Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#424 Jan 26, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
So your personal standard of proof for non-human to human evolution is: a generation by generation catalog of every relevant mutation occurring in the 300,000 odd generations between ourselves the common ancestor of the chimp and the human.
"All of science is uncertain and subject to revision. The glory of science is to imagine more than we can prove." - Freeman Dyson.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#425 Jan 26, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
Science on the other hand makes predictions based on the theory that show what we should observe.
Devolution theory predicts that there is no contradiction to devolution theory and admits the possibility of miracles, such as genetic diseases can cease to be inheritable. An ID advocate would call that evidence of a brilliant design where damaged code can repair itself.

Since devolution is a super theory that accepts Darwin's postulates, as enumerated by Scott Freeman and Jon C. Herron (2004), Evolutionary Analysis 4th Edition, it obviously predicts everything that logically follows from those postulates plus all the consequence of the added devolution hypothesis.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#426 Jan 26, 2014
consequences
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#427 Jan 26, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
The point being, genetic recovery is not miraculous nor fantastically improbable.
How do you know that without computing the mathematical probability?
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#428 Jan 26, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
The point being, genetic recovery is not miraculous nor fantastically improbable.
Its merely what one expects given the actual population genetics and a workable ratio and absolute number of beneficial to neutral to deleterious mutation rates.
If you don't know those probabilities, then you're just arm-waving.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#429 Jan 26, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
Try explaining what we observe rather than claiming what we observe cannot be true.
I've already written plenty on why evolutionists hide their observations and haven't produced the equivalent of google earth for fossils.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#430 Jan 26, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> "All of science is uncertain and subject to revision. The glory of science is to imagine more than we can prove." - Freeman Dyson.

Translation: I have nothing to offer against the data so I throw out a random quote as if it means something and will get me off the hook.

Sorry Shubee. We are not as dumb as you.

Your's is inferior.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#431 Jan 26, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Devolution theory

there is no such thing as Devolution theory. I therefore stopped reading the post at that point since I am not here to read fiction.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#432 Jan 26, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> How do you know that without computing the mathematical probability?

Because it is observed to happen.

If the math says reality cannot happen then it is the math that is off.

Do you now understand WHY devolution is refuted?

Likewise your math is also refuted.

Any calculations you might have that show the earth is a cube is also refuted by the same method.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#433 Jan 26, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> If you don't know those probabilities, then you're just arm-waving.

He is just telling you what reality is.

If you calculate 2+2=blue then we can be pretty certain that your math is wrong for the same reason we know the rest of your math is wrong.

Stick with misteaching 5th graders. I am certain you are good at that.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#434 Jan 26, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> I've already written plenty on why evolutionists hide their observations and haven't produced the equivalent of google earth for fossils.

What is an "evolutionist"? I just looked at a list of scientific disciplines and did not find it. I did find 'evolutionary biologist'. Is that what you mean?

When do "evolutionists" hide their observations? There are over 1 BILLION fossils in museums around the world and many more in smaller museums and private collections. Hidden in plain sight, eh?
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#435 Jan 26, 2014
A google Earth equivalent for fossils would overwhelmingly confirm the observations of Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould.

In a landmark 1972 paper—based on an extensive study of the fossil record—Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould established the now widely accepted conclusion that the great majority of species that have ever lived originated in geological moments (punctuations) and persisted unchanged over long periods of time (stasis). Since 1972, "re-analysis of existing fossil data has shown, to the increasing satisfaction of the paleontological community, that Eldredge and Gould were correct."
http://everythingimportant.org/devolution/

Why would evolutionists what everyone to see that the fossil record only confirms a static distribution of fossils, not evolution?
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#436 Jan 26, 2014
want

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#437 Jan 26, 2014
Shubee wrote:
A google Earth equivalent for fossils would overwhelmingly confirm the observations of Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould.
In a landmark 1972 paper—based on an extensive study of the fossil record—Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould established the now widely accepted conclusion that the great majority of species that have ever lived originated in geological moments (punctuations) and persisted unchanged over long periods of time (stasis). Since 1972, "re-analysis of existing fossil data has shown, to the increasing satisfaction of the paleontological community, that Eldredge and Gould were correct."
http://everythingimportant.org/devolution/
Why would evolutionists what everyone to see that the fossil record only confirms a static distribution of fossils, not evolution?

You clearly have not read the book. Punctuations and stasis are relative terms. Change can and does occur in relative stasis. That too is evidenced in the fossil record.

So Darwin was right when he predicted P.E. that was later formulated as to specifics by Gould and Eldredge. Thanks for allowing me to demonstrate Darwin's prediction was right all along.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#438 Jan 26, 2014
Dogen wrote:
So Darwin was right when he predicted P.E.
Darwin didn't predict preexisting fact.

