Watch Evolution in Action

a reply to: VP740

Damn steam punks .....

Scientist don't believe in evolution, we see the evidence, and accept it. Though the creationists will argue that, they can try.

As a Polytheist of pre-Christian Irish leaning, I believe a great many things, including a multiplicity of gods. I feel that to be so with my soul. However I can't prove it (I am likely going to have to die, and then if I came back, it would just be my word on it).

As a Chemist, Biochemist, and Bioiformatic Jockey, I've done the experiments as part of my training, and it agreed with the rest, as such, I can see that it is reproducible. With the advent of DNA sequencing its easy for anyone to do it. You just need an understanding of programming in R (or S if your rich), access to the data (its free), and a computer with some balls to crunch the data. After that, if you understand a little stats, and biology, you too did the science

a reply to: Noinden

OK, maybe believe isn't the best way to put it. I meant to include someone who believes in evolution based on evidence, not just blind faith. Thanks for the clarification.

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: whereislogic

That's because you haven't given it much thought. If certain types tell you a convincing story that this is possible (as if natural selection is a magic wand), you will believe and trust them. And you are reluctant to think this through*.

Does this quote apply to you?

I'm assuming you're only referring to the first sentence of that quote? Since the rest should be obvious that it can't apply to me the way it is phrased (also at the end "this" referring to your idea/belief/philosophy that "natural selection can still work its wonders", which is a little vague but I think I can fill in the blanks of what you're arguing for). I think I've thought this subject of what 'Mother Nature' can accomplish and what nature can't accomplish through quite a bit and....

How much time have you spent ...with an open mind?

Quite a bit I'd say, too much to quantify. Thousands of hours at least. Since you're still asking about the same subject and related subjects I just described differently, I skipped your description of that subject now. And because people like to swap meanings for the word "evolution" mid-conversation. Causing an annoying extra required step asking people what they exactly mean by that word so it becomes more obvious when they swap after my response. Explanations regarding "(gradual) change (over time)" or "development (over time)", "adaptation (over time)", etc. could refer to just about anything unrelated to the subject I just described.

When a creationist says something about an evolutionist or an evolutionist's theory, do you just listen and take them at their word, or do you question them and do research to see if what they're saying is true?

To me the word creationist applies to young earth creationists (who invented both terminologies "creationism" and "creationist"). But assuming for a moment you mean everyone who has concluded from the evidence that creation is the most logical explanation regarding the subject of for example the origin of life, and thus believes that to be the correct view or answer, I listen but do not take them at their word. I question and scrutinize what they're saying for myself and most of the times disagree either with what they're presenting or the way they are presenting it (how they phrase things). It is no different with Dr. John Sanford. Part of my research is also determining if other people are capable of seperating fact from fiction, or things that are phrased poorly leading to confusion, or even willing to try. Victims of propaganda demonstrate certain patterns regarding this, which gives additional information about the subject, what to trust as being reliable information and what not to trust (or who).

And are you really insisting that one must believe in the supernatural to understand the world correctly, while you accuse me of believing in a 'magic wand'?

Not playing the 'are you saying' game today other than pointing to my last sentence before the insincere question above (or you can read my descriptions of this game in my thread on this subforum, especially when you suspect you might have picked up the behaviour inadvertently).

Here's the thing, he says the degradation of the genetic code over time is inevitable.

Correct.

What genetic code?

All genetic codes that ever existed, all current genetic codes and all genetic codes of the future. That is what the word "inevitable" is alluding to.

The original.

That one too.

This shouldn't bother the evolutionists at all, as they believe the replacement of the original code with the more complex code is exactly what evolution is.

Error, does not compute. Ignoring for a moment that you've just used yet another alternative for defining or describing the word "evolution" (not gonna think about whether or not it's accurate or misleading), if genetic codes degrade over time (an "established fact" as the Encyclopaedia Britannica would refer to such observations, if the publishers and writers were honest all the time regarding all subjects), you can not expect that this natural process of degradation will change any original genetic code to a code that becomes (in the longterm) more complex and sophisticated regarding the functionalities of the operations and machinery within the organism; more sophisticated as in more suited for the tasks/functions, more complex as in more tasks/functions and operations and both more complex and sophisticated regarding the interdependency of these new tasks/functions and operations. Not just anything you want to call more complex and then start a debate about what the word "complex" supposedly means. You may have used the word "complex" in a less specified manner to later include more; such as something that is actually degrading in your argumentation regarding "more complex", but I would be talking or thinking about a very specific kind of increase in complexity that would be required to say "more complex" regarding this particular subject (when processing your usage of the word "complex" in my mind in order to respond to what you said).

