this discussion regression to attacked on one particular person. It reminds me of the attacks I received for posting scientific information on other subjects.



new topics




 
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join