nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Darwin's theory

lanomist

just a question, If Darwins theory on evolution, that humankind evolved from apes, why are there still apes out there ?

Find more posts tagged with

puffins

in limbo

Quick Links

Comments

J C

kingchess wrote: »

yes thats the link.take a good read of it J C.tell us what you think:D

My answers in blue below.
Quote:-
The multiplication rule does not apply to biological evolution. A common error in the non-scientific literature and poorly written papers is to assume that probabilities multiply for computing components of living things such as proteins. Not an error - and the multiplication rule applies to sequential phenomena in Biology, just like all other sequential phenomena.
A typical argument notes that proteins are about 300 amino acids long and that there are 20 different kinds of amino acids. If such a string were to be generated using independent selection of the amino acids, then the probability of generating any particular string is 20-300, a very small number indeed.
Correct.

While this may be true for random strings, it does not directly apply to proteins found in living organisms. It does, unless there is intelligent intervention.
Why? Because individual mutations accumulate one-at-a-time and there is amplification (replication) between steps. That is, if one starts with a given amino acid string, the mutations in the genome (from which the string is derived) are sequential. A mutation occurs, perhaps changing the amino acid string. If the change is bad, which is true for the majority of changes, the organism dies and its genes are gone. Most cases result in debility rather than death ... thus resulting in a build-up of deleterious mutations within the population.

(In diploids, recessive defects will be removed more slowly since they are only exposed when an organism becomes homozygous for the mutation.) This causes further build-up of deleterious and lethal mutations within the genome, 'hiding' in a hetrozygous state.

If a rare lucky change occurs that has some advantage (or at best is neutral or only slightly deleterious) then the organism may survive to produce offspring. head of Tyrannosaurus Rex The possibility of appearance and acceptance (by natural selection processes) of mutations in the offspring therefore depends strongly on whether the previous generation survived and on the number of progeny. The organism may or may not survive (due to other items in it's 'mutation load') ... but, in any event, while a single change to a critical functional sequence can result in a lethal or semi-lethal condition ... a single change in the direction of an advantageous trait will have no phenotype effect until all of the sequence is present and integrated with all other systems required to generate the effect.
... so while NS can 'weed-out' deleterious traits ... it is powerless to generate useful traits de novo, because it cannot identify intermediate sequences 'moving towards' a useful functional sequence ... because this isn't expressed (and therefore selectable) until the entire functional sequence is present.

Genetic algorithm experiments, such as the Ev evolution program demonstrate clearly that the probability of generating what would be an extremely rare genetic string if the steps were independent, can be high. So the evolution of a 300 amino acid protein is reasonably easy to attain.They demonstrate no such thing.

kingchess

because jc I value your opinion,a person with such a-how shall I put it- Bibical knowledge of the world???

Overheal

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I wouldn't, that probably means it makes sense and he has no answer for it :pac:

That seems to be the case. I have to conclude that I've won the thread.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Sorry, but that is complete and utter nonsense.

Why?

kingchess

SW wrote: »

http://schneider.ncifcrf.gov/paper/ev/horserace.html <- that the link?

yes thats the link.take a good read of it J C.tell us what you think:D

kingchess

I think logic and JC do not go together,

J C

kingchess wrote: »

hi JC,I love the universal probability bound:p maybe you should google "a horse race to beat dembski"s universal probability bound"./ I do not know how to attach the link but it seems it is very easy to beat dumbski" very dodgy maths:D:D:D

There is nothing 'dodgy' about the maths.:D:D:D
Quote:-
(Dr.) Dembski's original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150, derived as the inverse of the product of the following approximate quantities:

10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time).
10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.
Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang.

Overheal

im actually offended he didn't respond to my post. damn

Delirium

kingchess wrote: »

hi JC,I love the universal probability bound:p maybe you should google "a horse race to beat dembski"s universal probability bound"./ I do not know how to attach the link but it seems it is very easy to beat dumbski" very dodgy maths:D:D:D

http://schneider.ncifcrf.gov/paper/ev/horserace.html <- that the link?

kingchess

hi JC,I love the universal probability bound:p maybe you should google "a horse race to beat dembski"s universal probability bound"./ I do not know how to attach the link but it seems it is very easy to beat dumbski" very dodgy maths:D:D:D

J C

ScumLord wrote: »

There's some argument for saying an intelligent being started off the universe in the knowledge that it would eventually lead to a self aware and sentient being emerging.

I don't accept that there's a god administrator making fine adjustments along the way though, because the universe doesn't need that kind of administration, it's so massive and varied that just about anything is inevitably going to happen inside it.

This a variety of Theism known as Deism.

ScumLord wrote: »

Life is just a natural process that can pop up under the right conditions and the universe is so big that it probably happens quite a bit.

