quote:

Originally posted by Knight Rider The fact that evolutionist claims based on biogeography are myths devoid of any scientific evidence clearly emerge on inspection their claims about palaeontology. The fossil record clearly reveals that the idea that living things spread by evolving is a myth.

Would you care to elaborate on this conclusion you came to? How does the fossil record reveal that spreading through evolving is a myth? If anything, it reveals the very opposite. Why are there marsupials living in Australia? Their nurturing system is far inferior to that of normal mammals. Why are there flightless birds living on Galapagos islands who share a striking resemblance to regular flying birds from nearby continents?

I must also say that you are totally incorrect when you keep insisting that evolution is random. It is not random. The mutations are random (don't tell me you also believe that mutations don't happen either), but the principle which chooses which mutations will be carried on and which ones will die out is not random. Otherwise we'd all deteriorate to clumps of organic goo.

___________________
1+1=10

Remember to join


Project Steve

That way they will be forced to design a new t-shirt!

___________________
Светопресавление
your pearl casting hero

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I must also say that you are totally incorrect when you keep insisting that evolution is random. It is not random.

If you say so.

I do not believe I have rejected the notion of mutation. I adhere to the notion that evolution is random since it is based on atleast one random mechanism. The point which has risen from this thread is of amalgamation between probability and certainty. Is such a contradicting combination possible in the subsistence of life ?

One cannot answer a question like that with 'evolution'. One has to understand the principles behind design and chance prior to tackling/answering (what I feel to be) an important question.

The fact is that scientists with basic understanding of probability may perceive and process observational data quite differently to those who specialise in probability (That's just an example, it works both ways). Then, would one not agree, that a chance exists for scientists to have misunderstood observational evidence ?

My argument is that the 'system' can only exist on absolute conditioning. It’s either/or, not both.

quote:

Originally posted by Knight Rider Tell me, if it is not deliberate, then what is it ?

What do you mean, “what is it?” It is what it is, I guess – random mutation and natural selection, nothing more. That’s like asking what is Hydrogen? A random molecule occurring in the majority of our universe with one electron and proton. We’re merely talking about the properties of something here, in this case it’s the mechanism of evolution – I’m not sure what else you’re going to get out of that question really.

quote:

The weakness of evolution is that it is based on a 'random' process - chance.

You know, I have to admit, you creationists really give me a chuckle every time I have this discussion with you folks. No matter what is said or verified right in front of you – you’ll continue to restate and repeat your point over and over, regardless of the strength or weakness of your opinion, regardless of whether or not you can even support your opinion.

You state that evolution is weak because it has a random process – mutation. You have demonstrated in absolutely no way how this is weak. Evidence supporting a theory determines the strength or weakness of that theory or argument. As I’ve aptly demonstrated previously, there’s a wealth of evidence supporting random mutation being part of the process of evolution.

Therefore, as a result of consistent, verifiable, tested, retested, and falsifiable evidence supporting random mutation, there is a great amount of strength supporting it.

OTOH, the evidence supporting a deliberate design by a deliberate designer with no known, observed, tested, verified, or falsified mechanism is absent. You have presented absolutely none so far, nor has any IDer or creationist for that matter.

And yet you continue to call evolution “weak”.

Funny how logic and reason works.

quote:

This is where I disagree with you. If design (which is always deliberate) relies on chance, then it cannot be a design. The evidence we observe may well be an aspect of 'deliberate' design (not chance) which we have yet to comprehend.

You can disagree with me all you want. As of yet you’ve presented nothing to support your case. But what’s worse, you fall back on “have yet to comprehend” to support the case for deliberate design.

OTOH, I’ve presented verifiable, observed, and testable evidence supporting my case. I’ve presented the nylon-eating bacteria as an example from a simple frame shift mutation. Here’s some more:

quote:

Evolution: single-gene speciation by left-right reversal. Ueshima R, Asami T. Nature. 2003 Oct 16;425(6959):679. Summary: A single gene gives rise to the mirror-image form of a snail's body plan, which could become established as a different species if mating is prevented between snails of different chirality by genital mismatch. Here we use molecular phylogeny to demonstrate the parallel evolution of reversal between left and right lineages of the Japanese land snail Euhadra. We find that the different mirror-image forms have evolved in favour of the genetically dominant handedness as a result of single-gene speciation. http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaP...425679a_fs.html

IOW, a single gene mutation changed the shell pattern of the snail.

