toldailytopic: The theory of evolution. Do you believe in it?

[Alate_One]

Why do you put answer in quotes?

It is an answer.

You insisting it is doesn't make it so. Read what I said in the earlier post. Ask substantive questions or make substantive points with evidence showing what I have said to be innacurate. Otherwise you're using kindergarten style arguments.

"Is too!"

 

[voltaire]

I already explained to you
why it isn't an "answer".
There are *occasional*
reasons why an amino acid
sequence might need to be
more particular about the
DNA that encodes it, but
these are few and far
between.
We know this isn't true for
every sequence because we
can easily replace functions
in disparate organisms
with the different
sequences.------ alateone. This is because the functions these replacable sequences generate are also generated by other sequences. You have no way of knowing that the replaced sequence is actually generating the function or another stretch of code is generating it. Try this: For everyone one of these sequences that have been replaced by similar sequences from disparate animals, try completely removing that sequence. If you get the same phenotypic effect, then it wasn't necessarily the replaced sequence that produced the function.

 

[Stripe]

You insisting it is doesn't make it so.

You insisting it isn't doesn't make it not. :idunno:

Read what I said in the earlier post. Ask substantive questions or make substantive points with evidence showing what I have said to be innacurate. Otherwise you're using kindergarten style arguments.

I've put substantive effort into this discussion with you. Yet every time the issue comes up you claim you have never heard an answer.

 

[Alate_One]

I've put substantive effort into this discussion with you. Yet every time the issue comes up you claim you have never heard an answer.

Your "substantive effort" consisted of running to two other forums and asking a question of other experts which didn't fully address the challenge.

You probably did this on purpose guessing you might get an answer that would *sound* good to the untrained.

When I told you to ask a question that would actually address my challenge "Are there multiple DNA sequences that can produce the exact same protein with the exact same function? (and how many might there be?)", you won't do it because you, like me already know what the answer is and it isn't in your favor.

 

[Alate_One]

This is because the functions these replacable sequences generate are also generated by other sequences. You have no way of knowing that the replaced sequence is actually generating the function or another stretch of code is generating it. Try this: For everyone one of these sequences that have been replaced by similar sequences from disparate animals, try completely removing that sequence. If you get the same phenotypic effect, then it wasn't necessarily the replaced sequence that produced the function.

Volt, do you really think scientists are so stupid that they don't even perform proper controls? :dizzy:

You do these experiments with a "knockout", then you test your alternative sequence to see if it will act to replace the function you removed.

This is what was done in the experiment that put eyes onto various parts of fly's body in a variety of fly that was normally totally eyeless, using a single gene which controls eye development in mice. So a mouse gene was capable of turning on the pathway to make fly eyes. Why should that be possible?

Every one of your "novel" ideas is wrong or has already been covered.

 

[Stripe]

Your "substantive effort" consisted of running to two other forums and asking a question of other experts which didn't fully address the challenge.

Liar.

You probably did this on purpose guessing you might get an answer that would *sound* good to the untrained.

I am the untrained.

When I told you to ask a question that would actually address my challenge "Are there multiple DNA sequences that can produce the exact same protein with the exact same function?

I've already conceded that this is the case. About seven threads ago. Clearly you still do not understand the answer given to you.

 

[Alate_One]

I've already conceded that this is the case. About seven threads ago. Clearly you still do not understand the answer given to you.

So then you're admitting your "answer" is not an answer to the actual question at hand. :idunno:

 

[Yorzhik]

Sure they did. At the time it was called "transmutation". The main ideas were transmutation and progressive creation. Nobody denied the pattern, but there was argument over explanation.

I'll grant you this. Humans make patterns if they exist or not, and certainly Lamarck was proposing a pattern.

If it's all a falsehood, why haven't the creationist organizations come out with an alternative explanation? All I've ever seen them do is chop the trunk and the major branches out of it. Evolution is undeniable, even to them.

Either you are conflating classification with common descent or you just don't like the alternative explanation. The alternative to common descent is a number of ancestors at the beginning creating groups, with sub-groups inside of those initial groups. There is speciation within kinds.

But your brushing off the idea that God had reasons to make groups with certain identical code isn't logical. You don't know God, and your entire argument relies on His personal preference.

That's the thing, it doesn't have to be most of the time. I ran the numbers with you already. Every possible mutation WILL happen with a few generations (5 or so) in a reasonably sized population (1000+). It's like winning the lottery, for an individual it seems impossible, but everyone knows that there will be a winner, and often multiple winners within a population. And the amazing thing about evolution is those winners can reproduce and their offspring can win again later. So yes it is a mechanism I can rely on.

Hundreds of millions of years isn't *tiny* by anyone's measure. And if you were right, even microevolution would never happen. Every organism would have most of its offspring die from horrid mutations. Except that isn't at all what we observe. We humans can make massive changes in form over extremely short periods of time. There is more variation in skull shape in the domestic dog than there is in the entire *order* Carnivora. Then you're going to stand here and tell me evolution is impossible? Your numbers game is so divorced from reality it's ridiculous.

