|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 11/20/2007 12:44:46 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1424
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
When time of insertion is inferred from the data it mirrors the nested hierarchy produced by morphology. It's a stunning confirmation of evolution.
You mean when time of insertion is speculated. Regardless, it wouldn't produce a nested hierarchy for reasons already stated.
quote:
This is the only possibility, and it would be exceedingly rare.
No, this is just one example, there are many (see the next response for details).
quote:
It is much more probable that the HERV would be present in low numbers throughout the population, such as seen with HERV-K115.
Yes, it would be present in low numbers throughout the population; however, it's completely possible for someone to have HERV-K115 and have a brother and cousin that doesn't have it yet have someone with a completely different nationality have this genetic sequence. Again, a violation of this nested hierarchy that doesn't go away when the distant species speciate. This is not the exception, it would most likely be the rule. To produce a nested hierarchy one would have to set one up intentionally.
Also, it may only become more evenly distributed within a breeding population after a very long period of time (ie: after many many generations) assuming that no members of the population has speciated by then. At first, it would not be evenly distributed, it would be disproportionate, areas within closer proximity of the virus would have it with higher percentages. It would be highly unlikely that a high percentage of the (parent) population would acquire this (unless it's somehow favored by natural selection, which is unlikely in the case of a retrovirus). However, this is irrelevant to the point I am getting across.
quote:
ERV's are observed to be static within populations. Most of the 200,000 ERV's in the human genome are homozygous within the population.
These alleged ERV's that are already there. However, I am referring to newly acquired ERV's. Notice I use the word, "become" as in after their acquirement is observed. At one time, these alleged 200,000 ERV's were new and we are trying to determine if there is any reason for them to have formed any sort of nested hierarchy to begin with (at the proximate time they were acquired). You are observing these ERV's and assuming that they would form a nested hierarchy based on the fact that you perceive a nested hierarchy, but this is not to say that evolution actually predicts that they would form such an alleged nested hierarchy.
quote:
It's an unavoidable consequence of population genetics.
How so? Please tell me in your own words.
quote:
If an ERV becomes fixed in a population after sharing common ancestry with chimps it will still form a nested hiearchy.
Note the word "if". Even "if" it becomes fixed (no reason for it to) it will still not form any sort of nested hierarchy. It could become fixed in two populations with a further relationship than a third population. Even if that doesn't happen, you still won't have a nested hierarchy simply because an ERV somehow became fixed within a population. You need a specific pattern to form any such hierarchy.
quote:
For example, many human ERV's inserted and fixed in human ancestors. Those ERV's are not found in gorillas, macaques, or other primates in the same position in the genome. The nested hierarchy is observed.
You are assuming that PCD has occurred and then claiming that, based on this assumption, this is what UCD would predict. However, you haven't actually demonstrated that this is what UCD predicts. You are assuming that which you are trying to prove, bad logic. I have explained why UCD does not predict any such hierarchy.
quote:
The ERV would be spread throughout the population. You need a breeding population in order to speciate.
There is no reason the entire population would acquire it. Even if it does, it still won't form any sort of nested hierarchy.
quote:
They do go away because horizontal transfer no longer occurs.
How does this cause them to go away? The violations do not go away, they don't just disappear. Even if they do go away through random mutations over a long period of time, those random mutations still won't form any such hierarchy. It'll just form a mess of mutations.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 11/20/2007 2:28:44 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 11/20/2007 1:24:03 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1424
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
For further information on the problems with nested hierarchy see here.
quote:
BTW Zachriel, humans are eukaryotes. And if one can't make a nested hierarchy out of our alleged single-celled ancestors why would one expect to be able to make one from their descendants? From chaos, order? From the survival of random replicators?
http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2006/12/nested-hierarchy-fiasco.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 11/20/2007 1:41:35 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1424
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
However, if each brother or cousin is going to start a new species then they need someone to mate with, as do their children. This requires a breeding population.