That's where we differ ... life has such a high level of CFSI (Complex Functional Specified Information), even at its least irreducibly complex configuration, that it is estimated to have a Combinatorial Space of 10^40,000 ... while the Universal Probability Bound is only a relatively puny 10^150

ScumLord wrote: »

Even though humans were an accident, similar accidents could happen on other planets with life because planets are in constant turmoil wiping out life on a massive scale and starting again quite frequently giving optimal conditions for an intelligent species to eventually emerge.

No, the CFSI required for life is on such a scale that the Universal Probability Bound rules out such 'accidents' ... even with all the matter in the Universe and all the supposed time since the supposed Big Bang.

ScumLord wrote: »

So if a being was smart enough he could create a universe safe in the knowledge that it will spit out maybe a handful of intelligent creatures (or maybe machines) after dozen or so billion years.

But micro managing that universe kind of defeats the purpose of building it so well in the first place. Things are going to happen anyway it doesn't need to be managed.

It is possible that a 'very smart being' could create a Universe where CFSI is spontaneously generated ... but our Universe shows no such abilities ... in all cases CFSI is observed to be degraded/destroyed by non-intelligently directed changes to it ... and where the author is identified, it is, without exception, intelligent.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

one man's meat is indeed another man's poison ... and you have proven the rule by claiming that Creation Science evidence is 'poisonous' for Evolution.

would you like to present your evidence for creationism?

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

It is not bait but an accurate (if overly mild and generous) description of the stuff you dribble out your mouth. You constantly lie (like claiming to be a scientist when you wouldn't even pass a test set a primary school level, or talking about your "wife" who is "so hot" {though that is probably more Walter Mitty than deliberate}), cheat, obfuscate, quote mine, and steal in order to try and make your ridiculous nonsense seem legitmate. You are the intellectual and moral equivalent of David Irvine, the holocaust denier.

... have you anything else nasty you can think up to lie about me?

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Just one more lie to add to the catalogue, eh, JC? Not like you're going to stop now after ten years of constantly lying on here.

one man's meat is indeed another man's poison ... and you have proven the rule by claiming that Creation Science evidence is 'poisonous' for Evolution.

ScumLord

Overheal wrote: »

I never understood why creationists assume that evolution is mutually exclusive with their belief. If God created everything, then he created gravity, magnetism, the strong and weak atomic forces, all those other forces scientists love to geek out about, mass, etc. and if he did all that, he couldn't establish starting point and a mechanism - like evolution - to keep everything in motion? I mean, really. It would be God's equivalent of building a grandfather clock and giving the pendulum a right awl' swing.

There's some argument for saying an intelligent being started off the universe in the knowledge that it would eventually lead to a self aware and sentient being emerging.

I don't accept that there's a god administrator making fine adjustments along the way though, because the universe doesn't need that kind of administration, it's so massive and varied that just about anything is inevitably going to happen inside it. Life is just a natural process that can pop up under the right conditions and the universe is so big that it probably happens quite a bit. Even though humans were an accident, similar accidents could happen on other planets with life because planets are in constant turmoil wiping out life on a massive scale and starting again quite frequently giving optimal conditions for an intelligent species to eventually emerge.

So if a being was smart enough he could create a universe safe in the knowledge that it will spit out maybe a handful of intelligent creatures (or maybe machines) after dozen or so billion years.

But micro managing that universe kind of defeats the purpose of building it so well in the first place. Things are going to happen anyway it doesn't need to be managed.

Overheal

I never understood why creationists assume that evolution is mutually exclusive with their belief. If God created everything, then he created gravity, magnetism, the strong and weak atomic forces, all those other forces scientists love to geek out about, mass, etc. and if he did all that, he couldn't establish starting point and a mechanism - like evolution - to keep everything in motion? I mean, really. It would be God's equivalent of building a grandfather clock and giving the pendulum a right awl' swing.

Brian Shanahan

J C wrote: »

I'll not rise to that particular bait.:eek:

It is not bait but an accurate (if overly mild and generous) description of the stuff you dribble out your mouth. You constantly lie (like claiming to be a scientist when you wouldn't even pass a test set a primary school level, or talking about your "wife" who is "so hot" {though that is probably more Walter Mitty than deliberate}), cheat, obfuscate, quote mine, and steal in order to try and make your ridiculous nonsense seem legitmate. You are the intellectual and moral equivalent of David Irvine, the holocaust denier.

... suffices to say that one man's meat may be another man's poison.:pac:

Just one more lie to add to the catalogue, eh, JC? Not like you're going to stop now after ten years of constantly lying on here.

namloc1980

J C wrote: »

... so what are the facts that lead you to conclude that Pondkind could evolve spontaneously into Mankind?