No, they won't outproduce unless there's a selective DISadvantage to the mutation. Otherwise, why do we have so many different hair colors and eye colors in humans? Shouldn't the first human with blue eyes get swamped out by everyone else?

You aren't thinking this through.

Let's take your population of 1000. 2 of them produce some of the next generation with the magic mutation, and about 500 pairs of them also produce some of the next generation. Need more math? Let's say they make 35K kids each, one set produces 35K, the other sets produce about 17 million.

Which set is out-producing the other, the set of 35K, or the set of 17 million?

But wait, there's more! Even if you do get your magic mutation every 5 generations or so, that isn't fast enough to account for the changes required to change from body type to another. Haldane set his estimate and 30 generations, and realized by his measure that hundreds of millions of years was *tiny* compared to the number of years required. So you think estimating every 5 generations will help?

But that doesn't even address the problem of changing one conserved sequence, like cyt-c, into another form. If you really think that happens every 5 generations, then you'd see it in the field in every organism most of the time.

 

[The Barbarian]

Let's take your population of 1000. 2 of them produce some of the next generation with the magic mutation, and about 500 pairs of them also produce some of the next generation. Need more math? Let's say they make 35K kids each, one set produces 35K, the other sets produce about 17 million.

Which set is out-producing the other, the set of 35K, or the set of 17 million?

It's magical thinking that has you sidetracked. This is science, not creationism. Let's say that the selective value of the mutation is such that those with it have a 90 percent chance of survival, and those without it have a 50 percent chance of survival.

So the next generation has 3150 organisms living long enough to reproduce, and the rest have 8.5 million. Track it over 20 generations, and see what happens.

The new mutation will have an increasing share of the population over time.

But wait, there's more! Even if you do get your magic mutation every 5 generations or so, that isn't fast enough to account for the changes required to change from body type to another.

You're assuming one favorable mutation per generation. That's not what we see. Magical thinking is what's keeping you away from the truth. And some mutations, such as those that cause a change in the rate of development, make changes in all sorts of things. Human paedomorphosis, for example, can explain most of the changes in the gradual changes in the skulls of hominins.

And for a sexually reproducing organism, it's much, much faster.

But that doesn't even address the problem of changing one conserved sequence, like cyt-c, into another form.

And over billions of years, it hasn't changed a lot. There's some change in the variable regions, (and BTW, it sorts out according to common descent) but not all that much. Conserved molecules tend to be absolutely constant in some places, and only slowly change in others.

 

[Stripe]

So then you're admitting your "answer" is not an answer to the actual question at hand. :idunno:

No, liar. How about we go through it all one more time?

 

[Yorzhik]

It's magical thinking that has you sidetracked. This is science, not creationism. Let's say that the selective value of the mutation is such that those with it have a 90 percent chance of survival, and those without it have a 50 percent chance of survival.

So the next generation has 3150 organisms living long enough to reproduce, and the rest have 8.5 million. Track it over 20 generations, and see what happens.

The new mutation will have an increasing share of the population over time.



You're assuming one favorable mutation per generation. That's not what we see. Magical thinking is what's keeping you away from the truth. And some mutations, such as those that cause a change in the rate of development, make changes in all sorts of things. Human paedomorphosis, for example, can explain most of the changes in the gradual changes in the skulls of hominins.

And for a sexually reproducing organism, it's much, much faster.



And over billions of years, it hasn't changed a lot. There's some change in the variable regions, (and BTW, it sorts out according to common descent) but not all that much. Conserved molecules tend to be absolutely constant in some places, and only slowly change in others.

Barbarian hasn't been worth answering lately. But I have to admit, that when he makes my point for me as well as this post, I have to give credit where credit is due. Kudos Barbie!

 

[Stripe]

:mock: Barbie.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's peculiar that Yorzhik thinks the math showing that favorable mutations gain an increasing percentage of a population, vindicates his belief that it can't happen.

Or maybe he doesn't see the implication. BTW, this was at one time, a serious objection to Darwinism, when it was assumed that heredity was like blending paint, and Darwin could not explain how a new trait would not be overwhelmed in a population.

Then Mendel discovered that heredity was particulate, and it became clear why Yorzhik's objection was of no consequence.

Using your numbers, even with unlimited resources, the new allele would outnumber the old one by the 16th generation. Do the math if you doubt it.

I have to give credit where credit is due. Kudos Barbie!

My pleasure.

 

[Yorzhik]

It's peculiar that Yorzhik thinks the math showing that favorable mutations gain an increasing percentage of a population, vindicates his belief that it can't happen.

Or maybe he doesn't see the implication. BTW, this was at one time, a serious objection to Darwinism, when it was assumed that heredity was like blending paint, and Darwin could not explain how a new trait would not be overwhelmed in a population.

Then Mendel discovered that heredity was particulate, and it became clear why Yorzhik's objection was of no consequence.