Here’s a big review paper that outlines dozens of experiments:

quote:

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaP...ml&filetype=pdf Abstract: Microorganisms have been mutating and evolving on Earth for billions of years. Now, a field of research has developed around the idea of using microorganisms to study evolution in action. Controlled and replicated experiments are using viruses, bacteria and yeast to investigate how their genomes and phenotypic properties evolve over hundreds and even thousands of generations. Here, we examine the dynamics of evolutionary adaptation, the genetic bases of adaptation, tradeoffs and the environmental specificity of adaptation, the origin and evolutionary consequences of mutators, and the process of drift decay in very small populations.

Now if you’re asking whether or not the mutation itself is a random event vs. a directed event, some classic experiments directly answered that question:

http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/~smaloy/Mic...luctuation.html

And here’s a good summary of the history of the current research:

quote:

This simple approach, subsequently perfected by many investigators and extended over the years to many different systems, led eventually to the general conclusion that indeed mutations are not directed by the selective needs of the organism, or in evolutionary lingo, that they are “random with regard to fitness”. These results were critical in the development of the neo-darwinian New Synthesis. And there sat this “orthodoxy”, this “dogma”, for 45 years, so routinely and extensively confirmed in bacteriology and toxicology labs that everyone took it for granted, until 1988. In that year, a paper was published in Nature, one of the very top science journals, by John Cairns, a very well known geneticist, and his collaborators [2]. Titled “The origin of mutants”, the paper described an experiment not much unlike Luria’s: in this case, mutants were selected for their ability to re-activate a crippled gene that allowed them to metabolize the sugar lactose, the only source of energy avaliable on the selection plates. However, unlike phage selection, starvation does not kill the bacteria immediately, but allows them a certain time to try to escape their dire situation. To everyone’s surprise, Cairns reported that in these conditions, besides a number of early-growing mutant colonies that followed the expected Luria-Delbruck distribution, he could observe many late-growing resistant clones with a much more homogeneous distribution, which indicated that the mutations followed, and not preceded, the exposure to selection. Even more strikingly, when mutations at a different gene were analyzed in the lactose revertants, no mutations were observed. In other words, the mutations appeared to be “directed” by the selection process specifically to the gene under selection. Cairns and co-workers concluded therefore that at least in some cases, mutations could be specifically directed by selective pressures. Bam. The door was opne for teleology. Adieu, "darwinist orthodoxy". Cairns even "brazenly" raised the specter of possible Lamarckian hereditary mechanisms – one cannot get more heretic than that! It’s not that the paper flew below the radar – everybody understood its implications. In the same issue of Nature, Franklin Stahl, another one of the founding fathers of bacterial genetics, endorsed its conclusions and ventured his own model of how directed mutations may happen [3]. In the following weeks, several letters about Cairns’ findings were published in the same journal, most of them raising questions with the experimental design. For instance, it turns out that, for experimental reasons, the gene under selection was located not on the main bacterial chromosome, but on a separate genetic element called a plasmid; some possible implications of this positioning for the mutation process had escaped Cairns. Others argued that his selection of “control” non-selected gene was not ideal, also based on some genetic considerations regarding that gene’s functional properties. No one called for Cairns’ metaphorical head, no one argued how Nature could have dared publishing anti-darwinian material. In fact, bacterial geneticists all over the world set out to investigate the new claims in their own labs. Cairns' basic observations were throroughly replicated, ruling out basic artifacts, and several investigators set up different experimental models to test the principle, and also obtained results suggesting "directed" mutations. From the skeptic side, alternative mechanistic explanations for the “directed” mutation claim were tested, which ultimately confirmed that the new phenomena fell within the darwinian framework. Although its conclusions were often criticized on an evidence basis, Cairns’ paper not only was not suppressed, but was directly referenced in hundreds of articles (497 to date, accorsding to the ISI Citation Index). The back-and-forth papers and scientific correspondence in major journals make for excellent (and often entertaining, if that's your kind of thing) reading on the matter [4]. Within a few years, evidence accumulated for non-teleological models of mutation. By 1998, essentially everyone in the field, including Cairns and his closest collaborators, agreed that the original observation did not reflect “directed” mutations, which by that time had been re-baptized with the less loaded term "adaptive mutations" [5, 6]. Nevertheless, several interesting features of bacterial biology had been discovered in the process. One alternative model for the observations proposes that starved bacteria enter a “hypermutable” state , either by virtue of a specific genetic “rescue” program, or as a result of breakdown of normal cellular control mechanisms [7]. In this state, high levels of mutations are introduced throughout the bacterial genome, but selection for specific mutants makes it appear as if the environmental conditions preferentially targeted mutations to the selected gene. Importantly, this mechanism has relevance for the onset of bacterial resistance to antibiotic drugs, and possibly to certain cellular states involved in cancer development [5]. In another novel mechanism which has been observed, a multiplication of the copies of the crippled gene (“amplification”) is first favorably selected because it leads to a small but detectable increase in its product’s minimal activity [8]. This massive gene amplification makes for better chances of mutation, and when these occur the extra gene copies become a burden, and are eliminated by selection. The final result is the appearance of highly targeted mutations. Research on all these mechanisms is actively ongoing [9]. http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000104.html