I thought I had mentioned the word "disorder" somewhere in my commentary but I must have changed it, in that case perhaps the video below and what he says regarding "order" in the first few minutes of the video may trigger some healthy thoughts (as usual I don't agree with much of anything that is said or the way it is phrased, sharing the video to trigger some thoughts about the concepts of "order" and "disorder"). You can skip to 1:30 but the key is around 11:00-11:37, and perhaps more importantly 13:58 - 18:18 (with the caveat that there are spare parts and backup systems, which provides more evidence for what he's suggesting later, the keypoint is made just before 18:18 but it's optional or somewhat ok to watch till at least 22:32, just ignore "digital" from the term "digital code", that's about all the caveats I'm willing to specify):

a reply to: VP740

Words have power, so the correct application of them avoids mistakes. A certain misprint like "tho shalt commit adultery" could have lasting implications for a faith

Clarification ... mmm butter.

a reply to: VP740
Did you know that water fleas have more "complex" DNA than humans?
www.nsf.gov...

a reply to: whereislogic

I'll try to be more clear on complexity. When I say complexity of a string, sequence whatever... I usually refer to the length of a program which can output a pattern matching the digital representation of that string. A digital representation of something more complex will require more memory, or bits (after being compressed as much as possible without losing information), than something less complex. By information, I mean the ability to reproduce the sequence exactly.

If we're allowed to make random changes to DNA, and we're allowed to change the length of the DNA, random changes will most likely make the altered DNA more complex than the DNA it was derived from over time. Are you familiar with genetic algorithms? If DNA works anything like genetic algorithms (and it seems to), then evolution seems not only possible to me, but practically guaranteed unless something's stopping it. I can't say nothing else is at play, but I see enough to convince me that natural selection and mutation are a reality; and I see nothing to stop evolution.

a reply to: VP740

DNA does not work by algorithms.

The term "genetic algorithm" really has nothing to do with DNA.

a reply to: VP740

DNA works because of the chemical potential of the DNA, not something inherently programmed into it. Hint for young players .... computer coding analogies fall over fast with DNA, even faster with RNA.

a reply to: Phage

Cool fact! It seems like I've heard of some single celled organisms having more complex DNA too, but I don't recall the details.

a reply to: Phage

If DNA has no affect on the phenotype, then you are correct. If things happen which are determined by the molecular sequence of DNA, then some principles will apply; even if we don't know how all the processes work.

a reply to: VP740

If things happen which are determined by the molecular sequence of DNA, then some principles will apply; even if we don't know how all the processes work.

We know how the process works. A given gene produces a given protein. There is no sequence within DNA which prescribes when this occurs. Genes "turn on" or off due to outside influences and sometimes not at all.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: VP740

If things happen which are determined by the molecular sequence of DNA, then some principles will apply; even if we don't know how all the processes work.

We know how the process works. A given gene produces a given protein. There is no sequence within DNA which prescribes when this occurs. Genes "turn on" or off due to outside influences and sometimes not at all.

Actually there is nonprotein coding dna that creates regulatory rnas, iirc. Also some proteins function as transcription factors regulating gene expression based on signals.
en.m.wikipedia.org...


The irony for creationists is that we humans will fix the countless genetic defects of our bodies. Creating biologically immortal, cancer proof, regenerating, superhuman bodies through synthetic biology human 2.0

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: VP740

This shouldn't bother the evolutionists at all, as they believe the replacement of the original code with the more complex code is exactly what evolution is.

I'm not sure what you mean by evolutionist ...

I wonder if this is feigned ignorance again: to influence the person you're talking to to stop using that terminology and part of the game of painting a certain picture on those who do use that word regardless of the illogical baseless complaints from those affected by the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Shermer, or whoever used that little game of pretending it's not ok to use that terminology and the implication that people are stupid who continue to use it; or willful ignorance: after I shared the link from pubmed in my thread here where you were also responding, a link that I will share again below, or just refusing to google it or use that same database for yourself.