When they start a new specie, at the point of speciation, there is no breeding population for the new specie (at least no large breeding population, just a few members from their parents). It's probable for the parents of a new specie to carry some genes that two other parents with a closer relationship don't share yet two other parents from a further relationship do share. Violations are inevitable, especially over millions of years. Violations will not be the exception, they will be the rule.
quote:
10% of each of those breeding populations will have HERV-K115. Each of those species will have the ERV.
When a new specie is started, it's possible (and highly probably) that, at the point of speciation, the new specie will carry traits that other new species of a closer relationship don't carry, yet that new species of a further population do carry. We see violations all over the place within a specie, those won't just disappear when the species speciate.
Also, there is no reason for 10% of each of those breeding populations to have HERV-K115 . In fact, that would be unlikely, why should HERV-K115 care to spread itself across 10% of each breeding population? There is no reason for it to do so.
When a new breeding population forms it will either have members that have HERV-K115 or it won't. If the (two) parents of the new breeding population do not have HERV-K115 (which is completely possible) then the entire breeding population will not have it (lets call this breeding population a which came from parent population A). It's completely possible for another group of members within parent population A to form a new breeding population, breeding population b, with breeding population b having a parent (that is, at least one of the two parents) with HERV-K115. It's possible that one of the parents from breeding population a is a close relative with one of the parents from breeding population b (that is, the parents from parent population A). Then, it's completely possible for someone with a much more distant relationship from either parents of population a or b to have HERV-K115 and form a new breeding population, breeding population c. This will be a violation of the nested hierarchy where two populations with a closer relationship don't share a trait that two populations with a further relationship do share. Given all the genes in existence, it's highly highly unlikely that, over the alleged time of evolution, not a single gene would form a violation. Chances are, there would be tons of violations and over time those violations will continue to accumulate more violations forming a mess. I don't know where you get the idea that 10% of each breeding population will have HERV-K115. I don't see how this would be the case, it would be highly unlikely. If you mean that about 10% of the parent population would have the virus, even if it is somehow evenly distributed among the parent population (assuming that speciation only occurs after retro viruses have somehow managed to evenly distribute throughout the parent population and at no other time, which is unlikely but irrelevant), there is no reason for the population to speciate into any sort of nested hierarchy.
Also, for those of you who still insist that UCD somehow predicts a nested hierarchy (despite the fact that there is no reason for it to) I think you might find the following link interesting.
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0040352&ct=1
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-sound-of-a-nested-heirarchy-shattering/
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 11/20/2007 2:41:02 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 11/20/2007 3:03:46 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1424
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Again, this alleged nested hierarchy for higher taxons resists UCD (for reasons stated above) and it resists horizontal gene transfer.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
Any examples of horizontal transfer between primates?
Are you suggesting that, if a violation were found, they would not attribute it (through unsubstantiated speculation) to horizontal gene transfer?
quote:
The eyeless, earless [sea urchin] has genes that, in us, are involved in detecting sight and sound — Nature.
If new genetic programs must be deilvered by gene transfer, as we believe, we would expect to also find them sometimes in life forms that do not need them. Many such examples are known. The apparently unnecessary sensory genes in the sea urchin may provide another example.
http://www.panspermia.org/whatsne44.htm
We find violations in this alleged nested hierarchy and the secular community quickly speculates horizontal gene transfer. Despite the existence of violations and the fact that UCD never predicts a nested hierarchy to begin with, this alleged nested hierarchy makes it difficult for committed naturalists to argue that horizontal gene transfer was a significant factor in causing the diversity of life. The evidence is designed to resist naturalistic explanation.
Here is another violation
http://neurophilosophy.wordpress.com/2006/11/27/the-brain-of-the-humpback-whale-contains-human-neurons/
Also, another violation
quote:
The way in which chromosomes determine sex in mammals and birds was thought to have evolved independently after the two classes diverged 300 million years ago.
"But this links the two systems together and raises the issue of whether the ancestral mammal had a sex chromosome system similar to birds,” says Grützner.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6568
Of course, they later attribute this violation to common ancestry, showing that this alleged hierarchy is arbitrary and predicts nothing. UCD merely accommodates whatever evidence that exists.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 11/20/2007 12:05:06 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1122
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
Any examples of horizontal transfer between primates?
