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"

1308309311313314328

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 714 ✭✭✭Ziphius


    sephir0th wrote: »
    Why is this? Due to it's position on the chromosome?

    Non-essential genes (or chunks of genes) evolve faster as a negative mutation will not have such deleterious effect on the organism.

    So, a gene that codes for a very important protein will likely undergo very little change as any mutations that do occur will probably do more harm to the organism than good.

    In a non-coding section mutations don't matter so much.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Exactly. If an essential gene mutates in a way that stops it functioning, the cell dies and the mutation dies with it. Happens all the time. We don't notice because, well, there are billions of the little bastards living on the skin of even a clean person, when one malfunctions it gets drowned out by the ones that don't. Only the essential genes that stay functioning get the chance to live long enough to get copied into a new cell. That's natural selection right there.

    Non-essential genes are where all the interesting stuff happens. You could remove them all and the cell would still function and still be the species it was before. These bonus genes pretty much just faff about, undergoing mutation, chopping and changing with other non-essential genes, and eventually something useful pops up. They usually offer some competitive advantage, like compounds that kill rival species to make space for growth (which we use all the time for treating infections), or proteins that bind really, REALLY well to rare metals that are essential for growth (denying food to rivals is just as good as killing them off), or the ability to metabolise whole new substances and grow into a niche no other species has exploited (there are, for example, bacteria that can now break down and consume nylon. It wasn't created in a lab, it was found growing in water polluted by waste from nylon factories).

    To be fair, the position in a chromosome can help too. If a redundant gene is very close to a highly conserved gene, it's less likely to undergo mutation, as there'll often be neighboring genes which are responsible for repairing damaged DNA. Some of those will end up fixing the neighborhood just because they're there and damaged. In Streptomyces species, the chromosome is linear rather than a circular loop. The genes that make it Streptomyces are highly conserved and are found in the central region of the chromosome, while the non-essential genes are found out towards either arm.

    But I digress. Evolution happens. That's how life works. Not a single biological scientist with a shred of integrity, dignity or credibility disagrees. The only people who think otherwise are lying or lacking understanding of the process. You'll notice an awful lot of "creation scientists" who try to rubbish evolution tend to have degrees with nothing to do in biological science. That's assuming they have any degrees at all that weren't bought in a shed in the arse end of nowhere. I really wish mickrock would pick up a book and see for himself. I mean, J C is clearly a lost cause...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    For a guy Sarky is kinda sexy.

    I'm also fond of lesbians too. naughty.gif


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


    Sarky wrote: »
    I'm also fond of lesbians too. naughty.gif

    Me also Too!

    We have an amazeballs amount in common. :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    We should totes do lunch sometime. We can talk about girls and sh*t.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Sarky wrote: »
    Evolution happens. That's how life works. Not a single biological scientist with a shred of integrity, dignity or credibility disagrees. The only people who think otherwise are lying or lacking understanding of the process.

    I accept that evolution happens but not by Darwinian means.

    People tend to accept Darwinian evolution as a self-evident truth despite how illogical it is and the lack of evidence for it. Darwinism can explain limited adaptations but as an explanation for the diversity and complexity of life it falls flat on its arse.

    Its attraction, and why the theory still persists, seems to be that it operates in a blind, undirected manner. No intelligence required.


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


    mickrock wrote: »
    I accept that evolution happens but not by Darwinian means.

    People tend to accept Darwinian evolution as a self-evident truth despite how illogical it is and the lack of evidence for it. Darwinism can explain limited adaptations but as an explanation for the diversity and complexity of life it falls flat on its arse.

    Its attraction, and why the theory still persists, seems to be that it operates in a blind, undirected manner. No intelligence required.

    Explain how your brand of evolution works then. Feel free to include your scientific data to back up your claims.

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



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


    koth wrote: »
    Explain how your brand of evolution works then. Feel free to include your scientific data to back up your claims.

