Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

1…304305307309310…328

Comments

  • #9182
    [-0-]
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭[-0-]


    robindch wrote: »
    I wouldn't be too envious. But -- and my eyes mist over at this point -- that book launch. What an evening, just over two years ago:

    That's it. I'm calling you Charles from now on.


  • #9183
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Originally Posted by John May, Page 1
    To undertake the extirpation of fond fictions from the mind is, I know, irrefragably fraught with explosive consequences. Therefore, I begin as I mean to finish, gently with simple explanations for complex concepts and hopefully to elevate reason and true science as a magnate to sanity, purpose and a future with hope.

    Wow - just wow. Student teacher quality prose if I'm any judge.


  • #9184
    Improbable
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    For those of you who weren't around then or didn't catch the radio show, John May actually appeared on a Belfield FM radio show along with Stefano Mariani and made actual comments like "I've never seen half a penis". Go back and look through the older posts for a good laugh.


  • #9185
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,156 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    I think Robin originally introduced the "J C is a girl" meme, presumably on the basis that nothing s/he says can be taken for granted as true.

    If J C was a girl, she wouldn't post - she would be in violation of 1 Timothy 2:12-3, because she is dictating to men.


  • #9186
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    If J C was a girl, she wouldn't post - she would be in violation of 1 Timothy 2:12-3, because she is dictating to men.

    That so deserves a lollypop :D

    15183893-spiral-lollipop.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #9187
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    As a matter of interest John J May is trying to hawk a weight loss book these days, will nary a mention of his 'evilution' book.

    http://www.loser.ie/


  • #9188
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    I didn't know JC is a girl. I guess the eye-watering smilies make a bit more sense...


  • #9189
    Sierra 117
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 629 ✭✭✭Sierra 117


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    As a matter of interest John J May is trying to hawk a weight loss book these days, will nary a mention of his 'evilution' book.

    http://www.loser.ie/

    "What is my amazing weight loss tactic you ask? Well, you'll watch me flail around trying (and utterly failing) to disprove evolution which will disgust you so much that you won't be able to keep any food down! And if there's one thing I know, it's that I know nothing about evolution"


  • #9190
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    loser.ie ... how apt.


  • #9191
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,042 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    As a matter of interest John J May is trying to hawk a weight loss book these days, will nary a mention of his 'evilution' book.

    http://www.loser.ie/

    Weight loss program probably involves throwing balls into the air and watching to see if they fall to form a perfect circle :pac:

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #9192
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    Oh no doubt there's some squiffy 'science' behind this one too. I am most amused by the guarantee certificate.


  • #9193
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    The recent examples given of beneficial random mutations are very underwhelming.

    Random mutations are part of the driving force of neo-Darwinian theory, yet the scarcity of evidence for ones that give novelty, new function or increased complexity hugely undermines the grand claims of the theory. One of the two pillars of the theory is so shaky that it can't be too long before it comes crashing down.

    The blind watchmaker seems pretty useless.


  • #9194
    sephir0th
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 390 ✭✭sephir0th


    qdgYU.gif


  • #9195
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,461 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    mickrock wrote: »
    The recent examples given of beneficial random mutations are very underwhelming.
    If you bothered reading any of what other posters have taken the time and energy to give you, you might find them at least informing, if not overwhelming.


  • #9196
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    I find examples of gravity underwhelming too. C'mon gravity do a dance or something. Really wow me or I'm just gonna go float off this rock.


  • #9197
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    mickrock wrote: »
    The recent examples given of beneficial random mutations are very underwhelming.

    Random mutations are part of the driving force of neo-Darwinian theory, yet the scarcity of evidence for ones that give novelty, new function or increased complexity hugely undermines the grand claims of the theory. One of the two pillars of the theory is so shaky that it can't be too long before it comes crashing down.

    The blind watchmaker seems pretty useless.

    I have a proposition for you :
    Instead of arguing against evolution how about you let Oldrnwisr, doctoremma, Ziphius, Zombrex, dlfonep and few others of the regulars do that. Your task, should you choose to accept it, is to argue for evolution. It'll be a roll reversal to see if you actually understand the other side's arguments and also to see if they understand yours.

    So what do you say?


  • #9198
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    I find examples of gravity underwhelming too. C'mon gravity do a dance or something. Really wow me or I'm just gonna go float off this rock.

    Gravity is a fact and there is a theory of gravity to try to explain it.