Spontaneously? You're confused....that's the trick the big bearded bloke living in the sky pulled.

kingchess

J C wrote: »

... so what are the facts that lead you to conclude that Pondkind could evolve spontaneously into Mankind?

and you claim that you believed in evolution theory before creation theory??

remember saying?? ,you were that soldier.NO-ONE could believe that pond kind could spontaneously turn into mankind.:rolleyes:

Wibbs

J C wrote: »

... it was Abe Lincoln allright
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/27074.html

'There is a sucker born every minute' is attributed to PT Barnum ... but it more likely originated as a criticism of PT Barnum's circus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There's_a_sucker_born_every_minute

Well I never... New fact learned.

A rapid (and wise) reverse!!!:) I guess you are Homo Sapiens, after all ... and not a glorified Ape.

We never were Pan to begin with ... and I'm glad you have come through your 'ape-phase' and I only wish that all other evolutionists would become 'wise wise men' too and join you.

Oh I am most certainly not on the overswing of the pendulum that just sees us as another "bauble on the christmas tree of life". This view IMHO is an over reaction and backlash to the religious(Abrahamic) view of us as lord above the animals. We are unique and I say that as someone who would be extremely reductionist. We fully modern humans of today and of the last 40-60,000 years are even unique among the already unique human family that went before us.

However it's pretty obvious even on a cursory glance that we are very closely related to the great apes. We come from the same "stock". If no apes existed and never showed up in the fossil record and then we show up outa the blue then we might say "ehhh hang on?". But that's not the case. Kinda like if you saw the Wright brothers flyer and then saw Concorde. You'd see they were both aircraft, but one was in a very different league.

Add in that we have a very good picture of human evolution from those first bipedal apes(of which there were a few. It was quite the fashion back in the day), all the way through Erectus(who I'd label the first "human") and those that followed all the way to us. Creationists are always stating that in the fossil record there are no intermediate fossils between one species and the next, yet they have to look no further than ourselves and how we got to be who we are today. Indeed you can see a clear progression from the earliest Homo Sapiens to us today.

During the Middle Ages and the Industrial Revolution life was short and cheap ... and we now live in a more enlightened era ... although not universally, as a (hopefully) brief visit to Ibiza or Sunny Beach will prove.:eek:
Going back further into history, Human life spans were much longer as we hadn't yet developed the mutagenic load that we now have ... and modern medicine is 'flat out' trying to cure/manage.:)

Not quite. By the time of the late paleolithic human lifespan was pretty fixed. The three score and ten(and four score for the very strong) of the sermon on the mount was the limit. Your average person who didn't die in childhood(the majority did) had a pretty good chance of seeing 60 at least. We see that in huntergatherer societies today. 60 and 70 year olds are not uncommon. In the classical era this held true. Consider that a Roman soldier signed up at 18 and was expected to serve for 25 years before retirement, which involved getting a lump sum and land to farm and raise a family. In the early days of the legions they weren't allowed to get married until they retired. So it wasn't considered odd for a 43 year old man to "settle down" and raise a family. Quite a number of soldiers didn't retire, some semi retired and were instructors, while all ex soldiers could be called up at any time as a reserve. This notion that back in the day "sure they all died at 25" is BS.

However the centuries lifespan the bible talks about has zero and I mean zero evidence. It's a common enough meme in primitive societies, along with "bottomless" lakes and pits and the like. There will likely come a time when through technology we as a species will become practically "immortal", but we'll do that ourselves. No bronze age middle eastern deity required.

floggg

J C wrote: »

... so what are the facts that lead you to conclude that Pondkind could evolve spontaneously into Mankind?

As opposed to God creating Adam from dust?

If you wanna go that route, your undermining genesis as much as anything else. That whole magic trick was actually spontaneous - unlike evolution.

J C

Wibbs wrote: »

I thought that quote was PT Barnum?

... it was Abe Lincoln allright
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/27074.html

'There is a sucker born every minute' is attributed to PT Barnum ... but it more likely originated as a criticism of PT Barnum's circus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There's_a_sucker_born_every_minute

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually the translation is "wise wise man". In any event I don't think taxonomical description is a bad one. We're very different from Pan. Early hominids were very different and modern humans are incredibly different from our pan ancestors and different even to our Homo ancestors.

A rapid (and wise) reverse!!!:) I guess you are Homo Sapiens, after all ... and not a glorified Ape.

Wibbs wrote: »

This can go both ways. On the one hand you have those who claim we're lords above other life and on the other, you have those who claim we're no different, ordinary, an animal with an ego. The reality is we do stand out and stand out a lot compared to all the life that has existed on this earth for three billion years. We're the ones who can count the years, we're the ones who invented gods and religions, we're the ones who named ourselves and we're the ones who named the very processes that gave rise to us. We name our own existence and may well end up changing the parameters of that existence(we already do on a basic level*). That marks us out and in a big effin way. We left "Pan" behind a very long time ago.