    I'm pointing out how your brand of evolution doesn't and can't work. Let's stick to that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,012 ✭✭✭BizzyC


    mickrock wrote: »
    I'm pointing out how your brand of evolution doesn't and can't work. Let's stick to that.

    You didn't point out anything actually, you made a claim.

    Pointing out something usually involves having evidence of some form.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 714 ✭✭✭Ziphius


    mickrock wrote: »
    I'm pointing out how your brand of evolution doesn't and can't work. Let's stick to that.

    Much like your brand of argument.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    BizzyC wrote: »
    You didn't point out anything actually, you made a claim.

    Pointing out something usually involves having evidence of some form.


    Darwinists are the ones making grand claims with the flimsiest of evidence.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,012 ✭✭✭BizzyC


    mickrock wrote: »
    Darwinists are the ones making grand claims with the flimsiest of evidence.

    They've provided some source to their claims that is based in scientific method and observation.

    Can you provide any source to your claims that is a result of anything more than personal opinion?


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


    BizzyC wrote: »
    They've provided some source to their claims that is based in scientific method and observation.

    Such as?


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


    mickrock wrote: »
    I'm pointing out how your brand of evolution doesn't and can't work. Let's stick to that.

    so you claim you know your brand of evolution works yet avoid discussing it. Looks like spoofery to me.

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,012 ✭✭✭BizzyC


    mickrock wrote: »
    Such as?

    Looking back a couple of pages I can see links to multiple articles providing scientific observation to back up evolution.

    You obviously have chosen to ignore everything.

    I'm still waiting for you to show me anything to indicate that what your saying isn't more than just opinion.


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


    koth wrote: »
    so you claim you know your brand of evolution works yet avoid discussing it. Looks like spoofery to me.

    Wouldn't you rather discuss Darwinism and show me where I'm going wrong?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    mickrock wrote: »
    I accept that evolution happens but not by Darwinian means.
    mickrock wrote: »
    I'm pointing out how your brand of evolution doesn't and can't work. Let's stick to that.
    You've made a claim and you've been asked to justify it.

    Your choices are either to justify it, or withdraw it and, as mod, I'll be making sure you do make a choice.


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


    mickrock wrote: »
    Wouldn't you rather discuss Darwinism and show me where I'm going wrong?
    No, as I asked you about your understanding of how evolution works, i.e. your claim that a non-Darwinian version is how it works.

    Why so coy about it? Surely you have evidence that lead you to your position?

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



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


    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.
    You say this as if "variation" is some kind of limited process, as if the word represents piffling changes to phenotypes.

    "Variation" doesn't only describe small changes in beak shape, it encompasses the process of fins to arms, of simple osmotic membranes to complex kidneys.

    "Variation" is evolution.
    mickrock wrote: »
    It doesn't make sense that novelty and innovation can arise by gradual, incremental steps using a blind, undirected mechanism.
    Well then, you don't understand what evolution is. Most obvious by use of the phrase "blind, undirected".

    Have you forgotten about natural selection?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    doctoremma wrote: »
    You say this as if "variation" is some kind of limited process, as if the word represents piffling changes to phenotypes.

    "Variation" doesn't only describe small changes in beak shape, it encompasses the process of fins to arms, of simple osmotic membranes to complex kidneys.

    "Variation" is evolution.
    One of the things I love most about the process is the beauty of looking at species which at first glance couldn't be more separated, more different (e.g. humans and sperm whales), but when you look underneath the skin, the majority of the biology (especially the skeleton) are just variations on the same theme.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,012 ✭✭✭BizzyC


    mickrock wrote: »
    Wouldn't you rather discuss Darwinism and show me where I'm going wrong?

    If you could provide any sort of basis or detail to your claim, then we could discuss it.

    And before you go off on a tangent of "you guys can't/won't discuss it", a discussion is a two way street.
    If you challenge a position, provide a reason behind your challenge so that people can respond to it.
    Otherwise your not starting a discussion, your just stating personal opinion.