    Likewise the neo-Darwinian theory attempts to explain evolution.


  • #9199
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    mickrock wrote: »
    Gravity is a fact and there is a theory of gravity to try to explain it.

    Likewise the neo-Darwinian theory attempts to explain evolution.

    But you've already admitted that you believe in the fact of evolution.
    You believe that allele frequencies change over time.....

    And since you're unable to address any of the points given to you, you know that "neo-darwinian" theory explains it very well.

    So why are you still making these silly insistences?


  • #9200
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Jernal wrote: »
    I have a proposition for you :
    Instead of arguing against evolution how about you let Oldrnwisr, doctoremma, Ziphius, Zombrex, dlfonep and few others of the regulars do that. Your task, should you choose to accept it, is to argue for evolution. It'll be a roll reversal to see if you actually understand the other side's arguments and also to see if they understand yours.

    So what do you say?

    It would be 10 against one and I don't think I have the energy.

    BTW It's neo-Darwinian theory I'm criticising and not evolution as such.


  • #9201
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,461 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    mickrock wrote: »
    It would be 10 against one and I don't think I have the energy.
    Well, you certainly haven't demonstrated any willingness to expend any energy thus far.

    So, rather than following in JC's content-free footsteps any further, can you please either respond to any of the points made or drop the topic.


  • Advertisement
  • #9202
    Ziphius
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 714 ✭✭✭Ziphius


    mickrock wrote: »
    It would be 10 against one and I don't think I have the energy.

    BTW It's neo-Darwinian theory I'm criticising and not evolution as such.

    So you accept that evolution does occur -- that allele frequencies change over time in a population and that natural selection is (mostly) responsible for this?

    Can you clarify what, exactly, your criticisms of neodarwinism is? Is it simply that you cannot see how new genes arise?


  • #9203
    Improbable
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    mickrock, you still haven't given me an answer as to how you explain homology of genes between species and your evidence against the specific example I have provided of human chromosome 2 being a fusion of 2 separate ancestral chromosomes that are present in chimpanzees and gorillas.


  • #9204
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    mickrock wrote: »
    The recent examples given of beneficial random mutations are very underwhelming.

    Random mutations are part of the driving force of neo-Darwinian theory, yet the scarcity of evidence for ones that give novelty, new function or increased complexity hugely undermines the grand claims of the theory. One of the two pillars of the theory is so shaky that it can't be too long before it comes crashing down.

    Let's analyse another mutation then, shall we - to see how a new function arise, benefiting the clade Eudromaeosauria. Earlier members of this clade through mutations had spawned feathers. Initially, these feathers were for little more than display and preserving heat - visible in some members such as Epidexipteryx. Epidexipteryx was feathered, but did not have remiges (wing feathers), and thus - did not have the ability to fly.

    epidexipteryx-fossil-dino-bird-evol-oct-08_22797_2.jpg

    Different members had varying levels of feathers, some containing very basic remiges, some more fully developed.

    Sinornithosaurus and Microraptor are two examples of dinosaurs which contained remiges. Now while it's doubtful that they had the ability to actually fly under power, it's most likely that they had the ability to glide extremely well.

    sinornithosaurus.jpg

    It is speculated that this transition occurred not once, but actually twice during the history of Eudromaeosauria. Firstly in the Jurassic, where we see the primitive Epidexipteryx about 160-170 million years ago, followed by the more featured Archaeopteryx around 148 million years ago.

    The second transition is seen in the Cretaceous, where the likes of Microraptor and others delved more towards gliding/flight, while others remained ground hunters eventually evolving into the highly successful Velociraptor and Deinonychus (Who also had feathers, but not the ability of flight).

    There are countless cases of these beneficial mutations seen in countless different species. Once again - you refuse to look at the evidence, and keep repeating yourself.


  • #9205
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Ziphius wrote: »
    Can you clarify what, exactly, your criticisms of neodarwinism is? Is it simply that you cannot see how new genes arise?

    My main criticism is that chance (as in random mutations) can't explain the evolution from simple to complex forms.

    Also, I can't see how DNA arose in the first place by chance. I know everyone is going to say that the origin of life and its evolution are separate things but they're not really.


  • #9206
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    mickrock wrote: »
    My main criticism is that chance (as in random mutations) can't explain the evolution from simple to complex forms.

