"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Sarky · 22-01-2013 04:26PM

No, I'm getting slightly bemused because, after three microbiology degrees and a couple of jobs as a researcher on bacteria and how they've evolved, I know what utter horsesh*t you're trying to peddle.

Seriously, please read a book or two on biology or evolution. It'll answer a lot of the questions you're too afraid to ask.

mickrock · 22-01-2013 04:37PM

Sarky wrote: »

No, I'm getting slightly bemused because, after three microbiology degrees and a couple of jobs as a researcher on bacteria and how they've evolved

Apparently they've evolved into whales and horses. That's what I've heard.

Is it true?

Sarky · 22-01-2013 04:45PM

Not in one go. That would be a very f*cking stupid thing to believe, and you're not very f*cking stupid, are you? Otherwise yes, all the evidence in the world points to that being what happened. Perhaps you could read up on it so you don't make the same mistake again? I can recommend a couple of books for you...

sephir0th · 22-01-2013 04:46PM

mickrock wrote: »

Apparently they've evolved into whales and horses. That's what I've heard.

Is it true?

Seriously, stop embarrassing yourself. It's painful.

Turtwig · 22-01-2013 04:53PM

Isaac's Newton's greatest achievement in his own eyes was lifelong celibacy. Just saying . . .

mickrock · 22-01-2013 04:54PM

Sarky wrote: »

yes, all the evidence in the world points to that being what happened.

Sure it does.

There's no harm in believing in it if it makes you happy.

Sarky · 22-01-2013 04:57PM

If you have any evidence to suggest otherwise, I'd be happy to tear it apart for you. Or you could ask oldrnwisr, he's extremely well-read on the topic. Why not PM him, if you're too embarrassed to ask your questions in front of a crowd? You'll find him friendly and helpful, and you'll improve your knowledge on one of the most interesting processes in the universe.

Edit: Actually, I just got asked to do some comparative genomics for one of the lecturers here, so if you're eager to get answers, you'd probably be better off PMing oldrnwisr.

Sycopat · 22-01-2013 05:00PM

mickrock wrote: »

Apparently they've evolved into whales and horses. That's what I've heard.

Is it true?

That question belies one of two things.

A fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution actually is.

or

A gross oversimplification of a very complex question.

The weird thing is your choice of mammals. Given the evolutionary relationship between horses and whales I imagine someones tried to explain it to you before?

Sarky · 22-01-2013 05:04PM

Ooh, sycopat's a good one to ask too, he has all the qualifications I do, and a PhD to boot! Seriously, there are loads of very knowledgeable people here, if you have any interest in learning about evolution and how it works, this forum is a really good place to hang around. You'll learn so much!

robindch · 22-01-2013 05:07PM

mickrock wrote: »

You're getting worked up because, deep down, you know what I said might be true.

As Sarky points out, that's pretty unlikely given that his day job involves watching evolution happen in front of him.

You are aware that it's possible to see this happen, aren't you?

mickrock · 22-01-2013 05:12PM

Sarky wrote: »

and you'll improve your knowledge on one of the most interesting processes in the universe.

One of the most interesting?

No, darwinism is one of the silliest ideas to persist for so long. It's wishful thinking to believe that novel, innovative functions, organs or systems can develop gradually by natural selection acting on random variations.

Ziphius · 22-01-2013 05:23PM

mickrock wrote: »

One of the most interesting?

No, darwinism is one of the silliest ideas to persist for so long. It's wishful thinking to believe that novel, innovative functions, organs or systems can develop gradually by natural selection acting on random variations.

And what's the alternative? It mustn't be very silly at all...

seamus · 22-01-2013 05:30PM

mickrock wrote: »

One of the most interesting?

No, darwinism is one of the silliest ideas to persist for so long. It's wishful thinking to believe that novel, innovative functions, organs or systems can develop gradually by natural selection acting on random variations.

So what's your explanation for it?

Evolution occurs. That's a given fact. It can be seen occurring in the lab and there's an enormous fossil record providing fairly comprehensive documentation of the process over hundreds of millions of years.