quote:

Remember, around 70 yrs ago scientists were adamant that the atom was the smallest particle known to man. This supposed fact was taught in schools. Point being, that science has been wrong in the past, and as you say, given time, fresher evidence emerges in anticipation that we, as the human race, may understand the truth (fact) one day.

You go right along and hold your breath for that day to come.

I like my oxygen just fine with the current evidence that continues to support the current theory. As I’ve said before, evolution may certainly be knocked off its perch, but there’s going to have to be something that will disprove the current paleontological, anthropological, geological, biological, and genetic mountain of evidence that supports evolution. That’s quite a mountain to climb for something like ID which has really been around since the days of Paley and his Blind Watchmaker analogy in the late 18th Century. Of course the present form of ID has really been around probably since the early 90’s with Philips book as well as Behe’s book in ’94, but it’s funny how they’ve given absolutely NO verifiable research to support their case, ain’t it? I mean, hey, it’s only been 10-15 years now – surely they would have produced something of substance by now, wouldn’t they?

Or perhaps, just perhaps they would have a mechanism that explains their theory by now? Not even one that could be tested, mind you – just name a mechanism. None yet?

Or perhaps, just perhaps, they spend a wee bit too much time trying to Wedge their unsupported, unverified theory in the State BOEs across the country, as well as throw out propaganda to churches? Perhaps they could use some of that money to actually do some research to support their theory for a change?

Wanna take some bets as to whether or not they’ll actually do this?

quote:

Complete nonsense I'm afraid. The probabilities of sustaining simple life exceed the realms of plausibility and enter absurdity.

Incorrect. I’ve demonstrated the fallacy of this argument with my example posted earlier. The probability argument almost always rests with random mutation rates only, and does not take natural selection in as a factor. You have presented nothing to support your assertion, yet I’ve provided a clear cut example based on research.

quote:

I used the machine example to illustrate the sheer size of the numbers we are dealing with.

And I’ve discussed how such an example can be false and misleading. In fact, one may argue that computers themselves utilize evolutionary principles:

quote:

With the availability of fast, powerful computers and computer simulation techniques, even engineers (the prototypical intelligent designers!) are using the creative powers of natural selection to aid them in their design efforts. The technique of "genetic algorithms", pioneered by computer scientist John H. Holland at the University of Michigan, simulates the mechanism of Darwinian evolution, involving mating, genetic recombination, reproduction, selection and mutation to design jet engines, integrated circuit chips, scheduling work in a busy machine shop, operating gas-pipeline pumping stations and recognizing patterns. 1989. "Natural Selection for Computers" Science News 136(22); 346-348 (November 25)

Genetic algorithms have gone a long ways since then, of course.

quote:

Then why call it 'random' selection ?

Who calls it “random” selection? I know of no evolutionist or biologist that names natural selection as “random selection”. You’ve created this arbitrary name on your own.

quote:

Why do the text books (certainly the ones I have read) refer to evolution as a process of random selection ? Unless of course this is an example of how the theory of evolution is evolving.