    Chance has zero to do with it. Natural Selection is anything but chance. You continue to demonstrate your ignorance of the process of Evolution, and what fundamentalist drives it.


  • #9207
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Let's analyse another mutation then, shall we - to see how a new function arise, benefiting the clade Eudromaeosauria...




    There are countless cases of these beneficial mutations seen in countless different species. .


    It's speculation that random mutations are behind these developments.


  • #9208
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    mickrock wrote: »
    It's speculation that random mutations are behind these developments.

    So what would your alternative view be to small incremental changes in a species, which gradually demonstrate visible changes over larger periods of time? I'd like to hear your opposing theory. I'm all ears.

    Since we can analyse through genetics all of today's species, where we can absolutely 100% demonstrate common descent between every living creature - It is hardly speculation that this driving force was also the drive of change for all species that lived before us.

    Still - I'm all ears. Go for it.


  • #9209
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Chance has zero to do with it. Natural Selection is anything but chance. You continue to demonstrate your ignorance of the process of Evolution, and what fundamentalist drives it.

    The theory is random mutations+natural selection, so chance has something to do with it.

    That's what the blind in the "blind watchmaker" is referring to. If you think chance has nothing to do with, are you implying that there's a guiding hand or something?


  • #9210
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    mickrock wrote: »
    The theory is random mutations+natural selection, so chance has something to do with it.

    That's what the blind in the "blind watchmaker" is referring to. If you think chance has nothing to do with, are you implying that there's a guiding hand or something?

    Er no, I'm not implying that. I'm stating quite clearly that natural selection is not driven by chance. Selection favours those most adaptable to change. That's nothing to do with chance.

    Let me provide you with a basic example.

    Suppose we have a group of beach mice, with varying fur colour. Let's suppose we have an aerial predator (a hawk), which is the mice's greatest threat. The mice that have fur that less matches the background of the sand will stand out more, and thus - make it easier for the hawk to spot them, and eat them.

    What is the consequence of this? The mice which better match their backdrop are more inclined to live long enough to reach sexual maturity and pass on their genes (including fur colour), while those who do not have the right fur colour will be less inclined to reach sexual maturity, and thus - not pass on their genes.

    The result of this is that over time, the group of mice will gradually become more and more in tune with the colour of the sand - and the colour variations of the mice will only favour those of a light-brownish nature.

    So while the mutations are random, the actual process of natural selection has nothing to do with chance.


  • Advertisement
  • #9211
    Ziphius
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 714 ✭✭✭Ziphius


    mickrock wrote: »
    My main criticism is that chance (as in random mutations) can't explain the evolution from simple to complex forms.

    Also, I can't see how DNA arose in the first place by chance. I know everyone is going to say that the origin of life and its evolution are separate things but they're not really.

    Ok, let's leave aside your second point for the time being. You are correct in saying that chance alone cannot explain the diversity of life. However, this is not what Darwinian theory predicts. Instead chance mutations are selected. Those that confer a fitness advantage to the individual are passed on to the next generation. Those that affect the individual negatively are lost.

    If a population splits into two distinct geographical locations gradually over time they will diverge due to different selective forces acting on them. Eventually this may lead to new species.

    Now this is all well and good but how does it explain the evolution of brand new organs rather than simply refining existing ones?

    Well, for one thing even slight changes in existing genes can have major impacts on the organisms body plan. These are generally genes that control the timing of developmental events. So for example, the webbing between the toes of a bird, the length of a limb or of teeth can be affected dramatically by simple changes in the gene.

    Secondly new genetic material can be added to the genome. A single base pair can be added in genome (an insertion) or an entire gene or chromosome can be duplicated. There are many examples of this such as the Hox genes I mentioned earlier. Duplication of chromosome is very common in plants and can be induced artificially using the chemical colchicine.

    Thirdly new genes can be added by other organisms. Retro viruses do this. But there is also examples of plant genes transferring into animals The seaslug
    Elysia chlorotica has genes from algae allowing it to photosynthesize.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysia_chlorotica

    These new genes will undergo the same selective pressures that occur to the original genes and, again, over time they will diverge and evolve.

    Now back to the origin of DNA. It is linked to evolution but it's not a flaw of evolutionary theory if it cannot explain it. Just as a theory of star formation need not explain the origin of the universe. Perhaps when we find more evidence we can provide a more definitive answer. Evolution simply tells use that all life (on earth) is descended from a common ancestor and modified by natural selection.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement