3
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 27:
Line 27: + Line 43:
Line 44: − − Which part is unclear? The statements concerning the fossil record and crossbreeding within a species are simple, factual observations. If the argument concernig rate of change in units of Darwins is not based on a linear function, what is it based on? And to clarify- by saying that Change approaches a horizontal assymptote, I mean that change continues over time, but becomes infinitely small and and never exceeds a fixed point. The dog may, through natural reproduction, become another kind of dog. But observation tells us that it will never sprout wings and become a bird. − -Chris J − :::: Ok, for starters, you refer "observation and Mendellian genetics theory suggest that evolutionary change is better described by a rational function bounded by an assymptote" - it isn't clear what your relevant vairable is that is being bounded. Continuing, your next sentence claims that "it is relatively easy to crossbreed a pure bred dog so that you obtain a mutt or a nearly pure bred dog of another species." I'm not even sure what to make of this sentence since dog breeds aren't separate species. You furthermore assert that "it will take an infinite amount of time to entirely replace the traits of the original breed with those of the new breed" if anything this is what one might have thought before Mendel. Since alleles come in discrete entities and one does not have genetic continua, this is false. Not only is it false, it is irrelevant, since whether we are able to breed something to be identical to some pre-existing similar organism is irrelevant. Your summary remarks that "The dog remains a dog" and your rephrase that "observation tells us that it will never sprout wings and become a bird" are simply assertions and not very relevant ones anyways(evolution wouldn't expect a dog to "sprout wings" although there are excellent examples of transitionals between true flyers and others). The terminology is so vague as to make it unclear exactly you mean that a dog will always remain a dog. Do you mean there will be never be a reproductive barrier? Do you mean that it will fit what your intuitive notion of what a dog looks like?. (Also, while we are on the topic of defintions, you use both "species" in a non-standard way, and use "kind" in a way that isn't even standard for creationists. If you are going to use terms in a non-standard fashion, defining them would be good). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:40, 13 February 2007 (EST) − − :::::Chris, I think you have a misconception of how common descent works. The claim that no dog will become anything other than another kind of dog is, in fact, true, according to evolutionary theory, not a challenge of it. The statement is essentially no different than the claim that mammals never become anything other than mammals, or eukaryotes will never be anything other than eukaryotes. Common descent specifies that evolution happens via nested clades: groups within groups, not one group becoming another. This can be confusing because Linnean taxonomy is static, not cladistic.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 18:22, 20 February 2007 (EST) − − ::::::Evolution proposes that complexity increases such that more advanced species somehow emerge from less sophisticated ones. This is has never been observed, has never been duplicated in a laboratory, and requires a reduction in entropy at constant energy that contradicts all observations. All observations are of devolution, or the disappearance or reduction in complexity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:34, 20 February 2007 (EST) − − ::::::: That's incorrect. Evolution does not make any claims about some species being more or less advanced. Evolution does not work on a ladder. Also, I'm not sure what you mean when you claim that increases in complexity have never been observed. As in many cases, this may depend on what you mean by complexity. However, regardless of what you mean a variety of mutations have been observed in humans and other species which add essentially new functions to the species. One common example of this is bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:07, 20 February 2007 (EST) − − I specified that evolutionary change is the dependent variable, or Y-value, bounded by a horizontal assymptote, with time as the independent variable, or X-value. Your second remark is entirely correct- I misused the word "species" when I meant to refer only to changes between breeds. Observation has shown that some dominant genetic traits tend to be passed on to an organism's offspring, but alleles place boundaries on the change that can occur through this process. It is true that it is difficult to quantify evolutionary change, since it does not appear to progress in any certain direction- another challenge to the above argument concerning the progress of evolutionary change over time. I chose a rational graph with the dependent variable bounded by a horizontal assymptote as an illustration because the aforementioned argument seemed to assume that evolutionary change could be expressed with respect to time or reproductive cycles by a linear graph. I chose the example of cross breeding because it is an example of the reproductive cycle being manipulated to produce maximum evolutionary change. The natural rate of change would be much slower, if indeed there were any measurable change. My statements about a dog "remaining a dog" and not changing species were meant only as examples of the genetic limitations of evolutionary