Name one text book that calls the “natural selection” process of evolution random. Give me the author’s name, page, year published, and publisher. I have several biology textbooks in both the high school and collegiate level (Biol.101 textbooks). I’m very interested in seeing exactly which textbook taught in public schools has this description.

quote:

I can accept a model which permits intelligent design to adapt to dynamic surroundings, merely because the system in question is designed to do so. One may argue that evolution (random selection/chance) plays an active role in the process of adaptation based on observable evidence. We are misunderstood, perhaps. There is that chance.

Considering you have presented no evidence to support your assertions, while at the same time I have presented evidence to support mine, I don’t think there’s any misunderstanding on my part.

As it seems, there’s plenty misunderstanding on your side.

quote:

Either way, there is a fundamental and crucial difference between the two methodologies. Chance is probability, where as design is certainty.

How did these two mechanisms, one which is verified and supported while the other is not, become methodologies?

Design, or deliberate design would be a certainty if there was any evidence to support it. What is “certain” by any empirical standard in the reality-based world is that which is observed, tested, retested, verified, and falsified. Nothing about ID has passed this in any manner, so there’s very little “certainty” about it.

quote:

PS : No need to apologise about your view. You are entitled to it and users should respect that.

Thanks. I do try to support my view with verifiable evidence, however. Something that would greatly enhance your own argument at this time.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Well yes, there is an explanation - a mutation can indeed create new, novel features, as well as add, subtract, or duplicate already existing ones. It's entirely up to natural selection, however, to divy up the ones that are more or less advantageous to that organism and passes that down to generations with the ones that are more or less harmful to that organism where consequently they do not get passed down. The nylon bacterial bug, for example, produced a brand new novel feature that did not exist within the bacterial organism before. Or, take a mutation that increases both the bone length and density: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/346/20/1513 That would certainly qualify, would it not? Here's some more papers worth looking up on PubMed: There's literally thousands of examples of mutations giving rise to brand new novel features.

Thats not an explaination for a whole new complex organ though. That is single gene mutations which do not, as far as I can see create whole new organs. Yes they can dublicate given organs or change organs, or production of certain chemicals or structures. Which is very different to incremental changes. But how for example would the eye developed? Thats more what I mean.

Could be said that perhaps old redundant organs mutate into new useful ones? But it is just the way that hugely random mutations would need to build upon one another to create anything complex.

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Could be said that perhaps old redundant organs mutate into new useful ones? But it is just the way that hugely random mutations would need to build upon one another to create anything complex.

If the new functionality derived from said mutation is indeed a new, useful function, how can one say that the mutation was, in fact, random? It would seem that since the resulting new functionality serves a purpose, that the mutation was not a matter of chance so much as it was about hitting a critical point during mitosis that finally moved the needle enough to cause a specific, non-random mutation to finally occur.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Thats not an explaination for a whole new complex organ though.

Well actually it is. Keep in mind that we’re talking about tens of thousands to hundreds of millions of years here. A successive change that gives rise to either a modification of a previous feature and/or a brand new novel complex one by a mere mutation or two is pretty incredible. This accumulation of changes filtered out by natural selection gives exactly what you’re referring to. Now in the absence of that natural selection filter, we have no mutations (i.e. deleterious ones) being selected against, resulting in much lower fitness:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=15295601

quote:

Mutations have pivotal functions in the onset of genetic diseases and are the fundamental substrate for evolution. However, present estimates of the spontaneous mutation rate and spectrum are derived from indirect and biased measurements. For instance, mutation rate estimates for Caenorhabditis elegans are extrapolated from observations on a few genetic loci with visible phenotypes and vary over an order of magnitude. Alternative approaches in mammals, relying on phylogenetic comparisons of pseudogene loci and fourfold degenerate codon positions, suffer from uncertainties in the actual number of generations separating the compared species and the inability to exclude biases associated with natural selection. Here we provide a direct and unbiased estimate of the nuclear mutation rate and its molecular spectrum with a set of C. elegans mutation-accumulation lines that reveal a mutation rate about tenfold higher than previous indirect estimates and an excess of insertions over deletions. Because deletions dominate patterns of C. elegans pseudogene variation, our observations indicate that natural selection might be significant in promoting small genome size, and challenge the prevalent assumption that pseudogene divergence accurately reflects the spontaneous mutation spectrum.

quote:

That is single gene mutations which do not, as far as I can see create whole new organs. Yes they can dublicate given organs or change organs, or production of certain chemicals or structures. Which is very different to incremental changes.

How so? The production of a new structure – say a longer bone or increased bone density, is exactly what an incremental change is by definition. Would such a mutation be more advantageous to, say, a larger more highly developed organism that holds more body weight versus one of its smaller ancesters? Of course. Just an example.

quote:

But how for example would the eye developed? Thats more what I mean. Could be said that perhaps old redundant organs mutate into new useful ones? But it is just the way that hugely random mutations would need to build upon one another to create anything complex.

If I’m to understand you here, you seem to be asking whether or not a mutation or two creates a brand new, incredibly highly complex structure like the human eye for example. The short answer is it’s probable, but highly unlikely that a mere mutation could perform such a thing. This process to such a highly complex structure like the eye takes successive, incremental changes via mutation and natural selection over a pretty good period of time. Keep in mind that when discussing evolution, we’re discussing a population, not an individual. Therefore, changes via genetic drift are going to take place, but isolationism of some kind has to occur in order for accumulated changes to really make a difference, more or less, over a great deal of time. I certainly don’t put you in the following category, but a common mistake by creationists is to ask – “well what good is ½ an eye?”, which indicates a misunderstanding of the evolutionary process on developing complex features:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html

All the tiny little features of a complex eye have to develop over time. Here’s an article that addresses that point by discussing the evolution of color vision:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vision.html

So we can extrapolate from the genetic information that we know about mutation and natural selection on the evolution of complex features, combine that with present day examples of lesser organisms that have some, part, or most of the same features (depending on the cladistic hierarchy of that animal, of course) via comparative and developmental biology, as well as compare the genetic similarity of such organisms with our own, and reliably infer an evolutionary pathway of a particular organism such as the eye for example. Without fossilization of squishy critters and organs, this is usually the methodology, more or less.


Added in Edit Just found a pretty cool little video on this subject:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

Dawkins also chimes in:

http://web.archive.org/web/20011031150450/http:/www.world-of-dawkins.com/peepers.htm

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka If the new functionality derived from said mutation is indeed a new, useful function, how can one say that the mutation was, in fact, random?

Well logically speaking, just because something beneficial occurs randomly doesn’t entail that such an event would not be random.

But genetically speaking, the random process only occurs at first – mutation. The selective process proceeding the random mutation process is nature’s effective filter in weeding out the deleterious or harmful mutations from the beneficial ones that ultimately give rise to increased fitness levels for a given population.

quote:

It would seem that since the resulting new functionality serves a purpose, that the mutation was not a matter of chance so much as it was about hitting a critical point during mitosis that finally moved the needle enough to cause a specific, non-random mutation to finally occur.

Well mitosis doesn’t have much to do with it really, but I do understand what you’re saying. There is no “critical” moment involved here really – IOW there is no known directed mechanism involved. No evidence has shown any directed mutation events occurring, and as I’ve outlined earlier the opposite actually occurs (random mutation).

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Well logically speaking, just because something beneficial occurs randomly doesn’t entail that such an event would not be random. But genetically speaking, the random process only occurs at first – mutation. The selective process proceeding the random mutation process is nature’s effective filter in weeding out the deleterious or harmful mutations from the beneficial ones that ultimately give rise to increased fitness levels for a given population. Well mitosis doesn’t have much to do with it really, but I do understand what you’re saying. There is no “critical” moment involved here really – IOW there is no known directed mechanism involved. No evidence has shown any directed mutation events occurring, and as I’ve outlined earlier the opposite actually occurs (random mutation).

Hence humanity's only other primary, logical conclusion--that God did it. Right?

Dude, I am so not involved in this discussion for reasons mentioned on page 1. I only threw a comment in there on a whim.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Hence humanity's only other primary, logical conclusion--that God did it. Right? Dude, I am so not involved in this discussion for reasons mentioned on page 1. I only threw a comment in there on a whim.

Oh you know you wanna be involved in this geeky biology shit. You sooooo want to...

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Oh you know you wanna be involved in this geeky biology shit. You sooooo want to...

I gave up on this field after I wasted good elective credit hours taking classes like advanced biology and organic chemistry. I buried everything I knew about it deep in the underbelly of my cerebral cortex, hoping to never have it surface again. I believe in nurtured nature!