Using your numbers, even with unlimited resources, the new allele would outnumber the old one by the 16th generation. Do the math if you doubt it.

My pleasure.

And a two-fer from Barbie. Thanks!

 

[The Barbarian]

Always pleased to help. Even your extreme numbers quickly show why evolution works. A reproductive advantage accumulates over time, so in less than 20 generations, it dominates.

 

[Yorzhik]

A reproductive advantage accumulates over time

And Barbie pulls the hat trick!

 

[Alate_One]

I'll grant you this. Humans make patterns if they exist or not, and certainly Lamarck was proposing a pattern.

He didn't understand the mechanism, there wasn't really a problem with his understanding of the pattern.

Either you are conflating classification with common descent or you just don't like the alternative explanation. The alternative to common descent is a number of ancestors at the beginning creating groups, with sub-groups inside of those initial groups. There is speciation within kinds.

There isn't an alternative that is not based on evolutionary classification systems. If you were right, there should be very obvious groups that cluster together but don't have any connection to one another, but that's not the case. There is no objective and clear line between "kinds". Every creationist has their own opinion on what constitutes a "kind". Whereas phylogenetic groupings are generally agreed upon since they are based on actual data.

But your brushing off the idea that God had reasons to make groups with certain identical code isn't logical. You don't know God, and your entire argument relies on His personal preference.

It relies upon Him not being deceptive out of "personal preference".

You aren't thinking this through.

No I think you're the one with the failure of imagination. It's a common creationist problem. The inability to fully visualize a process. We know (based on actual gathered data) that each human individual has approximately 150 new mutations. We know, by virtue of the fact the human survives to reproduce that those mutations are at least non-damaging.

Which set is out-producing the other, the set of 35K, or the set of 17 million?

But the other set(s) will have its own mutations which may interact with the first mutation and cause something that is actually selectively positive. Or the mutation itself is probably selectable if it is "magic".

But wait, there's more! Even if you do get your magic mutation every 5 generations or so, that isn't fast enough to account for the changes required to change from body type to another.

You, frankly don't know how many mutations it takes to go from "one body type to another". It might take considerably fewer than you think since the number of differences in DNA between humans and chimpanzees is very small but our body type is quite different.

But that doesn't even address the problem of changing one conserved sequence, like cyt-c, into another form. If you really think that happens every 5 generations, then you'd see it in the field in every organism most of the time.

Why would you need to change the sequence of a highly conserved gene like cytochrome C? Obviously there are other versions of it that are functional, but they all do the same thing.

 

[Stripe]

There isn't an alternative that is not based on evolutionary classification systems.

Yes, there is.

If you were right, there should be very obvious groups that cluster together

There are.

but don't have any connection to one another, but that's not the case.

There are. But you'll argue that there isn't because members of both groups both have ears - thus they must be descended one from the other.

There is no objective and clear line between "kinds".

Sure there is. Maybe you'd like to share exactly how kinds are distinguished.

Every creationist has their own opinion on what constitutes a "kind".

Not true in the slightest. There is one definition for 'kind' that is very simple to understand and express. Perhaps you'd like to share it.

Whereas phylogenetic groupings are generally agreed upon since they are based on actual data.

Phylogenetic groupings rely upon the assumption of evolution as a fact. The data is something that can be interpreted by any number of explanations. Evolution does not have a monopoly on the data.

It relies upon Him not being deceptive out of "personal preference".

No, it doesn't. Perhaps you'd like to explain how it doesn't rely on this.

 

[The Barbarian]

Alate_One writes:
There is no objective and clear line between "kinds".

Stipe insists:

Sure there is.

Well, let's test that. Name us some kinds and we'll see how the evidence sorts out.

If you were just blowing smoke, feel free to ignore the request. We'll understand.

Maybe you'd like to share exactly how kinds are distinguished.

Since you claim well-defined kinds exist, let's see some examples, Stipe.

 

[Alate_One]

There are. But you'll argue that there isn't because members of both groups both have ears - thus they must be descended one from the other.

It isn't even remotely that simple. Multiple lines of evidence are used from DNA to fossils to anatomy and biogeography.

Sure there is. Maybe you'd like to share exactly how kinds are distinguished.

Kinds are YOUR idea not mine. I don't make other people's arguments for them.

Not true in the slightest. There is one definition for 'kind' that is very simple to understand and express. Perhaps you'd like to share it.

Again . .kinds are YOUR idea. YOU back it up.

Phylogenetic groupings rely upon the assumption of evolution as a fact. The data is something that can be interpreted by any number of explanations. Evolution does not have a monopoly on the data.

Post your data then. Give us a testable hypothesis.

No, it doesn't. Perhaps you'd like to explain how it doesn't rely on this.

If you think it doesn't, you explain it.

How on earth did you come up with this idea that other people are supposed to argue what YOU believe? It has to be one of the stupidest things you've ever done, and that is saying something.