Are you suggesting that, if a violation were found, they would not attribute it (through unsubstantiated speculation) to horizontal gene transfer?
Show me an example of horizontal transfer between primate species. If you can't, then the only mode of transfer is vertical genetic transfer. This process produces a nested hierarchy.
quote:
The eyeless, earless [sea urchin] has genes that, in us, are involved in detecting sight and sound — Nature.
If new genetic programs must be deilvered by gene transfer, as we believe, we would expect to also find them sometimes in life forms that do not need them. Many such examples are known. The apparently unnecessary sensory genes in the sea urchin may provide another example.
It's called exaption. Look into it.
Also, these genes are found in all metazoans, so how does this violate the nested hierarchy?
quote:
Here is another violation
http://neurophilosophy.wordpress.com/2006/11/27/the-brain-of-the-humpback-whale-contains-human-neurons/
How is this a violation? What are the genetic sequences that produce spindle neurons? Are they more similar to humans than evolution predicts?
quote:
The way in which chromosomes determine sex in mammals and birds was thought to have evolved independently after the two classes diverged 300 million years ago.
"But this links the two systems together and raises the issue of whether the ancestral mammal had a sex chromosome system similar to birds,” says Grützner.
The genes which control sex in platypusses are also found in humans. The arrangement of sex chromosomes is certainly interesting, but chromosome numbers frequently bounce all over the place, even in mammals.
Again, ERV's are predicted to fall into a nested hierarchy. They fall into a nested hierarchy. If it was "arbitrary" then you would be able to find thousands of violations. You can't. There are only two that I know of (HERV-K), but compared to the 200,000 ERV's shared between chimps and humans this is what one would expect from homoplasy.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 11/20/2007 12:45:47 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1424
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
Show me an example of horizontal transfer between primate species.
Show me a mode of transfer between, "The eyeless, earless [sea urchin]" and primates or admit that lack of observable mechanism is not a problem for UCD and even if violations are found, they could attribute it to horizontal gene transfer.
quote:
If you can't, then the only mode of transfer is vertical genetic transfer. This process produces a nested hierarchy.
Organisms speciating would not produce any such nested hierarchy for reasons already stated.
quote:
It's called exaption. Look into it.
They are attributing it to horizontal gene transfer, proving you wrong.
quote:
How is this a violation? What are the genetic sequences that produce spindle neurons? Are they more similar to humans than evolution predicts?
They are more similar to humans than organisms that were supposedly more closely related to humans.
quote:
Spindle neurons are thought to have emerged in a common hominid ancestor some 15 million years ago, as they are not found in the lesser apes or other species of primates.
http://neurophilosophy.wordpress.com/2006/11/27/the-brain-of-the-humpback-whale-contains-human-neurons/
quote:
The genes which control sex in platypusses are also found in humans.
They were previously thought to have evolved independently, so they formed one arbitrary nested hierarchy. However, they found that
quote:
The X5 carries a gene called DMRT1, which is also found on the Z chromosome in birds.
Which is a violation of the previous arbitrary nested hierarchy. Now there is evidence of a violation in the previous arbitrary nested hierarchy so they are trying to form some new arbitrary nested hierarchy to accommodate it.
quote:
Again, ERV's are predicted to fall into a nested hierarchy.
There is no reason for them to.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 11/20/2007 2:17:03 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1122
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Show me a mode of transfer between, "The eyeless, earless [sea urchin]" and primates or admit that lack of observable mechanism is not a problem for UCD and even if violations are found, they could attribute it to horizontal gene transfer.
They are claiming that sea urchins and humans share the same genes through the common ancestor of deuterosomes.
quote:
Organisms speciating would not produce any such nested hierarchy for reasons already stated.
Reasons that I have refuted. Your examples treat humans as asexual reproducers. They aren't.
quote:
They are attributing it to horizontal gene transfer, proving you wrong.