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


    seamus wrote: »
    One of the things I love most the process is the beauty of looking at species which at first glance couldn't be more separated, more different (e.g. humans and sperm whales), but when you look underneath the skin, the majority of the biology (especially the skeleton) are just variations on the same theme.
    To follow on from this...
    I think those not easily able to "look underneath the skin" (they don't study biology, they don't read any academic texts, etc) simply cannot understand how anyone could say "a fin is basically a wing is basically an arm" with a straight face.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    mickrock wrote: »
    Darwinists are the ones making grand claims with the flimsiest of evidence.

    Neo-Darwinian evolution is the only scientific supported form of evolution I'm aware of, it is why science thinks evolution takes place at all.

    You asserted evolution takes place but by a different system.

    Please explain the processes in this non-Darwinian system.


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


    robindch wrote: »
    You've made a claim and you've been asked to justify it.

    Your choices are either to justify it, or withdraw it and, as mod, I'll be making sure you do make a choice.


    I've already justified it by pointing out that Darwinian evolution is illogical and the evidence is flimsy.

    It's illogical because you cannot, for example, create a new organ (which needs many integrated parts to work) in a gradual, stepwise fashion. Each of the many intermediate stages would have to be fully functional and have come about as a result of random variation, which isn't a reasonable or plausible proposition.

    I can't think of any evidence for Darwinian evolution. Lenski's E.coli that adapted to metabolise citrate under aerobic condition (which they could already do anaerobically) is often offered as the best evidence of evolution in action. Very underwhelming, to say the least.


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


    mickrock wrote: »
    It's illogical because you cannot, for example, create a new organ (which needs many integrated parts to work) in a gradual, stepwise fashion. Each of the many intermediate stages would have to be fully functional and have come about as a result of random variation, which isn't a reasonable or plausible proposition.
    Wrong. Just wrong, and not what evolutionary theory says.

    They would merely have to be advantageous or, at the very least, not harmful.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,452 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    mickrock wrote: »
    I can't think of any don't understand the evidence for Darwinian evolution.
    Perhaps?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    mickrock wrote: »
    I've already justified it by pointing out that Darwinian evolution is illogical and the evidence is flimsy.

    It's illogical because you cannot, for example, create a new organ (which needs many integrated parts to work) in a gradual, stepwise fashion. Each of the many intermediate stages would have to be fully functional and have come about as a result of random variation, which isn't a reasonable or plausible proposition.
    But that's what happened. That's historical fact and can be traced. There is no denial that evolution occurs, that organs arise through gradual intermediate stages (and no, each stage does not have to be a fully functional organ).

    Here you are, once again failing to explain your theory about why evolution occurs.

    Though I suspect I won't get an answer because you actually deny that evolution occurs at all and believe that the fossil record is a "test" from God, or other similar nonsense.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 714 ✭✭✭Ziphius


    Care to provide an example of an organ that could not have developed gradually, mickrock?

    Don't you creationists refer to this as 'irreducible complexity'?


  • Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Yeah, well, how come life doesn't spontaneously arise in a jar of peanut butter? Checkmate!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    doctoremma wrote: »
    To follow on from this...
    I think those not easily able to "look underneath the skin" (they don't study biology, they don't read any academic texts, etc) simply cannot understand how anyone could say "a fin is basically a wing is basically an arm" with a straight face.

    'they don't study biology' = did, but only up to Inter Cert (yes, I am old).

    'they don't read any academic texts' = read them all the time but in a different discipline (did do some archaeology as a Fresher which covered human evolution but that was eons ago).

    'simply cannot understand how anyone could say "a fin is basically a wing is basically an arm" with a straight face' = Yes, I can. Makes sense to this non-scientist...and I think it is fascinating...

    What I can't understand is how anyone could say "God made the world in 6 days" with a straight face :confused:

    ;)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement