Irreducible complexity and Evolution

a reply to: cooperton

Tell me neighbour, who claims Homo neanderthalensis is a link between "apes and humans"? I thought you said you had training in the sciences? The genetics clearly show they are no such thing. The fossils clearly show no such thing. Thus I can only assume you are only reading creationist pseudoscience.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

Neighbour you are as logical as a block of cheese.

Only a creationist would believe such a thing. As a deity or deities had put those "classes" in place to be followed.

I've told you there is no such thing as micro or macro evolution. There simply is the process of evolution.

Again, you don't know gold when it is placed before you.

I say this as someone who believes in may gods (even your little desert storm god), Magic, and things the eye can not see. I've studied evolution. Have you? Hows about you share some of your scripts in R that you crunched the data with? OR the genetics techniques you've worked with?

And this is why I said that the philosophy of science has been left behind. Gone are the days of observation.
If there is enough subjective proof, well it has to be true huh?
There is a huge difference. One can be observed. The other never happened.

a reply to: Quadrivium

You have yet to prove what you said neighbor. I feel you are selectively choosing your evidence to look at. As if, being part of a revealed religion has limited your ability to seek knowledge.

a reply to: Noinden

Still trying to run? No where to go but leave the thread In Shame. It's ok, you won't be the first that has left because they couldn't admit they were wrong. All you have are snips about religion.....you mad at someone bro?

I will break it down so even you can understand.
Micro evolution is like saying you have evidence and it actually is evidence.
Macro evolution is like saying you have evidence but have nothing, you just keep saying "I already showed you".

a reply to: Quadrivium

Neighbour.

As I have said they are the same thing, it just the level of detail you are looking at.

You clearly are not willing to actually honestly engage, and would rather beat your creationist drum. You guys are predictable.

a reply to: Quadrivium

I'm not the one who said I was leaving (and you don't get the meaning of slan leat in the ulster dialect ).

I'm still here, you are the one who said you were done. And yet you are still here.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Except that you're ignoring the fact that science doesn't require direct observation of an event to verify its existence. Just like the fossil record isnt the only piece of evidence for past events. To insist that evolution is false because you haven't directly observed speciation means that you're completely ignoring critical data sets derived from genetic homologies and comparative anatomy as just a couple of examples. The corpus of combined evidence in favor of evolution includes direct evidence of adaptation in the long running Lenski Experiment, multiple genetic data sets, inferential evidence, a multitude of intermediate forms in the fossil record, genetics being able to establish molecular clocks to calculate mutation rates that guess what? Match up with the changes seen within the fossil record. I'm sorry, but the evidence in favor of evolution outstrips any other scientific theory in history. You can plug your ears and cover your eyes, but every single time an organism reproduces, evolution takes place.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

Neighbour.

As I have said they are the same thing, it just the level of detail you are looking at.

You clearly are not willing to actually honestly engage, and would rather beat your creationist drum. You guys are predictable.

so Now you are claiming (again) that they (micro and macro) are different?
Berkley has a nice site. Maybe you can find evidence for macro there? I already know the definitions.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Quadrivium

Except that you're ignoring the fact that science doesn't require direct observation of an event to verify its existence. Just like the fossil record isnt the only piece of evidence for past events. To insist that evolution is false because you haven't directly observed speciation means that you're completely ignoring critical data sets derived from genetic homologies and comparative anatomy as just a couple of examples. The corpus of combined evidence in favor of evolution includes direct evidence of adaptation in the long running Lenski Experiment, multiple genetic data sets, inferential evidence, a multitude of intermediate forms in the fossil record, genetics being able to establish molecular clocks to calculate mutation rates that guess what? Match up with the changes seen within the fossil record. I'm sorry, but the evidence in favor of evolution outstrips any other scientific theory in history. You can plug your ears and cover your eyes, but every single time an organism reproduces, evolution takes place.

Have you ever studied the philosophy of science Peter?
I agree that we can observe adaptation (speciation) WITH IN set classes. We have never observed speciation above the species level. Everything we have witnessed is "evolution" with in the set classes, phylum and kingdoms.
The "evidence" there is is subjective and means little. Most of the evidence "evolutionists" use for macro evolution is based on piss poor science.

a reply to: Quadrivium

NO i am claiming they are the same thing. One is looking really closely at the changes (micro) much like looking at a amino acid in a protein (oh look it's phenyl alanine here, and valine there, how interesting) the other is looking at the whole process (so looking at the structure of the protein or peptide).

Evolution is evolution is evolution. It just is. Haemoglobin is still heamoglobin, no matter the SNP induced changes to a single amino acid

a reply to: Quadrivium

Neighbour, you are hung up on the philosophy of science. Science is about doing, not talking about it. You go to the lab. Gather data, and interpret it. Philosphy is all well and good, in the end, its not the science.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Quadrivium

Except that you're ignoring the fact that science doesn't require direct observation of an event to verify its existence. Just like the fossil record isnt the only piece of evidence for past events. To insist that evolution is false because you haven't directly observed speciation means that you're completely ignoring critical data sets derived from genetic homologies and comparative anatomy as just a couple of examples. The corpus of combined evidence in favor of evolution includes direct evidence of adaptation in the long running Lenski Experiment, multiple genetic data sets, inferential evidence, a multitude of intermediate forms in the fossil record, genetics being able to establish molecular clocks to calculate mutation rates that guess what? Match up with the changes seen within the fossil record. I'm sorry, but the evidence in favor of evolution outstrips any other scientific theory in history. You can plug your ears and cover your eyes, but every single time an organism reproduces, evolution takes place.

Have you ever studied the philosophy of science Peter?

Have you? My background is in paleoanthropology with specific focus on Pleistocene hominids and was one of the early proponents of admixture events in the late 90's

I agree that we can observe adaptation (speciation) WITH IN set classes. We have never observed speciation above the species level.

Because of the time scales involved, no we've never had DIRECT observation but direct observation is not a prerequisite in science. Inferential data sets are used in every scientific discipline.

I think it's also important to note that you keep saying we've never seen speciation beyond the species level. Well no duh... That's what speciation is. You're not going to see a change in class, order, family, phylum, domain or kingdom. That would falsify evolution.

Everything we have witnessed is "evolution" with in the set classes, phylum and kingdoms.

I think that you're misunderstanding taxonomic hierarchy then because this statement doesn't make a lick of sense.

The "evidence" there is is subjective and means little.

You're joking right? Genetics are subjective and mean little? Comparative anatomy is a meaningless study? The fossil record and dating of such is subjective? How and in what way is this the case?

Most of the evidence "evolutionists" use for macro evolution is based on piss poor science.

I don't know any "evolutionists" but the evidence used by Anthropologists, paleontologists etc... Is based on solid science. If it's wrong, please feel free to falsify the data. I'd love to have you point out the methodological errors. I'm sorry but when a geneticist independently is able to establish a molecular clock for mutation rates and it matches up with changes in the fossil record, that's not piss poor science, it's a cornerstone of the scientific method... Independently reproducible data.

a reply to: peter vlar

Evidence keeps being displayed for evolution and then we have a group that says the evidence is wrong without ever showing evidence that it is. Seems several here doesnt understand that because they choose not to believe evidence doesnt invalidate it. But the biggest problem with creations is you can never prove it. Short of finding this all powerful being there will neverbeproof for them..

a reply to: dragonridr

Hey, for all I know, there's some magical being that poofed the entire cosmos
Into existence on a whim. As you point out, it's not a falsifiable concept. But that still doesn't invalidate evolution as a biological process. It's real and has been ongoing for hundreds of millions of years. Nobody doubts the existence of gravity and it's little more than mathematical equations. The body of evidence supporting the Modern Ecolutionary Stnthesis dwarfs that of any other scientific theory that has ever been established.
More

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Krazysh0tYou are the one moving the goal post. Evolution can not show where bacteria has ever been anything except bacteria. For evolution to have happened, the way you think, flies, bacteria or whatever would have to cross a magical bridge somewhere to explain the diversity of life we see today. Again, there is not any evidence of macro evolution, only species adaptation.

You are just making stuff up. That isn't what I'm saying or what evolution says. Bacteria is one of the top taxonomic ranks, it has to go through FAR more changes to become a different Domain than the amount of changes that need to pile up for a species to change.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Quadrivium

Macro evolution can certainly be observed. It is why we use fruit flies or bacteria to do it with. You can see hundreds of generations over a short period of time so evolutionary changes can build up. For instance. The E. Coli Long-Term Evolution Experiment has witnessed the bacteria evolve to require aerobic citrate to survive (it should be noted that E. Coli not being able to survive in aerobic citrate is a defining feature of the bacteria to separate it from Salmonella).

Given the right environmental cues, this population would revert back to no longer requiring citrate to survive. The same goes for antibacterial resistance - take away the antibiotic for enough generations and eventually non-resistance re-enters the gene pool. These populations are not evolving, they are experiencing allele shifts in the population depending on environmental cues.

Just like humans can adapt to Vitamin C deprivation by activating a gene that produces it in the human body, and reverts back to not producing it endogenously when it is reintroduced into the diet (research African Bantu vitamin C)... These adaptation mechanisms were always present. You cannot go beyond the boundaries of particular kinds of organisms - microbes make microbes, dogs make dogs, trees make trees. All of which have amazing adaptation mechanisms that the materialists have mistaken for absolute proof of evolution.

That's also evolution happening. The environment has changed and the dominant traits that help the bacteria thrive are different now.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

He wants to claim humans have never seen species change thats just not true. People have been artificially selecting domesticated plants and animals for thousands of years. These activities have amounted to large, long-term, practical experiments that clearly demonstrate that species can change dramatically through selective breeding. Look at a poodle we created a species from a wolf that almost has none of its traits. You can compare bone structures for example a chimpanzee and human chest shoulders and arms have the same set of bones. If any alien species showed up they would immediately put them into the same group they share 97 percent of our DNA. Frogs, birds, rabbits and lizards all have different forelimbs, reflecting their different lifestyles. But those different forelimbs all share the same set of bones - the humerus, the radius, and the ulna. These are the same bones seen in fossils of the extinct transitional animal, Eusthenopteron, which demonstrates their common ancestry.

originally posted by: peter vlar

Neanderthal and H. Sapiens are both the descendants of H. Heidelbergensis. H. Sapiens in E. Africa and Neandertal in Europe and Western Asia. It's not that difficult to actually engage in a modicum of due diligence and learn something about what is actually stated in scientific literature.

Show the evidence for all these statements. You and the scientific community make countless assumptions as long as they fit the old model. You come in here mocking people as per usual, it would be great if you could engage in friendly debate. The phenotypic differences in humans and their skeletons do not prove that there was a sequential evolution... Even mongoloid, caucusoid and negroid skulls have remarkable differences. Surely you wouldn't say one is evolved... Such is the basis of eugenics, racism, etc. Your perverse theology also implants meaninglessness into the minds of young kids, which is a true travesty. "you're the descendants of a mutant apes"... such thinking is the seed for total destruction of self-realization.

Adaptation is NOT proof of evolution - these mechanisms were always present in organisms to allow for changing conditions. Genetic similarities among phenotypically similar organisms is NOT proof of evolution - it's intuitive that similar organisms have similar coding. The fossil record is flooded with examples that ruin the possibility of evolution - human and dinosaur tracks in the same strata, soft tissue in dinosaur bones, young ages of dinosaur bones, coal and diamonds from C-14 dating, polystrate fossils (forests that are vertically preserved in rocky strata), etc. But when this evidence comes out it is thwarted because people have devoted their entire lives with the assumption that evolutionary theory is true, and they cannot even consider the possibility that it may be wrong.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Krazysh0tYou are the one moving the goal post. Evolution can not show where bacteria has ever been anything except bacteria. For evolution to have happened, the way you think, flies, bacteria or whatever would have to cross a magical bridge somewhere to explain the diversity of life we see today. Again, there is not any evidence of macro evolution, only species adaptation.

You are just making stuff up. That isn't what I'm saying or what evolution says. Bacteria is one of the top taxonomic ranks, it has to go through FAR more changes to become a different Domain than the amount of changes that need to pile up for a species to change.

Ok, lets suppose for a moment that you are correct, after all the research done on fruit flies and bacteria, where has it ever been observed that you had a change in types? The fruit fly is still a fly. Bacteria? Still bacteria. Again, macro evolution can not explain how we get the diversity we see today.
Saying that the "mutations" in any given type lead up to macro evolution, over millions of years, is ridicules and it can not be proven.