Where?
quote:
quote:
How is this a violation? What are the genetic sequences that produce spindle neurons? Are they more similar to humans than evolution predicts?
They are more similar to humans than organisms that were supposedly more closely related to humans.
The wings of bats are closer to birds than to human arms. However, the genetic and morphological differences are quite greate between bats and birds. This is convergent evolution.
You still can't explain the FACT that ERV's fall into a nested hierarchy, the same nested hierarchy produced by morphology. Evolution can explain, ID can't.
quote:
Spindle neurons are thought to have emerged in a common hominid ancestor some 15 million years ago, as they are not found in the lesser apes or other species of primates.
And they probably did in the primate lineage. Humpback whales do not contain human neurons. They contain humpback whale neurons.
quote:
They were previously thought to have evolved independently, so they formed one arbitrary nested hierarchy. However, they found that
quote:
The X5 carries a gene called DMRT1, which is also found on the Z chromosome in birds.
The DMRT1 gene is also found in humans.
quote:
quote:
Again, ERV's are predicted to fall into a nested hierarchy.
There is no reason for them to.
How anyone can honestly claim this is beyond me. Anyone else have an opinion? Dr. Mark? Unklemonk?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 11/20/2007 9:15:36 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1424
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
They are claiming that sea urchins and humans share the same genes through the common ancestor of deuterosomes.
No they are not.
quote:
If new genetic programs must be deilvered by gene transfer
http://www.panspermia.org/whatsne44.htm
For anyone who reads the web page, it becomes very obvious that they are referring to horizontal gene transfer. For example, just below this quote they cite
quote:
Viruses and Other Gene Transfer Mechanisms is a related CA webpage [Next-What'sNEW about HGT-Prev].
Another quote from the cite,
quote:
"The new DNA record tells us that the probabilities are in favor ...of multiple species coming up with the same particular solutions again and again" (p 37). If he is claiming that probabilities favor convergent genetic evolution by darwinian mutation etc., without gene transfer, the logic is both gapped and circular.
If you read its context, it becomes very clear that they are referring to horizontal gene transfer. You may not admit it but this is for everyone else on this message board who will read it and clearly see what they are referring to. I think your best best is to admit that you're wrong, because continually denying something that's so obviously wrong (and hoping no one else will read the page I cited and read the context of the citation) over and over will not help convince people that you're right. As for me, I don't mind at all, you keep on denying what the context of the article is referring to (despite the clear context of the site that anyone can read) and it'll just make your side look worse.
quote:
Where?
The quote that I cited. Read it and read the context of it (and the context of the page).
quote:
The wings of bats are closer to birds than to human arms. However, the genetic and morphological differences are quite greate between bats and birds. This is convergent evolution.
Yet another speculated (non - observed) mechanism that can account for violations.
quote:
You still can't explain the FACT that ERV's fall into a nested hierarchy, the same nested hierarchy produced by morphology. Evolution can explain, ID can't.
I have demonstrated that UCD does not predict any such thing.
quote:
And they probably did in the primate lineage. Humpback whales do not contain human neurons. They contain humpback whale neurons.
However, they contain spindle neurons, something that an organism with a supposed closer relationship to humans does not have, a violation of this arbitrary nested hierarchy. You can call them "humpback whale neurons" or whatever you wish to call them, it's still a violation no matter what you call them.
quote:
The DMRT1 gene is also found in humans.
So?
quote:
How anyone can honestly claim this is beyond me.
How anyone can claim UCD somehow predicts some arbitrary nested hierarchy makes no sense.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 11/20/2007 9:37:29 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 11/21/2007 12:29:55 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1122
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
http://www.panspermia.org/whatsne44.htm
For anyone who reads the web page, it becomes very obvious that they are referring to horizontal gene transfer. For example, just below this quote they cite
The very first heading on the webpage reads, "Many genes once thought to be unique to humans have been in the tree of life for over a half billion years."
This argues for vertical transfer, not horizontal.
quote:
Viruses and Other Gene Transfer Mechanisms is a related CA webpage [Next-What'sNEW about HGT-Prev].
Argues for functional ERV's. Nothing new. It does not argue that primate genes are transferred between primate species.
quote:
"The new DNA record tells us that the probabilities are in favor ...of multiple species coming up with the same particular solutions again and again" (p 37). If he is claiming that probabilities favor convergent genetic evolution by darwinian mutation etc., without gene transfer, the logic is both gapped and circular.
This deals with convergent evolution, not HGT.
quote:
If you read its context, it becomes very clear that they are referring to horizontal gene transfer. You may not admit it but this is for everyone else on this message board who will read it and clearly see what they are referring to. I think your best best is to admit that you're wrong, because continually denying something that's so obviously wrong (and hoping no one else will read the page I cited and read the context of the citation) over and over will not help convince people that you're right. As for me, I don't mind at all, you keep on denying what the context of the article is referring to (despite the clear context of the site that anyone can read) and it'll just make your side look worse.
Give me one quote where primate genes are being horizontally transferred between primate species.
quote:
quote:
You still can't explain the FACT that ERV's fall into a nested hierarchy, the same nested hierarchy produced by morphology. Evolution can explain, ID can't.
I have demonstrated that UCD does not predict any such thing.
Your demonstration required humans who asexually reproduce. I plainly demonstrated that an ERV that is polymorphic in a population will be polymorphic in all breeding populations prior to and after genetic isolation.
quote:
However, they contain spindle neurons, something that an organism with a supposed closer relationship to humans does not have, a violation of this arbitrary nested hierarchy. You can call them "humpback whale neurons" or whatever you wish to call them, it's still a violation no matter what you call them.
Do the genes responsible for spindle neurons in whales have more homology to humans or to cetaceans who do not have spindle neurons?
quote:
How anyone can claim UCD somehow predicts some arbitrary nested hierarchy makes no sense.
Because it is an unavoidable consequence of population genetics.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 4/9/2008 2:44:15 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1424
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
The very first heading on the webpage reads, "Many genes once thought to be unique to humans have been in the tree of life for over a half billion years."
The very first heading is about an entirely different issue altogether. I was quoting the references relevant to (just below) what I posted.
quote:
This argues for vertical transfer, not horizontal.
No, he doesn't.
quote:
Argues for functional ERV's. Nothing new.
He is arguing for horizontal gene transfer
quote:
It does not argue that primate genes are transferred between primate species.
That's not what I said he is arguing. He is arguing for horizontal gene transfer to explain why the, "eyeless, earless [sea urchin] has genes that, in us, are involved in detecting sight and sound "
http://www.panspermia.org/whatsne44.htm
quote:
quote:
"The new DNA record tells us that the probabilities are in favor ...of multiple species coming up with the same particular solutions again and again" (p 37). If he is claiming that probabilities favor convergent genetic evolution by darwinian mutation etc., without gene transfer, the logic is both gapped and circular.
This deals with convergent evolution, not HGT.
He is saying that convergent evolution without horizontal gene transfer is unlikely to produce, "the same particular solutions again and again."
quote:
Give me one quote where primate genes are being horizontally transferred between primate species.
Again, that's not what I said.
quote:
Your demonstration required humans who asexually reproduce.
No it does not.
quote:
I plainly demonstrated that an ERV that is polymorphic in a population will be polymorphic in all breeding populations prior to and after genetic isolation.
If you mean it will be in some parts of the population that acquired it and not others, that's probably true. This will probably produce nested hierarchy violations for reasons stated above. However, it's possible for the ERV to be static in a population after speciation if both parents have the ERV at the point of speciation even if the ERV is dynamic within the parent population (the population the parents come from).
quote:
Do the genes responsible for spindle neurons in whales have more homology to humans or to cetaceans who do not have spindle neurons?
What does this have to do with anything?
quote:
Because it is an unavoidable consequence of population genetics.