So if the Darwinian theory doesn't explain evolution, how do you explain evolution?

Bannasidhe · 22-01-2013 05:31PM

Ziphius wrote: »

And what's the alternative? It mustn't be very silly at all...

Well, an omnipotent creator who always existed even though nothing can just come into existence made a universe and on one tiny planet in this vast universe the creator made trees and water and bumble bees and puppies and sugar and spice and air and..well...everything really. Then he (and it is a 'he') took some dirt and he fashioned that dirt into a mini me and then he took out one of Mini Me's ribs and made a Mrs Notquite Mini Me and then there was the bruhaha about the apple...

Perfectly sound theory.

robindch · 22-01-2013 05:32PM

mickrock wrote: »

It's wishful thinking [...]

You should publish your scientific paper overturning the most well-supported Theory in biology, have it peer-reviewed + published, and then claim your Nobel Prize.

It's the least you could do!

Sarky · 22-01-2013 05:52PM

It would revolutionise medicine, particularly in the realm of disease control, seeing as the last few decades of research and development in that area are based on evolutionary models, like Staphylococcus aureus evolving into MRSA and all those other "superbugs" as the media like to call them. Mickrock! There's no telling how many lives you could save by providing a better model for medical science to work off! You'll be a hero, all you have to do is show us a better way to explain the diversity of life on this planet for the last couple of billion years!

... mickrock? Hello? Where's your alternative? Don't you want to revolutionise science and save countless lives?

Sycopat · 22-01-2013 06:02PM

Sarky wrote: »

Ooh, sycopat's a good one to ask too, he has all the qualifications I do, and a PhD to boot! Seriously, there are loads of very knowledgeable people here, if you have any interest in learning about evolution and how it works, this forum is a really good place to hang around. You'll learn so much!

Not yet I don't! And it takes me forever to write a post/reply (case in point, this whole short post will likely take me 45 minutes.) so I'm definitely not the best for a quick response.

mickrock wrote: »

One of the most interesting?

No, darwinism is one of the silliest ideas to persist for so long. It's wishful thinking to believe that novel, innovative functions, organs or systems can develop gradually by natural selection acting on random variations.

In this post you've shown me you have no wish or interest in debating the merits of the thoery of evolution, or it's actual failings.

Which makes me sad because one of my favourite things about the origin of species is how darwin argues so well for evolution based entirely on observations made without the benefit of so many things many modern biologists take for granted. Things like the structure of DNA, any concept of modern genetics, molecular biology, sequencing technologies and computational biology. It's truly eye opening to be able to see both how far we've come in our ability to make new and better observations, and how relevant much of his reasoning still is.

When used to understand the world, evolution can add whole new depths of understanding of the natural world and the rather fascinating and surprising relationships it contains.

By all means though you can call the best explanation for the evidence gathered over the last 150ish years 'wishful thinking' if you like. What you can't expect is for me to respect your biased, lazy, groundless opinion. At all.

I'm off for a dinosaur meat sandwich.

mickrock · 22-01-2013 06:10PM

Sarky wrote: »

It would revolutionise medicine, particularly in the realm of disease control, seeing as the last few decades of research and development in that area are based on evolutionary models, like Staphylococcus aureus evolving into MRSA and all those other "superbugs" as the media like to call them.

Are you using a bacteria that develops a resistance to antibiotics as evidence for the emergence of the diversity and complexity of life by Darwinian means?

That's some extrapolation!

Ziphius · 22-01-2013 06:17PM

mickrock wrote: »

Are you using a bacteria that develops a resistance to antibiotics as evidence for the emergence of the diversity and complexity of life by Darwinian means?

That's some extrapolation!

But if bacteria aren't evolving resistance surely you must tell us what is going on? C'mon mickrock this could cost lives!

mickrock · 22-01-2013 06:20PM

Sycopat wrote: »

Which makes me sad because one of my favourite things about the origin of species is how darwin argues so well for evolution based entirely on observations made without the benefit of so many things many modern biologists take for granted.

You mean things like the length of finches beaks and the colour of peppered moths?