Cuvier Opposed Gradualistic Theories of Evolution

Georges Cuvier was critical of the evolutionary theories proposed by his contemporaries Lamarck and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, which involved the gradual transmutation of one form into another. He repeatedly emphasized that his extensive experience with fossil material indicated that one fossil form does not, as a rule, gradually change into a succeeding, distinct fossil form. Instead, he said, the typical form makes an abrupt appearance in the fossil record, and persists unchanged to the time of its extinction (this is the well-documented paleontological phenomenon now referred to as "punctuated equilibrium"). In other words, Cuvier, the father of paleontology, was a saltationist. Like other saltationists, he offered no explanation of how living things could undergo unusually fast transformational changes. Note the title of Cuvier's book, Discourse on The Revolutionary Upheavals on The Surface of The Globe and on The Changes Which They Have Produced in The Animal Kingdom and the absence of any explanation in the book on the mechanism of change in species.
everythingimportant.org/devolution/

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#439 Jan 26, 2014
Shubee wrote:
A google Earth equivalent for fossils would overwhelmingly confirm the observations of Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould.
In a landmark 1972 paper—based on an extensive study of the fossil record—Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould established the now widely accepted conclusion that the great majority of species that have ever lived originated in geological moments (punctuations) and persisted unchanged over long periods of time (stasis). Since 1972, "re-analysis of existing fossil data has shown, to the increasing satisfaction of the paleontological community, that Eldredge and Gould were correct."
http://everythingimportant.org/devolution/
Why would evolutionists what everyone to see that the fossil record only confirms a static distribution of fossils, not evolution?
Anyone that quotes Steven Jay Gould as if it will help them when trying to argue against evolution is an utter idiot. Oh. Wait. It all becomes clear now...
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#440 Jan 26, 2014
Bluenose wrote:
Oh. Wait. It all becomes clear now...
Correct. You don't believe that truth is modular.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#441 Jan 26, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Darwin didn't predict preexisting fact.
Cuvier Opposed Gradualistic Theories of Evolution
Georges Cuvier was critical of the evolutionary theories proposed by his contemporaries Lamarck and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, which involved the gradual transmutation of one form into another. He repeatedly emphasized that his extensive experience with fossil material indicated that one fossil form does not, as a rule, gradually change into a succeeding, distinct fossil form. Instead, he said, the typical form makes an abrupt appearance in the fossil record, and persists unchanged to the time of its extinction (this is the well-documented paleontological phenomenon now referred to as "punctuated equilibrium"). In other words, Cuvier, the father of paleontology, was a saltationist. Like other saltationists, he offered no explanation of how living things could undergo unusually fast transformational changes. Note the title of Cuvier's book, Discourse on The Revolutionary Upheavals on The Surface of The Globe and on The Changes Which They Have Produced in The Animal Kingdom and the absence of any explanation in the book on the mechanism of change in species.

You can't claim evolution is a fact in the same forum that you are advocating (an impossible) alternative.

Try thinking it through next time.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#442 Jan 26, 2014
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone that quotes Steven Jay Gould as if it will help them when trying to argue against evolution is an utter idiot. Oh. Wait. It all becomes clear now...

and then he called evolution a fact.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#443 Jan 26, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
there is no such thing as Devolution theory. I therefore stopped reading the post at that point since I am not here to read fiction.
I thought a bit about the mindset needed to ignore any and all statements to the contrary.

His mind is of recessive character.

Recessive trait
An inherited trait that is outwardly obvious only when two copies of the gene for that trait are present—as opposed to a dominant trait where one copy of the gene for the dominant trait is sufficient to display the trait. The recessive condition is said to be masked by the presence of the dominant gene when both are present; i.e., the recessive condition is seen only in the absence of the dominant gene.

Mentioned in: Cutis Laxa, Galactosemia, Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase Deficiency, Pseudoxanthoma Elasticum

recessive trait,

an inherited characteristic that is determined by a recessive allele.

Origin and Evolution of New Gene Functions
redacted by Manyuan Long

http://books.google.nl/books...

The books gives a nice summation of population genetics and various theories and their mathemathetical models.(reality first the model later, or in any case taking note of solid research and adapting accordingly. Or checking the results against
observations in f.i. a certain fish.) The question is what model (not talking about the mathematics used) is closest to the actual reality. And you would probably all the time have to add exactly what species is studied.

f.i. Models of pseudogenes v.neofunctionalisation.
NOTE a mutation is either fixed or lost before additional mutations arise and null allele behave as if they are neutral.
Large population size favours neo-fuctionalization since this increases Selection advantage.
Such an advantageous allele will behave as a neutral allele and continues it's existence silenced.
Once the first advantageous alleles is fixed at one of the loci , inactivating mutations continue to arise. If one of these becomes fixed, the neofunctional locus is converted to a pseudogene.
Old function and neo-function could both occur.

a.s.o.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 23 min Agents of Corruption 154,713
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 32 min Chimney1 178,120
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 35 min Chimney1 910
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr dirtclod 17,921
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Mar 26 Dogen 1,714
News Another Successful Prediction of Intelligent De... Mar 26 MikeF 1
News Intelligent Design: Corey Lee Mar 25 Paul Porter1 1
More from around the web