change through natural reproduction, which is generaly limited by species, though somtimes by more inclusive levels of biological classification. − − : I'm not sure I completely follow some of what you said such as "Observation has shown that some dominant genetic traits tend to be passed on to an organism's offspring"- alleles are passed on just as frequently whether they are dominant or recessive. We are however, getting to the crux of the matter (although I incidentally note that you ignored the issue of discrete genetics), saying that change is "generaly limited by species, though somtimes by more inclusive levels of biological classification" is not useful. Beyond the species level all classification has a highly arbitrary element to it, at which point it isn't at all clear *why* you would presume that evolution at that level wouldn't occur (there is no sign of any magic barrier or such). This has also the incidental problem that speciation is in fact common. There are possibly hundreds of observed speciation events and I could easily provide (if you wanted) 10 or 15 of them and the relevant citations. (Also, many creationists support not just that speciation has occured but that rapid speciation occured right after the Deluge(indeed, in AIG's account this speciation happened far more uniformily and far faster than any biologist would ever predict and far faster than any observed level). To some extent this reflects a changing of the goalposts- 100 years ago no creationist acknowledged any form of evolution, then in the 1960s the evidence got overwhelming enough that the creationists conceded "microevolution" meaning evolution within species, and more recently many creationists now agree that evolution above the species level can occur, but not much above it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:14, 13 February 2007 (EST) − − '''Reply:''' − :::The boundry that defines into what an organism can and cannot evolve is not a "magic barrier" but its own DNA. An organism can only lose genetic information. There has never been an observed exception to this rule. What Chris tried to demonstrate (I think) by his example of a dog is that a dog can change but it cannot become anything beyond the limit set by its own genes; it cannot "sprout wings and become a bird" − − :::--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 21:00, 13 February 2007 (EST) − − ::::: Ben, this doesn't help at all. This is yet more vague assertions with undefined terms. And almost any defintion of the terms will in fact render the statements false. For example the claim that "an organism can only lose genetic information" - so in this context what do you mean by information? Do you mean in terms of Shannon's measure of information? This is easily seen to be false. Do you mean in terms of Kolmogorov complexity? Again, the claim is false. Indeed, by any reasonable defintion the claim is false. To see why consider the following: Consider some function f that is a function of the current genetic makeup of some creature and turns out some non-negative real number representing how much information there is in that genome. Now, suppose creature A through either mutation or recombination has offspring A' and f(A') < f(A) (that is, A' has lost information). Then the mutation that goes from A' to something with genome A is an example of a gain in information. Since all mutations are reversible, we've established that for any reasonable defintion of information, information can be gained (modulo the essentially trivial case of all genomes having the same information value) [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:27, 13 February 2007 (EST) − − #*'''Counter:''' Despite a century of teaching evolution in American schools, the majority of Americans still reject it. The burden of proof is on the evolutionists, and the proof just isn't there. Darwinists would be better off looking for another theory to try to replace Christianity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST) − − >95% of academic biologists support it. − − Those who argue against it have a poor understanding of biology. − − :'''Comment on logic''': I am sorry, but your answer is an appeal to authority, a common logical mistake. But its ok. I am sure there is still more evidence to support your point? [[User:David R|David R]] − − : '''Reply''': You say that "95% of academic biologists support it." What evidence do you have to support this statement? I have often wondered if there was a place were one could view this sort of information. It would be most helpful. − − : You go on to say that "Those who argue against it have a poor understanding of biology." Again, what evidence do you have to support this statement? Here are some creation biologists, to name a few: − − * Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist − * Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology − * Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education − * Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist − * Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience − * Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist − * Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology − * Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology − * Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist − * Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry − * Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry − − : All of them have doctoral degrees in some sort of biology and all argue against macro-evolution and for creationism. Are you claiming that all of them have a poor understanding of biology? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 23:29, 17 December 2006 (EST) − − : '''Another Reply''': I assume that you have a better understanding of biology upon which to base this attack? Please enlighten us; how would a wise biologist refute the facts that seemingly disprove evolution? Where is the host of intermediate links? When have biologists observed an organism acctually '''''gain''''' genetic information through a mutation rather than lose it? [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] − − :: '''Response''': I take it your claim is that all mutations cause a loss of genetic information. This claim is false. Consider: if all mutations cause a loss of genetic information, then point mutations cause a loss of genetic information. But all point mutations are reversible—that is, the nucleotide that changes can change back. So if the original point mutation caused a loss of information, the reversed mutation must cause a gain in information.--[[User:Stereotypical A|Stereotypical A]] 20:36, 20 February 2007 (EST) − − ::: REPLY: It requires intelligent intervention to reverse a mutation. Lost genetic information will not be restored simply by chance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:52, 20 February 2007 (EST) − − :::: Absolutely false. Point mutations can go either way (and frequently do). In fact, there are a number of tests which measure how mutagenic various mutagens are by using this property. Basically, you take a type of bactera which has a point mutation that leaves it unable to synthesize a necessary amino acid and then you grow a colony of that bacterium and expose them to the desired mutagen. Then you measure what fraction of the colony can survive if you remove the necessary amino acid from the medium. This sort of test has been done for about 30 years now. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:58, 20 February 2007 (EST) − Having studied and worked with scientists for a decade, and spending another decade debating armchair evolutionists, I've found that it is usually someone unsuccessful in the hard sciences (physical, chemistry, biology and you might add mathematics) who is drawn most to evolution. The late evolution-promoter Stephen Jay Gould, for example, was merely a geology major at Antioch College. Big evolution promoter Richard Dawkins was an assistant professor at Berkeley, and then a lecturer, and then it's not clear to me what his academic status was for a while. Meanwhile, real experts, such as Richard Sternberg who has TWO PhDs in evolution fields, have been critical of the theory. But Sternberg was harshly disciplined for daring to question the theory, and few are anxious to risk similar retaliation. − − >It is at least a puzzle to understand how Creationism accounts for seemingly-badly-designed aspects of anatomy and physiology. For example, the eyes of cephalopods (squid, octopus) and those of vertebrates (mammals, including humans) are strikingly similar in their general "design" with one conspicuous exception. In the cephalopod eye, the retina is structured exactly as one would expect: the light-sensitive receptors face forward, toward the lens, and the nerve fibers that join to form the optic nerve exit in the back. − − In the human eye, however, the retina is structured in a very surprising way that is exactly the reverse. The receptors face ''backwards,'' and not only the nerve fibers that collect to form the optic nerve but also all of the blood vessels that nourish it are in ''front,'' where they block the view and cast shadows on the retina. The result is that the human eye has a large and seemingly unnecessary blind spot, and that very intricate processing by the brain is necessary to hide the image of the shadows of the blood vessels. − − It all works, of course, but it is puzzling as to why an intelligent creator would design it this way, particularly given that the much older cephalopod eye does it the "right" way. No doubt it is ''possible'' to explain this (just as it is ''possible'' to explain fossils by saying that God created the fossils along with everything else in 4004 BC). − − It seems much easier to explain this as a series of incremental adaptations rather than as being "designed" the way a human engineer would design a camera. Of course that does not mean that the incremental adaptations were necessarily guided by pure natural selection as envisioned by Darwin, either. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:01, 18 December 2006 (EST) − − : '''Reply''': I don't know where you got the thing about creationists believing that God created the fossils in 4004 B.C., but I believe that the vast majority of fossils are the product of Noah's flood as it is described in Genesis. [[User:ChrisS|ChrisS]] − − :: The fossil and geological record is entirely inconsistent with this belief. Even if everything was, against all other evidence to the contrary, laid down in a single flood event, how come not even a single Cambrian fossil floated up into what mainstream geologists think of as modern strata, or a dinosaur sunk down into the Cambrian strata? Why are fossils laid out in the column in a very particular nested pattern of change over time rather than sorted according to which bodies float best or worst? [[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 07:08, 1 March 2007 (EST) − − : '''Reply''': I believe that almost everything you say here provides evidence '''for''' creation. Let me explain... in you first paragraph you state that mammals "are strikingly similar in their general 'design'". This is true but does this support macro-evolution? I think not. Wouldn't macro-evolution produce many different types of "eyes" that would work? Why are they all so similar? − − ::In fact, there ARE many different "evolutions" of eyes in the animal kingdom: many different sorts, in fact. However, the expectation that there would be many completely different types of eyes in one particular sub-branch that already started out having one particular SORT of eye is not what evolution would suggest, and isn't what we see. Common descent proposes descent via modification, not complete past-disregarding innovation. As such, we would expect that all mammal eyes would be nested variations of the same basic origin, and in fact that is exactly what we find. 07:08, 1 March 2007 (EST) − − : You go on to say that in the human the eye is just different from all these other eyes. You say this provides evidence against creation because, if it were true, why is it not the same as the others. Well, doesn't this also support creationism? Why would just one be different? Because our creator was original, he was an artist, not a robot. As for the "very intricate processing by the brain <nowiki>[that]</nowiki> is necessary to hide the image of the shadows of the blood vessels." This is more evidence for creation. Why would natural selection create a process like this? It seems pointless to us, but those "intricate" processes were intricately '''designed'''. Maybe our creator was trying to show that he existed... He created this one eye that wouldn't work; if it not for these amazing brain processes. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 15:11, 18 December 2006 (EST) − − ::It's certainly a point of view... but didn't you feel that you needed to work just a bit to arrive at it? − − ::Although it's certainly ''possible,'' I don't believe that God involves himself in the design details of vertebrate anatomy, and I certainly don't believe he goes to the effort of putting in deliberate design errors as a trick to test peoples' faith. I think a lot more likely that God created the general conditions under which evolution by natural selection takes place, and the "wrong" anatomy of the vertebrate retina is the result of the constraints of having evolved in gradual steps. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:48, 19 December 2006 (EST) − − : '''Reply:''' There is nothing to indicate that the human eye is an "error"; it works wonderfully. Also under the belief that God is omnipotent, I have no trouble as you do in believing that God would design the details of vertebrate anatomy, especially in light of the arguments against evolution below (with the possible exception of argument #7). Why would he let life progress at random when he could create every thing "fearfully and wonderfully" to reflect his awesome greatness?
Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true? (view source)
Revision as of 03:50, March 16, 2007
, 03:50, March 16, 2007entropy isn't the same as evolution
#***'''Counter:''' The time argument doesn't help. Decay, scattering, extinction, defects, disasters, etc., all INCREASE over time. Besides, all mutations are harmful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)
#***'''Counter:''' The time argument doesn't help. Decay, scattering, extinction, defects, disasters, etc., all INCREASE over time. Besides, all mutations are harmful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)
#****'''Counter:''' Mutations are ''mostly'' harmful, but not always.
#****'''Counter:''' Mutations are ''mostly'' harmful, but not always.
#****'''Additional Counter:'''Decay, scattering and defects are not part of the evolutionary theory. What proof is there that disasters increase over time? The increase of entropy in the universe is not even comparable to the process of evolution, which is the opposite of randomness. Evolution relies on natural selection, which as its name suggests, selects the best adapted organisms to reproduce, not random organisms.
#****'''Additional Counter:''' Seedless watermelons are an example of a mutation, so is corn (it used to be tiny). There is no way to claim, let alone prove that all mutations are harmful.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
#****'''Additional Counter:''' Seedless watermelons are an example of a mutation, so is corn (it used to be tiny). There is no way to claim, let alone prove that all mutations are harmful.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
#****'''Counter:''' Being seedless is harmful to the watermelon. The fact that it may be helpful to people in no way proves that being seedless is helpful for the reproduction of the watermelon. --[[User:Me4real|Me4real]] 13:31, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
#****'''Counter:''' Being seedless is harmful to the watermelon. The fact that it may be helpful to people in no way proves that being seedless is helpful for the reproduction of the watermelon. --[[User:Me4real|Me4real]] 13:31, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
-Chris J
-Chris J
::: Um, what? I'm a bit of a mathy person and have some background in genetics as well, and the above doesn't seem to be anything but an assertion dressed up in mathematical terminology. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:06, 13 February 2007 (EST)
::: Um, what? I'm a bit of a mathy person and have some background in genetics as well, and the above doesn't seem to be anything but an assertion dressed up in mathematical terminology. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:06, 13 February 2007 (EST)