It is a very highly unlikely consequence for reasons already stated. Even within the human population, violations exist. These violations don't just disappear when the organisms speciate.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 4/9/2008 3:26:22 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 7/20/2008 5:03:29 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1424
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
In post 62, method admits that evolution could account for alleged nested hierarchy violations (assuming the alleged nested hierarchy is not a subjective construct).
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
This is a possibility, but a rare one. There are two instances of this that I know of that involve ERV-K insertions in chimps, humans, and gorillas. However, two violations among 200,000 confirmations seems to tip the scales towards ERV's either moving towards fixation or removal quite quickly. Also, there are very few human ERV's that have not reached fixation in the human population, a tiny percentage of the 200,000 total ERV's.
The problem here is that there is no reason for it to be a rare possibility. You are only assuming it's rare based on your assumptions that UCD is true. Assuming there does exist this alleged nested hierarchy and there was an objective way of classifying organisms and there was an objective way of determining violations, if violations did exist, you could then say, "it's not a rare possibility, it's a very likely probability." The problem here is that you are merely assuming evolution and accommodating the evidence within that assumption.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 7/21/2008 11:36:27 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1122
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
The problem here is that there is no reason for it to be a rare possibility.
Yes there is. It happens through neutral drift with is a probabilistic and capable of producing models. From this we know that it is a very rare occurence.
quote:
Assuming there does exist this alleged nested hierarchy and there was an objective way of classifying organisms and there was an objective way of determining violations, if violations did exist, you could then say, "it's not a rare possibility, it's a very likely probability." The problem here is that you are merely assuming evolution and accommodating the evidence within that assumption.
There is zero possibility for there to be a mammal with feathers or a bird with three middle ear bones like those found in mammals. We know this because of fossil intermediates which clearly show a different origin for each feature.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 7/22/2008 1:12:40 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1424
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
Yes there is. It happens through neutral drift with is a probabilistic and capable of producing models. From this we know that it is a very rare occurence.
Violations are a very likely occurrence. There are violations everywhere within the human population (which demonstrates how likely of an occurrence it is) and those violations don't just disappear if the specie speciate.
BTW, we're not discussing neutral drift here, we're discussing mechanisms which create violations by which one organism can carry features that another organism with a closer relationship does not have yet one with a further relationship does have. Again, this happens all the time within a specie creating numerous violations and (as with the example I mentioned above and you admit to is a possibility) these violations don't just disappear when the specie speciates. They remain.
quote:
There is zero possibility for there to be a mammal with feathers or a bird with three middle ear bones like those found in mammals. We know this because of fossil intermediates which clearly show a different origin for each feature.
You are assuming evolution to be true and then you are assuming a different origin based on the fact that mammals don't have feathers. If we found mammals with feathers, you can just as easily say that they share a common origin. The only reason to say there is zero probability is based on past observations, not based on evolution. If I observe many many mammals and note that none of them have feathers, I can predict that future findings won't have feathers based on past observations. Evolution is not needed to make such a prediction, evolution merely accommodates the findings (it doesn't predict anything). If I throw a ball in the air several times and it keeps coming back down, cosmic evolution is not needed to predict that the ball will fall back down if I throw it in the air again. I can make such a prediction based on past observations.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 7/22/2008 1:20:08 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 7/22/2008 1:22:16 AM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 330
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
There is zero possibility for there to be a mammal with feathers or a bird with three middle ear bones like those found in mammals. We know this because of fossil intermediates which clearly show a different origin for each feature.
You are assuming evolution to be true and then you are assuming a different origin based on the fact that mammals don't have feathers. If we found mammals with feathers, you can just as easily say that they share a common origin.
You might as well take Method at his or her word. If you did find such a creature, it would go a long way toward disproving ET since Method has just stated that ET could not possibly predict such a species.
What fossil species can you identify that don't fit within a nested hierarchy?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 7/22/2008 1:36:51 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1424
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ianz
You might as well take Method at his or her word.
Science doesn't advance by method of proclamation. Nice try though.
quote:
If you did find such a creature, it would go a long way toward disproving ET since
There is no reason for it to contradict evolution. Just because someone proclaims that it should does not make it so. Nice try though.
quote:
Method has just stated that ET could not possibly predict such a species.
Again, there is no reason for ET not to predict such a species. Just because Method proclaims it to be so does not make it so.
quote:
What fossil species can you identify that don't fit within a nested hierarchy?
You are assuming evolution should predict such an alleged hierarchy when there is no reason to make such an assumption. Aside from that, violations of previous arbitrary hierarchies have been shown in other threads and the arbitrary hierarchy simply gets re - arranged to form another arbitrary hierarchy that accommodates the violations in the previous arbitrary hierarchy. This has already been demonstrated.
quote:
According to Popper, the falsifiability of a hypothesis represents a necessary precondition for its corroborability. It is shown that cladograms, independent of ‘‘strict’’, ‘‘methodological’’ or ‘‘sophisticated’’ falsification, are not falsifiable in principle. No present observation is prohibited by any tree hypothesis and, thus, no Popperian test of cladograms exists.
The unfalsifiability of cladograms and its consequences
But if you are so confident that you are correct and I am wrong, let students be exposed to both sides of the issue. If you are right, then students should have no problems taking your position over mine after being exposed to the pros and cons of both sides.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 7/22/2008 1:43:33 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 7/22/2008 2:07:39 AM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 330
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: ianz
You might as well take Method at his or her word.
Science doesn't advance by method of proclamation. Nice try though.
Huh? Method just said that x cannot happen. So if you find x, Method is disproved. So, go find x!
quote:
quote:
If you did find such a creature, it would go a long way toward disproving ET since
There is no reason for it to contradict evolution. Just because someone proclaims that it should does not make it so. Nice try though. How about you find one and let's see?
quote:
quote:
What fossil species can you identify that don't fit within a nested hierarchy?
You are assuming evolution should predict such an alleged hierarchy when there is no reason to make such an assumption. Aside from that, violations of previous arbitrary hierarchies have been shown in other threads and the arbitrary hierarchy simply gets re - arranged to form another arbitrary hierarchy that accommodates the violations in the previous arbitrary hierarchy. This has already been demonstrated.
Blah blah blah. Find a species that doesn't fit and you disprove evolution theory. Should be plenty around since by now evolution has formed many branches, so heaps of opportunity for species to exist right now that completely invalidate the nested hierarchy.
quote:
But if you are so confident that you are correct and I am wrong, let students be exposed to both sides of the issue. If you are right, then students should have no problems taking your position over mine after being exposed to the pros and cons of both sides.
We've already had this discussion. I noted that:
1 We can't possibly teach children every possible explanation, since there is insufficient time.
2 We use the scientific peer-review process to help filter what gets taught.
3 That process has, to date, excluded ID and YEC.
So keeping 1 in mind, what method do you propose for filtering what gets taught, if not the peer-review process?
Regards, Ian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 7/22/2008 11:41:38 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1122
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Violations are a very likely occurrence. There are violations everywhere within the human population (which demonstrates how likely of an occurrence it is) and those violations don't just disappear if the specie speciate.
When two populations separate they both carry the alleles they inherited from their common genetic ancestral pool. After divergence each population adds lineage specific mutations. This is what causes a nested hierarchy. As long as populations are interbreeding it is impossible for divergence to occur and so a nested hierarchy can not and does not form. It is nonsensical to speak of a nested hierarchy when you are speaking of just one species since you need at least two species in order to have a nested hierarchy.
quote:
BTW, we're not discussing neutral drift here, we're discussing mechanisms which create violations by which one organism can carry features that another organism with a closer relationship does not have yet one with a further relationship does have.
This mechanism is transfer of genetic material between species, not within species.
quote:
Again, this happens all the time within a specie creating numerous violations and (as with the example I mentioned above and you admit to is a possibility) these violations don't just disappear when the specie speciates. They remain.
Already covered.
quote:
You are assuming evolution to be true and then you are assuming a different origin based on the fact that mammals don't have feathers.