If VP740 wants to see how unreasonable and perhaps intentionally deceptive your comment is, click the link below, a database of so-called "peer reviewed" articles:

evolutionists - PubMed - NCBI:

Some excerpts from some of the articles themselves (written by people whose position on these subjects is clear):

...theoretic thinking enters into Darwin's arguments and those of evolutionists through much of the twentieth century...

...not available to Darwin or most evolutionists...
[next article]
Molecular evolutionists who emphasize divergence...
[next article]
This paper analyzes biological and scientific discourses about the racial composition of the Brazilian population, between 1832 and 1911. The first of these dates represents Darwin's first arrival in the South-American country during his voyage on H.M.S. Beagle. The study ends in 1911, with the celebration of the First universal Races congress in London, where the Brazilian physical anthropologist J.B. Lacerda predicted the complete extinction of black Brazilians by the year 2012. Contemporary European and North-American racial theories had a profound influence in Brazilian scientific debates on race and miscegenation. These debates also reflected a wider political and cultural concern, shared by most Brazilian scholars, about the future of the Nation. With few known exceptions, Brazilian evolutionists, medical doctors, physical anthropologists, and naturalists, considered that the racial composition of the population was a handicap to the commonly shared nationalistic goal of creating a modern and progressive Brazilian Republic.

Some people try to seperate the last subject mentioned above from evolutionary philosophies and thinking. These people are good at that. Ignoring or twisting their own holy scripture when it's not tickling their ears, much like certain biblical theologians I can think of now btw. Pardon the sarcasm if there was any in that. For me it's just the 3rd article I run into when searching for "evolutionists". So that behaviour seems rather silly to me as well, worthy of quoting the whole abstract while I was showing who is using the term "evolutionists" and where (what kind of articles and context).

a reply to: whereislogic

What has any of your pointless rant got to do with watching evolution in real time?

Oh yeah, nothing.

a reply to: whereislogic

a database of so-called "peer reviewed" articles:

Good thing you put that in quotation marks. Because the level of peer review of the indexed journals varies quite widely.

(written by people whose position on these subjects is clear)

Indeed. It has little to do with science. More to do with distortion of the actual science to promulgate racist notions.
Or as an attempt to put "evolutionists" on the same ground as "creationists."

originally posted by: cooperton
When about 50% of Europe's population was killed by the black plague, did the surviving population "evolve"? No. They simply had a pre-existing resilience to this disease and these survivors passed on this genetic combination to their offspring. This is not evolution this is adaptation and it happens all the time.

The difference between adaptation and evolution is that adaptation implies a pre-existing resilience to a particular stress, whereas evolution implies that a DNA mutation altered protein expression in a favorable way that renders the mutant more fit than the previous generation.

The odds that a DNA mutation could create a new protein that coincidentally makes the mutant resistant to the particular antibiotic is unfathomable - if this did happen then the researchers should be releasing the information regarding this new antibiotic protein, but it comes as no surprise to me that there is no evidence of such a new protein resulting from the alleged evolutionary step in the video, and therefore I cannot believe the jump-to-conclusions article presented in the OP.

Ok. I've got to step in here because you've actually misrepresented evolution in action. The reason the black death was so prolific is because it evolved (more on this in a second). The reason the plague stopped spreading is because people realised how it was spreading and vacated/burned the areas where it had been (this is why the church isn't in the centre of many towns and villages in England. They also became more savy with regards to sanitisation/hygene.

Back to the evolved part. The black death started as Bubonic plague and would have continued this way if not for infecting the body of someone who had Pneumonia, at this point the plague evolved by using the Pneumonia to become an airborne pathagen. Once evolved it became what we now call the black death (Pneumonic Plague). It was evolution that made it so prolific, we had been dealing with Bubonic plague for a very long time and although we had no idea how to treat it, it never became pandemic because we knew as a populace how to react to it. This is the same for any newly evolved virus (think Swine/Bird flu). Once a virus has made an evolutionary jump it can take a while for us to understand how it operates.

originally posted by: flyingfish

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

I understand the other sides neighbour, ( there are many sides to the argument) and you've gone and made it all dualistic, which is a little stereotypical, even for a creationist.

There is a couple things going on here, the attempt to create the illusion that science and religion are equally valid options, selling the idea that science is unreliable and touting creationism, as if it had any possible legitimacy.

One approach.. the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy, AKA "false dilemma". The two model approach creationists claim to have created a valid dichotomy, but it is instead a false dichotomy. They posit two and only two models, their "creation model" and their "evolution model" and they claim to be mutually exclusive. which is a logical fallacy and a common means of deception and of demagoguery.

The second.. Is the creationist false equivalence, this is done by projecting their fallacies onto the scientist or like minded debating them.

It’s an attempt to paint the illusion that science and religion are somehow equally valid options, as if science were unreliable or as if creationism ever had any possible legitimacy.
The game is played by creationists pretending to be objective when we know they are not, while projecting all of their own logical fallacies onto the science-minded, who of course will not share any of those flaws.
That game typically has the creationist telling some or all of the following lies:
* That evolution is a religion
* That science relies on faith, just like religion does
* That science is biased just like religion is
* That there is no evidence for evolution, the Big Bang, abiogenesis, etc.
* That there is evidence for creation, Noah’s flood, God, etc.
* That religion is reasonable just like science is
* That religion can be confirmed empirically and experimentally just like science
* That creationism is somehow scientific

Link

You can see these dishonest tactics all over these forums, it's a distraction because they don't have any evidence for their creation model. And actually presenting their "creation model" would reveal their deception, cause there is no such thing as a creation model.

Very nice post - right to the point. Creationism is really all about strategy: how to distract or change the subject such that the real questions get buried deep in a mud puddle. Ken Ham is the expert while the sheep continue to follow him and his ilk to the slaughter house of fraud and deception.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: flyingfish

I am impelled by my spirituality to "an fhirinne in aghaidh an tsaoil". This is the truth against the world. Speak the truth no matter how unpopular. As an intellectual (thus the equivalent of my ancestral Druids, Bards, etc) it is a moral requirement. That is as far as my spirituality influences my science.

I work in a CRO (Contract Research Organization) as a process development Chemist. I take the bench scale dreams of clients, and make them kilo to ton realities, so they can see if they cure the ills of the world. I speak the truth to my clients as well.

Exactly. As bench scientists we expect to go through many formulations and experiments before coming up with the desired result, if we get that result at all. That's where honesty comes in - you don't fix or optimize the data to make an idea work. You know that others will repeat your work and expect to observe the same results.

That's why citations are extremely important when discussing a topic like evolution. At the very least, someone has gone into a lab and tested an idea or a model. Others in the same field are free to repeat the experiment and challenge or confirm the results. Creationism does none of that. It only produces psychobabble to confuse the issue, change the subject or completely ignore the evidence.

I don't know why it's so hard for people to accept that science is about evidence and religion is about faith. Nothing wrong with either one. This is a case of having your cake and being able to eat it too - you can be a scientist and have faith in a religion at the same time without any conflict.

Ken Ham and his crowd continue to stash away millions from junk bond issues and fees to see his theme parks. The more sheep, the more dollars. Simple.

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: whereislogic
If we're allowed to make random changes to DNA, and we're allowed to change the length of the DNA, random changes will most likely make the altered DNA more complex than the DNA it was derived from over time. Are you familiar with genetic algorithms? If DNA works anything like genetic algorithms (and it seems to), then evolution seems not only possible to me, but practically guaranteed unless something's stopping it.

I'd like to use this comment on page 12 as a response to what you said above, especially what's said starting at 4:50 till at least 8:32 in the video that I included in that comment (which would make a rather long comment if I would have to type it all out). But please note the caveat that I bolded (in the quotation from an article) regarding the word "digital" that is used in that video. That would be the analogy (it's still a code though), they aren't always clear about that in the video (which makes for a nice assist for those playing the debate game and card 'it's just an analogy'; to facilitate in the denial of realities/facts). They're making it clear when they're using the word "like", but they don't use it everytime they use the word "digital".

Maybe we should all go outside and take a breather. Have a nice weekend everyone