How do these sorts of adaptations explain the creation of completely new functions, organs or systems?

pauldla · 22-01-2013 06:22PM

mickrock wrote: »

Are you using a bacteria that develops a resistance to antibiotics as evidence for the emergence of the diversity and complexity of life by Darwinian means?

That's some extrapolation!

One of the most extraordinary extrapolations in scientific history, I think, and one the greatest insights a human has ever had. Good on ye, Darwin.

robindch · 22-01-2013 06:34PM

mickrock wrote: »

You mean things like the length of finches beaks and the colour of peppered moths? How do these sorts of adaptations explain the creation of completely new functions, organs or systems?

It's a bit like walking.

You can spend an hour walking into town. That's a small change in position and easy to understand. It's equivalent to the the small genetic change required to change the color of moths so that they match the trees they live in.

Then, you can spend a month walking to the other side of the country. That's a much bigger change in position, but it happens by putting lots of small changes together one after an another. A bit like the Aye-aye's "long finger" adaption.

Then, you could spend a few years walking to the other side of the world. That a massive change of position, but again, it's just lots of small changes of position put together. And it's equivalent to, say, the front fins of a whale evolving from five-fingered hands into things that look like regular fish fins (even if they still contain five fingers, showing their evolutionary history).

Add more time and some reason for the change, then you'll get more change.

It's quite easy to understand really.

mickrock · 22-01-2013 07:04PM

robindch wrote: »

Add more time and some reason for the change, then you'll get more change.

Yes but only within certain limits. The changes will be a variation on what's already there, so nothing new can be produced.

It doesn't make sense that novelty and innovation can arise by gradual, incremental steps using a blind, undirected mechanism. And there's no evidence for it.

Ziphius · 22-01-2013 07:21PM

mickrock wrote: »

Yes but only within certain limits. The changes will be a variation on what's already there, so nothing new can be produced.

It doesn't make sense that novelty and innovation can arise by gradual, incremental steps using a blind, undirected mechanism. And there's no evidence for it.

Nope. New genes can evolve de novo from non-coding sections.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1002379

The Mad Hatter · 22-01-2013 07:24PM

What limits? Where do they come from?

PopePalpatine · 22-01-2013 07:53PM

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

What limits? Where do they come from?

Because Post 19.

Sarky · 22-01-2013 08:01PM

Ziphius wrote: »

Nope. New genes can evolve de novo from non-coding sections.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1002379

They certainly can. My masters thesis was based on studying genes just like that; genes that code for enzymes called Polyketide synthases for example arose from fatty acid biosynthesis genes, a modular set of genes that can vary quite a bit. Any bacterial cell has several FAB genes, so redundancies can be common. Once a gene is redundant (or mutation causes it to stop functioning), it is far more susceptible to change than essential genes. Eventually, given enough time, mutation and environment, such redundant FAB genes ended up making antibiotics.

Phylogenetics is a whole field of science that allows you to trace the origin of genes, or even parts of genes. The genetic lineages turn out to look awfully similar to the observations of the fossil record and Darwin's own observations. That's pretty impressive, if evolution is "wishful thinking".

dlofnep · 22-01-2013 09:13PM

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

What limits? Where do they come from?

He doesn't know. He's parroting off whatever he reads on Creationist websites.

Bannasidhe · 22-01-2013 09:27PM

Sarky wrote: »

My masters thesis was based on studying genes just like that; genes that code for enzymes called Polyketide synthases for example arose from fatty acid biosynthesis genes, a modular set of genes that can vary quite a bit. Any bacterial cell has several FAB genes, so redundancies can be common. Once a gene is redundant (or mutation causes it to stop functioning), it is far more susceptible to change than essential genes. Eventually, given enough time, mutation and environment, such redundant FAB genes ended up making antibiotics.

For a guy Sarky is kinda sexy.

:cool:

sephir0th · 22-01-2013 10:19PM

Sarky wrote: »

Once a gene is redundant (or mutation causes it to stop functioning), it is far more susceptible to change than essential genes.

Why is this? Due to it's position on the chromosome?

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Comments