The theropod feather transitionals and synapsid mammal transitionals are not assumptions. They are real transitionals showing the evolution of feathers and the mammalian middle ear respectively.
quote:
If we found mammals with feathers, you can just as easily say that they share a common origin.
I would say that this the theory of evolution, as it stand right now, has been falsified. We would need a new theory with mechanisms not found in the modern theory.
quote:
The only reason to say there is zero probability is based on past observations, not based on evolution.
It is based on both. Feathers and the mammalian middle ear have been shown, through the fossil record, to have evolved in separate lineages. Therefore we should never see an animal, dead or living, with a combination of these features if evolution is true.
quote:
If I observe many many mammals and note that none of them have feathers, I can predict that future findings won't have feathers based on past observations.
Then you would have gotten the bird transitionals wrong. Many people observed dinosaur fossils without feathers. You would have predicted that all dinosaur fossils would not have feathers. You would have been wrong, but evolutionists would have been right in predicting a feathered transitional.
Also, there is no reason within creationism or ID to expect lineage specific adaptations.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 7/26/2008 2:55:01 AM
|
|
|
fallenstar
Posts: 127
Joined: 11/29/2007
Status: offline
|
As long as everybody is respectful of each other's oppinion's, then their should not be a problem with different creation\evolution theories being taught, as long as everybody gets a chance to share what they believe. High school students are mature enough to decide what they want to believe in, and should have the right to listen to what others have to say. If they want to share with other students the story of God creating the earth in 7 days, then they have every right to as long as they don't insist they are right and every other person is an idiot. An Athiest can share evolution, and a Wiccan can share their theory of spiritualism. All that they would need is respect. Nobody would have to convert.
I know that 8th grade or younger is probably too much for them to handle, but sadly, 6th graders are being taught evolution. And they are saying "How is it possible that God exists?" It's injust.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Where is your evidence?" - 7/26/2008 4:45:41 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: fallenstar
As long as everybody is respectful of each other's oppinion's, then their should not be a problem with different creation\evolution theories being taught
Seems fair enough at first, but which "creation theories" do we teach then? There is ONE universally accepted evolutionary theory on Earth. So that decision is easy. The first amendment is interpreted to imply separation of church and state. I find that interpretation to be accurate. "Congress shall make no laws regarding religion", to paraphrase it. I'm inclined to think they had good reasons for that, and schools are state sponsored.
But even if you wish to go against this and include religious teachings in schools, there is still the serious and difficult question; which religion do you give preference to? Catholicism? Westboro Baptist? Scientology? Do you want to allow the most popular religion to have control over what is taught to children? Should we create a nonspecific amalgamation of ALL of the various religious notions. What if it's not your religion that is chosen, or what if your religion isn't given "enough credit" when the theories are combined? How much time should such an amalgamation be given in the classroom. What about it cannot be summarized by simply saying, "oh yeah and some people think it was just magic".
The Christian coalition types are great at agreeing with each other about the fundamental idea of tying US law to Christian law, and including creationism in school teachings, but when you start asking individual churches for specific interpretations, they all start having different ideas. And that, above all, is why separation of church and state is considered a good thing. It isn't because the laws should ignore Christian ideals, it's because "Christian ideals" are impossible to effectively codify. There's no way to make everyone happy.
quote:
as long as everybody gets a chance to share what they believe. High school students are mature enough to decide what they want to believe in, and should have the right to listen to what others have to say.
They do have that right, but the school would step on more toes than it could handle if it "taught the wrong version" of something. In this way, religions effectively removed themselves from schools by not getting on the same page soon enough.
quote:
If they want to share with other students the story of God creating the earth in 7 days, then they have every right to as long as they don't insist they are right and every other person is an idiot.
No one is challenging what students should be allowed to talk to other students about. This is about what should be taught, isn't it?
quote:
An Athiest can share evolution, and a Wiccan can share their theory of spiritualism. All that they would need is respect. Nobody would have to convert.
Indeed.
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
