Jordan Peterson shows DNA Video

originally posted by: chr0naut
OK, did you take note of all the online references to Peppered Moth 'evolution' and then, without critically evaluating those headlines, assume that it included speciation? And before you deny that you did, in this post you argued for macroevolution (which includes speciation absent in microevolution) in regard to the Peppered Moth example.

In that post I was pointing out your misconceptions about micro vs macro evolution. It wasn't specifically referring to the moths.

Just to be clear that you weren't discussing something else, you did so again in your very next sequential post, where you explicitly mentioned that there were "2 species", here.

Then, in your next post after that, you finally realized your error, here and blamed me (somehow?) for your error, suggesting I had made the same error (I didn't, I was arguing against it). You made the error, it was your error.

Yes, I realized YOUR error. You claimed that it was agreed that they were speciating. YOU LIED. I took your lie on face value, hence why I said "2 species" in the post just above it, but upon doing more research I realized they were sub species and corrected it. Why are you still trying to defend this lie? Just admit your mistake and move on. I admitted mine, but it seems your ego simply can't allow it. Instead you backtrack and make all these excuses changing the meaning in hindsight despite blatantly ignoring the fact that you STILL haven't demonstrated that anybody ever agreed they were speciating. You were the first to make that claim. I shouldn't have bought into it without first checking.

It is clear that I never said that the evidence showed speciation. I was clearly arguing that there was no evidence of speciation before you even entered the thread and also after you admitted your error. The idea that I would write that there was speciation in the case, when I was arguing against it, is just ilogical and unreasonable.

Again, you said that it was agreed it was speciation. That was your lie. Please stop dancing around this and address it directly instead of the constant semantic BS.

Now we have established the facts of the matter that you were clearly one of the "commentators" who had read all the online useage of the word 'evolution' linked to the Peppered Moth example, and that you (and others) had incorrectly assumed speciation, posting their erroneous assumptions publicly (like you did). Can you see my argument about "commentators" (like you) who read about Pepperd Moth 'evolution' and "agreed it to be speciating" (like you did)?

STOP LYING. I only thought it was speciation because you said it was agreed upon. I can't believe you still can't let this go. Prior to your statement I did not once say that they were speciating. You made the claim, not me. It's really not a big deal. Now I know better than to believe anything you say without checking first. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I won't be fooled by your false claims again.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut

In that post I was pointing out your misconceptions about micro vs macro evolution. It wasn't specifically referring to the moths.

That post began with your concession that Peppered Moths had an annual lifecycle in nature.

Yes, I realized YOUR error. You claimed that it was agreed that they were speciating.

To believe that, you have to concatenate the quoted partial sentence, ignore the specific subjects of the partial sentence and take it out of context (I was clearly arguing the opposite of what you accused me of, before, during and afterwards).

YOU LIED.

I didn't.

I took your lie on face value

No, you made a false assumption which does not even fit the narrative context in which the assumption was founded.

, hence why I said "2 species" in the post just above it, but upon doing more research I realized they were sub species and corrected it. Why are you still trying to defend this lie? Just admit your mistake and move on. I admitted mine, but it seems your ego simply can't allow it. Instead you backtrack and make all these excuses changing the meaning

I have evidenced what I said with links pointing back at those posts, which I also cannot alter. How could I change the meaning? My opportunity to edit those posts has long passed.

in hindsight despite blatantly ignoring the fact that you STILL haven't demonstrated that anybody ever agreed they were speciating. You were the first to make that claim. I shouldn't have bought into it without first checking.

Again, you said that it was agreed it was speciation. That was your lie. Please stop dancing around this and address it directly instead of the constant semantic BS.

STOP LYING. I only thought it was speciation because you said it was agreed upon. I can't believe you still can't let this go. Prior to your statement I did not once say that they were speciating. You made the claim, not me. It's really not a big deal. Now I know better than to believe anything you say without checking first. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I won't be fooled by your false claims again.

Most of the papers and textbooks that made claim to speciation have been retracted, revised or allowed to go out of print, which makes it hard to reference them. But I do recall them.

Back when I went to school, there were even textbooks that used the Peppered Moth as an example and that said there was speciation. There were others who wrote articles who also assumed speciation, made specific reference to speciation or macroevolution in that case, and cross referenced to each other in a web of circular false assumptions.

However, some of the examples you seem to have not seen and denied existed:

- KETTLEWELL, H. B. D., 1955d. How industrialization can alter species. Discovery, 16: 507-51 1. Here Kettlewell, who produced the initial study of the European Peppered Moth, included specific reference to his paper on the Peppered Moth in an article specifically on speciation. Perhaps this is excusable because the issue of distinguishing macroevolution from microevolution did not arise until many years later.

- "The B. betularia W chromosome consists largely of repetitive sequence, but exceptionally we found a W homolog of a Z-linked gene (laminin A), possibly resulting from ectopic recombination between the sex chromosomes. The B. betularia linkage map, featuring the network of known melanization genes, serves as a resource for melanism research in Lepidoptera. Moreover, its close resemblance to the ancestral lepidopteran karyotype (n=31) makes it a useful reference point for reconstructing chromosome dynamic events and ancestral genome architectures. Our study highlights the unusual evolutionary stability of lepidopteran autosomes; in contrast, higher rates of intrachromosomal rearrangements support a special role of the Z chromosome in adaptive evolution and speciation." - From the abstract to "Linkage map of the peppered moth, Biston betularia (Lepidoptera, Geometridae): a model of industrial melanism" (2013), (A E Van't Hof, P Nguyen, M Dalíková, N Edmonds, F Marec & I J Saccheri).

- "One example of the effects of pollution on evolution is "industrial melanism," which is described in numerous biology textbooks (1). The peppered moth (Biston betularia) found in England, was a lightly hued lepidopteran that used camouflage to blend into lichen-covered trees and thereby avoid predation. During the last century pollution from coal soot particles killed the lichens and blackened the trees, and if the peppered moth had not undergone mutation and natural selection and evolved into a different species with darkened coloration (B. carbonaria), the moth would have been eliminated." - Identification and quantification of pollutants that have the potential to affect evolutionary processes, editorial in the National Institutes of Health, Environmental Health Perspectives, NIH, by M P Dieter (1993).

- "It is difficult to find instances of ongoing speciation in the literature, partly because speciation is usually a relatively slow process that can only be inferred long after the fact. A common textbook example of the working of natural selection is the history of the peppered moth"- from the journal article, Instances of Observed Speciation Vol. 49, No. 1 (Jan., 1987), pp. 34-36. Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the National Association of Biology Teachers author Catherine A. Callaghan. Why would an article on speciation even bring up such an off topic subject?

... and the final deathblow to your argument is that you assumed speciation in the same case (and commented on it), just like so many others. You are an example against your own case!

Next time, be a bit more rigourous in your research and don't blame others for what was clearly a lack of subject knowledge and faulty assumptions made from it.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

photons are subject to transformation just like any other form of energy or matter. vibration is frequency and frequency by definition is time.

Photons are an indivisible minimum quanta and while they may be captured and released (as when they are 'transformed' into matter), they cannot become anything else in nature.

The photovoltaic effect as described by Einstein demonstrates that when the matter is induced to release energy, energy is both conserved and re-released in the form of photons.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut

such rejection represents an abandonment of accepting information without due process.

Sometimes you have to accept information, to make sense of the world in the allowed time-frame. In most cases, the 'reasonableness' of information is effective as a quick guide.

For example, if the station master tells you that the train arrives in ten minutes, you'd be a bit of a dill to start some 'due process' to accept the information. That is because the information is reasonable, the station master has no discernable reason to lie to you and they have reason to speak truthfully.

all of which is beside the point - this discussion has so far failed to make a solid case of the video proving intelligent design. people continue to miss the scope of the matter, something that you would need a supercomputer to recreate accurately. not human imagination.

Eh? Without human imagination, a supercomputer is just inert minerals.

Also, supercomputers aren't that bright, so, i'm not sure of your point there.

Could you, perhaps, re-state your point to clarify exactly what you meant?

originally posted by: chr0naut
KETTLEWELL, H. B. D., 1955d. How industrialization can alter species. Discovery, 16: 507-51 1. Here Kettlewell, who produced the initial study of the European Peppered Moth, included specific reference to his paper on the Peppered Moth in an article specifically on speciation. Perhaps this is excusable because the issue of distinguishing macroevolution from microevolution did not arise until many years later.

I can't find this paper anywhere. Your link was blank and after searching it manually it was in Spanish. Is there a link to this actual paper anywhere? After much searching in multiple databases, I gave up. Is that the one that you said was retracted?

- "The B. betularia W chromosome consists largely of repetitive sequence, but exceptionally we found a W homolog of a Z-linked gene (laminin A), possibly resulting from ectopic recombination between the sex chromosomes. The B. betularia linkage map, featuring the network of known melanization genes, serves as a resource for melanism research in Lepidoptera. Moreover, its close resemblance to the ancestral lepidopteran karyotype (n=31) makes it a useful reference point for reconstructing chromosome dynamic events and ancestral genome architectures. Our study highlights the unusual evolutionary stability of lepidopteran autosomes; in contrast, higher rates of intrachromosomal rearrangements support a special role of the Z chromosome in adaptive evolution and speciation." - From the abstract to "Linkage map of the peppered moth, Biston betularia (Lepidoptera, Geometridae): a model of industrial melanism" (2013), (A E Van't Hof, P Nguyen, M Dalíková, N Edmonds, F Marec & I J Saccheri).

Completely out of context.

"Our study highlights the unusual evolutionary stability of lepidopteran autosomes; in contrast, higher rates of intrachromosomal rearrangements support a special role of the Z chromosome in adaptive evolution and speciation"

The 2nd line wasn't talking about the moths speciating. It was a general statement about how other organisms with higher rates support that in adaptive evolution AND speciation. Note it mentions their study and then says IN CONTRAST. Context matters.

- "One example of the effects of pollution on evolution is "industrial melanism," which is described in numerous biology textbooks (1). The peppered moth (Biston betularia) found in England, was a lightly hued lepidopteran that used camouflage to blend into lichen-covered trees and thereby avoid predation. During the last century pollution from coal soot particles killed the lichens and blackened the trees, and if the peppered moth had not undergone mutation and natural selection and evolved into a different species with darkened coloration (B. carbonaria), the moth would have been eliminated." - Identification and quantification of pollutants that have the potential to affect evolutionary processes, editorial in the National Institutes of Health, Environmental Health Perspectives, NIH, by M P Dieter (1993).

Okay this one actually does say it, but it seems like a simple mistake. The species name is Biston Betularia. The 2 sub species are Biston Betularia f. typica (white) and BIston Betularia f carbonaria (black). They clearly just mixed up species and sub species. This isn't a research paper, by the way, and the section you quoted is referring to a zoology textbook for high school students, not a research paper. I'm guessing this is what you referred to as reading in your school textbooks. Easy to see how a mistake like that could happen, to be honest. I still maintain that no research paper actually says they speciated, and I'd really like to read that textbook itself to see the language they used, although it's not a research paper, so it doesn't matter that much.

- "It is difficult to find instances of ongoing speciation in the literature, partly because speciation is usually a relatively slow process that can only be inferred long after the fact. A common textbook example of the working of natural selection is the history of the peppered moth"- from the journal article, Instances of Observed Speciation Vol. 49, No. 1 (Jan., 1987), pp. 34-36. Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the National Association of Biology Teachers author Catherine A. Callaghan. Why would an article on speciation even bring up such an off topic subject?

That doesn't say the moths speciated, sorry. You seem to be completely ignoring context and just searching for key words. That's not even close to what it says there. It clearly says that it is a textbook example of natural selection. The line before was talking about how it is hard to tell if something speciates.

... and the final deathblow to your argument is that you assumed speciation in the same case (and commented on it), just like so many others. You are an example against your own case!

Nope. I didn't say anything about speciation until you brought it up. You can't refer to something I said AFTER you brought it up and claim that it justifies your original statement, sorry. If it was agreed upon that they were speciating, it wouldn't be so difficult to show this agreement among the scientists, but nobody actually agreed that they were. Some suspected it and thought they MIGHT be different species, and probably had not observed whether or not they could breed with one another during the time of the original study.

originally posted by: cooperton
It saddens me that humans are so hellbent on trying to prove that we are meaningless, because the evidence of how meaningful we are is everywhere.

All life is meaningful. Humans are not particularly exceptional when it comes to the mechanisms of how life works.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut

I can't find this paper anywhere. Your link was blank and after searching it manually it was in Spanish. Is there a link to this actual paper anywhere? After much searching in multiple databases, I gave up. Is that the one that you said was retracted?

One of, it appears.

It appears to have been cited several times:

Lepidoptera Genetics: International Series of Monographs in Pure and Applied Biology Zoology Division,Volume 46,page 629. Google Books

Mimicry, Crypsis, Masquerade and Other Adaptive Resemblances,page 477 - Google Books

In 1955, Kettlewell was tenured at Oxford but I can't find specific link to this paper anymore, either.

Completely out of context.

"Our study highlights the unusual evolutionary stability of lepidopteran autosomes; in contrast, higher rates of intrachromosomal rearrangements support a special role of the Z chromosome in adaptive evolution and speciation"

The 2nd line wasn't talking about the moths speciating. It was a general statement about how other organisms with higher rates support that in adaptive evolution AND speciation. Note it mentions their study and then says IN CONTRAST. Context matters.

Admittedly, the passage is confusing because it (probably, it is not clear) generalized the trait to the whole phylum but it does suggest that "melanism" is an indicator of species change and links Biston Betularia with that (which simply was not evidenced, as we both have noted). The entire article was about the specific moth. Read the title. "Context matters" indeed.

Okay this one actually does say it, but it seems like a simple mistake. The species name is Biston Betularia. The 2 sub species are Biston Betularia f. typica (white) and BIston Betularia f carbonaria (black). They clearly just mixed up species and sub species.

This is an article archived and published by NIH.It is supposed to be fact checked and peer reviewed.

It could be just an error, but that was entirely my point. Credentialed people were publishing erroneous information and the error ended up being cross-referenced as 'validation' by others.

This isn't a research paper, by the way, and the section you quoted is referring to a zoology textbook for high school students, not a research paper. I'm guessing this is what you referred to as reading in your school textbooks. Easy to see how a mistake like that could happen, to be honest. I still maintain that no research paper actually says they speciated, and I'd really like to read that textbook itself to see the language they used, although it's not a research paper, so it doesn't matter that much.

Few read the research paper. Many read the textbook and form opinions based on what they learn.

I also never limited my comment to only research papers.

That doesn't say the moths speciated, sorry. You seem to be completely ignoring context and just searching for key words. That's not even close to what it says there. It clearly says that it is a textbook example of natural selection. The line before was talking about how it is hard to tell if something speciates.

The paper was about "Instances of Observed Speciation". It is clear that the writer was equating natural selection with speciation, assuming that examples of natural selection also evidenced speciation (the title of the paper) because it is so hard to find direct evidence for speciation.

... and the final deathblow to your argument is that you assumed speciation in the same case (and commented on it), just like so many others. You are an example against your own case!

Nope. I didn't say anything about speciation until you brought it up. You can't refer to something I said AFTER you brought it up and claim that it justifies your original statement, sorry.

The whole topic thread back then was asking for a peer reviewed paper that clearly demonstrated macroevolution. It was talking about 'speciation' well before you entered the thread. I didn't introduce the topic. I said that the Peppered Moth example only evidenced natural selection (go back and read the entire post you partially quoted) but that "others" had agreed that it was speciating.

I wasn't saying that I thought that it was an example of speciation.You saw the word "speciation" from my post ignoring what I had said from before you entered the thread and what the post (in full) actually said and went off into ignorant assumption mode and assumed the wrong thing.

Again, I wasn't saying that the European Peppered moth data from England evidenced speciation, because it just didn't.

Your assumption was incorrect, the error was yours. Read the post for what it says, not for the fact that it contains the word speciation.

If it was agreed upon that they were speciating, it wouldn't be so difficult to show this agreement among the scientists, but nobody actually agreed that they were. Some suspected it and thought they MIGHT be different species, and probably had not observed whether or not they could breed with one another during the time of the original study.

OK. I never said scientists agreed, I said "commentators". It's in the quote.

But aside from that, your last paragraph sounds like a retraction of your previous position and that scientists did comment about the variegated moths that they "MIGHT be different species" (and how else could we know unless these same scientists published such speculations)?

originally posted by: chr0naut
This is supposed to have happend through random interactions of basic chemistry in an inorganic soup?
Really?

originally posted by: noonebutme
Yes, really. That is the current line of thinking as there is no evidence that any of this was the result of a supernatural entity.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

"Humans are not particularly exceptional when it comes to the mechanisms of how life works,"

Said the Man/Woman typing on an electrical device that can transfer data across the world in less than a second.

a reply to: Barcs

I still feel like there is a distraction happening here. the moth argument is being blown up and attacked in order to present the illusion that if speciation of the peppered moth is found to be flawed, all of speciation is suspect. this is a fallacy.

then again the thread did start with "look at this video which is supposed to condense several fields of expertise into 10 minutes of brief summary because that is how education works"

i thought we were supposed to actually explain what is happening in the video for the benefit of those less informed, to avoid propagating ignorance