We never were Pan to begin with ... and I'm glad you have come through your 'ape-phase' and I only wish that all other evolutionists would become 'wise wise men' too and join you.

Wibbs wrote: »

*Going by pre modern medicine stats at least half of the folks engaging on this thread would have been dead before adolescence and a few others would have pegged it before 20. We have externalised evolution and natural selection and have done so for about a million years and recently we've seen the process and named it and are now fiddling with it.

During the Middle Ages and the Industrial Revolution life was short and cheap ... and we now live in a more enlightened era ... although not universally, as a (hopefully) brief visit to Ibiza or Sunny Beach will prove.:eek:
Going back further into history, Human life spans were much longer as we hadn't yet developed the mutagenic load that we now have ... and modern medicine is 'flat out' trying to cure/manage.:)

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

That's part of the reason why ToE was taken on so quickly by the establisment (almost uniquely for any scientific theory), because most of the establishment had been practising unnatural selection for generations (both on themselves {google Hapsburg jaw for a good laugh} and their livestock) and quickly realised that if humans could do it to themselves, their dogs, their horses and their cows, a changing environment could instill similar changes in species.

Yes, they were selecting for particular phenotypes from pre-existing genetic diversity ... and NS also does this.
However the TOE doesn't explain how this diversity could arise, in the first place.

yellowlabrador

we've evolved, someone corrected the title thread.

jc a question for you

why did your god create us, are we just a vanity project?
And why do we have tailbone?
Is that just to remind us of our status?
and if we are made in his(her)(its) image, why has he(she)(it) got a tailbone.

obplayer

J C wrote: »

... so what are the facts that lead you to conclude that Pondkind could evolve spontaneously into Mankind?

Who said anything about spontaneously? Where does evolutionary science suggest any such thing?

obplayer

J C wrote: »

Its a lecture on the competing theory to Materialistic Evolution ... Intelligent Design ... and this is how you scientifically detect design:-

Again (and again and again....) this lecture is also not about evolution, it is about abiogenesis. If you wish to discuss abiogenesis then please set up a thread about that and we can demolish your views on that also. And again, if you have so much difficulty grasping the difference between evolution and abiogenesis then your 'scientific credentials' must have come from the back of a cornflakes box.

Squeedily Spooch

J C wrote: »

... so what are the facts that lead you to conclude that Pondkind could evolve spontaneously into Mankind?

Spontaneously? That's as a crazy as people being magicked out of thin air by a...oh...

Ziphius

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

This, plus all this stuff is so damn interesting I'll take any excuse to share what I know about it :pac:

Also, this one kind of slipped under the radar, but I think J C said some dinosaurs were mammals a couple of pages ago. Did that actually happen?

Indeed. Although he also said that dinosaurs were, at the same time, "big" and as "small as a chicken".

Wibbs

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Stop trying to fool all of the people all of the time so.

I thought that quote was PT Barnum?

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

A big part of the problem IMO is that we are described taxonomically as Homo, when we should really be still described as Pan. A bit of arrogance on the part of the scientists who named us in the first place going so far as to use the name Homo Sapiens Sapiens (trans: really wise man) was I think kind of stupid.

Actually the translation is "wise wise man". In any event I don't think taxonomical description is a bad one. We're very different from Pan. Early hominids were very different and modern humans are incredibly different from our pan ancestors and different even to our Homo ancestors. This can go both ways. On the one hand you have those who claim we're lords above other life and on the other, you have those who claim we're no different, ordinary, an animal with an ego. The reality is we do stand out and stand out a lot compared to all the life that has existed on this earth for three billion years. We're the ones who can count the years, we're the ones who invented gods and religions, we're the ones who named ourselves and we're the ones who named the very processes that gave rise to us. We name our own existence and may well end up changing the parameters of that existence(we already do on a basic level*). That marks us out and in a big effin way. We left "Pan" behind a very long time ago.

*Going by pre modern medicine stats at least half of the folks engaging on this thread would have been dead before adolescence and a few others would have pegged it before 20. We have externalised evolution and natural selection and have done so for about a million years and recently we've seen the process and named it and are now fiddling with it.

Brian Shanahan

Faktuu wrote: »

I don`t understand why are we still talking about that in 21 century since even Darwin had an actual factual proof of he`s theory
it ware pigeons, dogs etc. that ppl ware artificially evolving to own needs for centuries.
All that creationism BS comes from ppl not being able to cope with they`re own mortality.

That's part of the reason why ToE was taken on so quickly by the establisment (almost uniquely for any scientific theory), because most of the establishment had been practising unnatural selection for generations (both on themselves {google Hapsburg jaw for a good laugh} and their livestock) and quickly realised that if humans could do it to themselves, their dogs, their horses and their cows, a changing environment could instill similar changes in species.

Pherekydes

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'd say she was referring to someone else.

Yeah, my tongue-in-cheek post was tongue-in-cheek.