how to reply to this fool?
urthogie
sparknotes messageboard (http://mb.sparknotes.com/mb.epl?
b=15&m=1249692&t=352981), he says:
"I would like to ask one, and only one thing from all you
evolutionists out there. Please consider the background information
below.
Dogs, wolves, coyotes, panthers, cats, tigers, and humans exist.
A dog's haploid gamete has 39 chromosomes,
a wolf's has 39, and
a coyote's has 39.
A panther's has 19,
a cat's has 19, and
a tiger's has 19.
Finally, a human being's haploid gamete has 23.
You have diploids with 46 chromosomes, and so do your parents.
Dogs, wolves, and coyotes could have had a common ancestor that also
had diploids with 78 chromosomes.
Panthers, cats, and tigers could have had a common ancestor that also
had diploids with 38 chromosomes.
My question is: Is there any proof that there is even a possibility
that all these organisms were slowly evolved from a common,
unicellular, bacteria-like ancestor 3.5 billion years ago?
If not, here is some food for thought: Should tax money be invested in
textbooks that affirm the common ancestry as fact?"
What's the easiest way to prove him wrong?
Steven J.
> I don't know enough about evolution to reply to this fool at the
> sparknotes messageboard (http://mb.sparknotes.com/mb.epl?
> b=15&m=1249692&t=352981), he says:
>
> "I would like to ask one, and only one thing from all you
> evolutionists out there. Please consider the background information
> below.
>
> Dogs, wolves, coyotes, panthers, cats, tigers, and humans exist.
> A dog's haploid gamete has 39 chromosomes,
> a wolf's has 39, and
> a coyote's has 39.
> A panther's has 19,
> a cat's has 19, and
> a tiger's has 19.
> Finally, a human being's haploid gamete has 23.
>
number of 32). Przewalsky's horse, a wild horse that can interbreed
with domestic horses to produce fertile offspring, has 66
chromosomes. Donkeys (which can interbreed with horses to produce
offspring which, on rare occasions, are interfertile with horses) have
62 chromosomes; zebras (which can interbreed with horses to produce
sterile offspring) have 44 chromosomes. Okapis (a short-necked
giraffe species) have 44 to 46 chromosomes; okapis with different
numbers of chromosomes are interfertile, and individuals with 45
chromosomes exist. Chromosome number can vary within a species;
chromosomes can fuse or split without necessarily impairing fertility,
and in this manner different, related populations, subspecies, or
species can aquire different chromosome numbers from one another and
from their common ancestors.
>
> You have diploids with 46 chromosomes, and so do your parents.
> Dogs, wolves, and coyotes could have had a common ancestor that also
> had diploids with 78 chromosomes.
> Panthers, cats, and tigers could have had a common ancestor that also
> had diploids with 38 chromosomes.
>
> My question is: Is there any proof that there is even a possibility
> that all these organisms were slowly evolved from a common,
> unicellular, bacteria-like ancestor 3.5 billion years ago?
>
> If not, here is some food for thought: Should tax money be invested in
> textbooks that affirm the common ancestry as fact?"
>
> What's the easiest way to prove him wrong?
-- Steven J.
Dr.GH
Vend
Point out that mutations of chromosome structure and number are
relatively common, and they are not necessarly harmful.
The most obvious examples would be probably plants, but I guess that
there are some humans around who have some kind of chromosomal
abnormality and are healthy and fertile, don't they?
Ernest Major
urthogie <urth...@googlemail.com> writes
>I don't know enough about evolution to reply to this fool at the
>sparknotes messageboard (http://mb.sparknotes.com/mb.epl?
>b=15&m=1249692&t=352981), he says:
>
>"I would like to ask one, and only one thing from all you
>evolutionists out there. Please consider the background information
>below.
>
>Dogs, wolves, coyotes, panthers, cats, tigers, and humans exist.
>A dog's haploid gamete has 39 chromosomes,
>a wolf's has 39, and
>a coyote's has 39.
>A panther's has 19,
>a cat's has 19, and
>a tiger's has 19.
>Finally, a human being's haploid gamete has 23.
>
>You have diploids with 46 chromosomes, and so do your parents.
>Dogs, wolves, and coyotes could have had a common ancestor that also
>had diploids with 78 chromosomes.
>Panthers, cats, and tigers could have had a common ancestor that also
>had diploids with 38 chromosomes.
To answer the implicit question, chromosome number can change through
evolution. Some species are polymorphic for chromosome number. (Such
polymorphism are rare in humans, but common in some other species.) In
mammals the usual form of change is by the fusion or fission of
chromosomes. Chromosome number can also change through duplication of
genomes (only one case in known in mammals, but this is common in
plants), by duplication of chromosomes, and by deletion of chromosomes.
You can find this stuff, for example, in the plant breeding literature.
>
>My question is: Is there any proof that there is even a possibility
>that all these organisms were slowly evolved from a common,
>unicellular, bacteria-like ancestor 3.5 billion years ago?
Proof is an ambiguous term. Science doesn't deal in proof in the same
way as mathematics does, but deals with evidence; on the other hand
common descent with modification through the agency of natural selection
and other processes is a robust inference supported by literally
billions of observed facts that could just as well be described as
proven beyond reasonable doubt. (I keep wanting to write unreasonable
doubt, but that requires putting limits on unreason.)
The evidence belongs to several distinct categories.
1) The nested hierarchy of anatomical homologies.
2) Biogeography and palaeobiogeography, that is the distribution of
organisms in the present and past.
3) The nested hierarchy of biochemical and ultrastructural homologies.
4) The nested hierarchy of development homologies.
5) The existence and nature of the faunal succession in the fossil
record.
6) The nested hierarchy of gene sequences.
7) The nested hierarchy of genome contents.
8) Vestigal features of organisms.
9) The correlation between all the nested hierarchies.
10) Observations of genetic variation, including various forms of
mutation.
11) Observations of speciation.
12) And whatever happens to have slipped my attention.
>
>If not, here is some food for thought: Should tax money be invested in
>textbooks that affirm the common ancestry as fact?"
As the if not is not the question is moot.
>
>What's the easiest way to prove him wrong?
>
--
Alias Ernest Major
Frank J
Before you defend evolution, get him to say exactly what he thinks
happened instead. Exactly which lineages originated independently, and
*when* those abiogenesis events occurred. If that's what he thinks;
from your post I can't rule out that he prefers saltation instead. If
that, again, get the basic whats and whens. Make sure he supports his
hypotheses on their own merits, without reference to his perceived
weaknesses of evolution. Don't accept any evasion or false dichotomy
with design.
If you decide that he's playing word games - as nearly all anti-
evolution activists do - anything you offer him will just give him
more words to spin. If he does satisfactorily answer your questions,
however, then use this to politely counter his claims:
John Harshman
The simplest way is to notice that there is no connection between his
"background information", all about haploid chromosome counts, and the
evolution of all organisms from a unicellular, bacteria-like ancestor.
Now I suppose he's making the assumption that the uncrossable barrier of
all barriers is a change chromosome counts. But of course this is
nonsense, easily shown by the fact that many species vary in chromosome
count between and even within populations. Mus musculus is one such
species. Look up Robertsonian fusion/fission.
So having disposed of this uncrossable barrier, is there good evidence
for common ancestry of canids, felids, and primates (including Homo)?
Sure there is. The best evidence is the nested hierarchy of genetic
characters, discernable both in morphology and in the genomes
themselves. This is supplemented by the fossil record, which shows a
good variety of intermediate forms. Similar sorts of data get us back to
the origin of vertebrates, eukaryotes, and eventually of all life. So
the answer to that "food for thought" question is yes. Common ancestry
is as certain as anything in science, and it would be criminal not to
teach that in science classes.
Kevin Wayne Williams
> Horses (_Equus caballus_) have 64 chromosomes (or a haploid chromosome
> number of 32). Przewalsky's horse, a wild horse that can interbreed
> with domestic horses to produce fertile offspring, has 66
> chromosomes. Donkeys (which can interbreed with horses to produce
> offspring which, on rare occasions, are interfertile with horses) have
> 62 chromosomes; zebras (which can interbreed with horses to produce
> sterile offspring) have 44 chromosomes. Okapis (a short-necked
> giraffe species) have 44 to 46 chromosomes; okapis with different
> numbers of chromosomes are interfertile, and individuals with 45
> chromosomes exist. Chromosome number can vary within a species;
> chromosomes can fuse or split without necessarily impairing fertility,
> and in this manner different, related populations, subspecies, or
> species can aquire different chromosome numbers from one another and
> from their common ancestors.
Ah, but evilutionists forged the evolution of horses, so that doesn't count.
KWW
bul...@bellsouth.net
> I don't know enough about evolution to reply to this fool at the
> sparknotes messageboard (http://mb.sparknotes.com/mb.epl?
> b=15&m=1249692&t=352981), he says:
>
> "I would like to ask one, and only one thing from all you
> evolutionists out there. Please consider the background information
> below.
>
> Dogs, wolves, coyotes, panthers, cats, tigers, and humans exist.
> A dog's haploid gamete has 39 chromosomes,
> a wolf's has 39, and
> a coyote's has 39.
> A panther's has 19,
> a cat's has 19, and
> a tiger's has 19.
> Finally, a human being's haploid gamete has 23.
>
> You have diploids with 46 chromosomes, and so do your parents.
> Dogs, wolves, and coyotes could have had a common ancestor that also
> had diploids with 78 chromosomes.
> Panthers, cats, and tigers could have had a common ancestor that also
> had diploids with 38 chromosomes.
>
> My question is: Is there any proof that there is even a possibility
> that all these organisms were slowly evolved from a common,
> unicellular, bacteria-like ancestor 3.5 billion years ago?
>
Others addressed the evidence, but let this slip by...
> ....here is some food for thought: Should tax money be invested in
> textbooks that affirm the common ancestry as fact?"
Yes. Unless some other explaination that can withstand scientific
scrutiny can be presented. Nobody's done that yet.
>
> What's the easiest way to prove him wrong?
That's a hard one to answer. With most creationists, you can lead
them to knowledge that demonstrates their claims or supposed
"problems" with evolution (common ancestry, and so on) are wrong, but
you can't make them think. Usually, they dismiss any citations of
evidence for common ancestry (or other facets of biological evolution)
out of hand, and whine, "does not!", and rather than address the
evidence, skip off with another "problem" with the ToE.
Boikat
Rolf
"Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> skrev i melding
news:1177371590....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
I agree with "Before you defend evolution, get him to say exactly what he
thinks happened instead".
It seems to me it is extremely hard to 'prove a creationist wrong'. And
isn't it up to him to present evidence for his claims? But the problem with
creationists is, they are not interested in inconvenient facts, they are
just reassuring their faith.
>
Desertphile
wrote:
> I don't know enough about evolution to reply to this fool at the
> sparknotes messageboard (http://mb.sparknotes.com/mb.epl?
> b=15&m=1249692&t=352981), he says:
CUTS.
> My question is: Is there any proof that there is even a possibility
> that all these organisms were slowly evolved from a common,
> unicellular, bacteria-like ancestor 3.5 billion years ago?
The answer is: "Yes."
> If not, here is some food for thought: Should tax money be invested in
> textbooks that affirm the common ancestry as fact?"
No, it should not. How ever, "If not" does not apply---n
th4erefore tax money SHOULD be invested in teaching people
science.
> What's the easiest way to prove him wrong?
It is impossible to "prove him wrong:" proof applies only to
mathematics. Nor is it possible to enlighten Creationists and
educate them.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike
Desertphile
<stev...@altavista.com> wrote:
Another example: some human beings are born with an extra 21st
chromosome, or part of an extra 21st chrmosome: and they are
inter-fertile with humans without the extra DNA.
>> What's the easiest way to prove him wrong?
One cannot educate a Creationist.
Bobby Bryant
Desertphile <deser...@nospam.org> writes:
> Nor is it possible to enlighten Creationists and educate them.
Strictly speaking, that only applies to creationist demagogues.
Ordinary creationists can be and sometimes are educated. It's the
Hams, Hovinds, Dembskis, Paganos, Pitmans, and McCoys of the world
that are beyond both education and reason.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Desertphile
Bryant) wrote:
> In article <2d4s2393r10ng80uj...@4ax.com>,
> Desertphile <deser...@nospam.org> writes:
>
> > Nor is it possible to enlighten Creationists and educate them.
> Strictly speaking, that only applies to creationist demagogues.
>
> Ordinary creationists can be and sometimes are educated. It's the
> Hams, Hovinds, Dembskis, Paganos, Pitmans, and McCoys of the world
> that are beyond both education and reason.
That's fair enough. Perhaps I should have used "Fundamentalist
religionist" instead of "Creationist." Cult indoctrination
includes techniques that prevent or inhibit thoughts considered
evil by the victims, which implanted phobias to punish the victims
if their thoughts stray into information their cult masters do not
allow them to have. Ray Martizez, "Bimms," McCoy, etc., are
excellent examples of the process.
Bobby Bryant
Desertphile <deser...@nospam.org> writes:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:59:06 GMT, bdbr...@wherever.ur (Bobby
> Bryant) wrote:
>
>> In article <2d4s2393r10ng80uj...@4ax.com>,
>> Desertphile <deser...@nospam.org> writes:
>>
>> > Nor is it possible to enlighten Creationists and educate them.
>
>> Strictly speaking, that only applies to creationist demagogues.
>>
>> Ordinary creationists can be and sometimes are educated. It's the
>> Hams, Hovinds, Dembskis, Paganos, Pitmans, and McCoys of the world
>> that are beyond both education and reason.
>
> That's fair enough. Perhaps I should have used "Fundamentalist
> religionist" instead of "Creationist."
I think we all tend to say "creationist" when we're really talking
about a narrower class.
Frank J
> "Frank J" <f...@comcast.net> skrev i meldingnews:1177371590....@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Maybe the rank & file creationists are "reassuring their faith," but
the professional and "obssessed amateur" anti-evolution activists, who
mostly know that evolution is the only explanation that holds up, are
just fishing for more words and facts misrepresent. Espcially in this
age of "don't ask or tell what the designer did or when," anything
that takes the focus off of the fact that they have no alternate
theory *and know it* gives them the rhetorical advantage.
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
mel turner
news:1177367147.4...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>I don't know enough about evolution to reply to this fool at the
> sparknotes messageboard (http://mb.sparknotes.com/mb.epl?
> b=15&m=1249692&t=352981), he says:
>
> "I would like to ask one, and only one thing from all you
> evolutionists out there. Please consider the background information
> below.
>
> Dogs, wolves, coyotes, panthers, cats, tigers, and humans exist.
> A dog's haploid gamete has 39 chromosomes,
> a wolf's has 39, and
> a coyote's has 39.
> A panther's has 19,
> a cat's has 19, and
> a tiger's has 19.
> Finally, a human being's haploid gamete has 23.
[my following comments are addressed to the original source of the
above]
So? Yes, different groups of organisms can and do have different
chromosome numbers. Closely related species can also have widely
differing chromosome numbers. Even members of a single species can
have different numbers. Exactly how is this "background info" going
to be relevant?
> You have diploids with 46 chromosomes, and so do your parents..
But not all humans do have the same number.
See an example I cited in:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1d3decba44c19721
> Dogs, wolves, and coyotes could have had a common ancestor that also
> had diploids with 78 chromosomes.
> Panthers, cats, and tigers could have had a common ancestor that also
> had diploids with 38 chromosomes.
>
> My question is: Is there any proof
There is extremely strong evidence. Science isn't about "proof".
Anyway, what does this have to do with your trivia about chromosomes?
Did you perhaps want to make some sort of argument that chromosome
numbers can't possibly change during evolution, and simply forgot to
actually make the claim? If so, it's simply wrong.
We in fact know a lot about how chromosome numbers can change and how
they have changed in different groups. There are even cases of
single species with a whole range of different numbers among
individuals that remain highly interfertile. House mice reportedly
range from 2n = 22 up to 2n = 40. Many other cases of chromosomally
polymorphic species are known.
> that there is even a possibility
> that all these organisms were slowly evolved from a common,
> unicellular, bacteria-like ancestor 3.5 billion years ago?
Why bring in an bacterium-like early ancestor for the above examples?
The most recent common ancestor of these species is much, much later
than that. They're all Carnivora. Or, if you also meant to include
the humans, they're all placental mammals.
> If not, here is some food for thought: Should tax money be invested in
> textbooks that affirm the common ancestry as fact?"
Yep. It is a fact that it's extremely well supported by all of the
scientific evidence. Why shouldn't science textbooks tell the truth
as we understand it? And although any creationist students obviously
can't be required to _believe_ any of the findings of evolutionary
science, they can and should be required to understand it well enough
to explain it correctly on exams.
> What's the easiest way to prove him wrong?
As it is, he didn't actually make any outright claims above that
need to be refuted. The house mouse and other examples refute his
implied but unstated claim about chromosome numbers.
more chromosome examples given at:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6a5e7ab155a3edd9
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8298937b7a3161fb
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/12c6e6cf5b4c9ceb
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.bio.evolution/msg/a1ff5ab6d4a69a99
cheers
Throwback
> > > If not, here is some food for thought: Should tax money be invested in
> > > textbooks that affirm the common ancestry as fact?"
>
> > > What's the easiest way to prove him wrong?
>
> > Before you defend evolution, get him to say exactly what he thinks
> > happened instead. Exactly which lineages originated independently, and
> > *when* those abiogenesis events occurred.
>
> I agree with "Before you defend evolution, get him to say exactly what he
> thinks happened instead".
This is darwin's cult belief #1 :
"We believe since their is no other hypothesis to account
for our observations, our hypothesis/theory must be
true."
Now the only way a new hypothesis can be formulated, is to take
a look at what was actually found in the fossil record (was it
a fragment?), strip it of the speculative, conjectural interpretations
placed on it by the theory in extant, and then formulate a new
hypothesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Theory-dependence_of_observation
"Thomas Kuhn denied that it is ever possible to isolate the theory
being tested from the influence of the theory in which the
observations are grounded. He argued that observations always rely on
a specific paradigm, and that it is not possible to evaluate competing
paradigms independently."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Indeterminacy_of_theory_under_empirical_testing
"According to the Duhem-Quine thesis, after Pierre Duhem and W.V.
Quine, any theory can be made compatible with any empirical
observation by the addition of suitable ad hoc hypotheses. This is
analogous to the way in which an infinite number of curves can be
drawn through any finite set of data points on a graph.
This thesis was accepted by Karl Popper, leading him to reject naïve
falsification in favour of 'survival of the fittest', or most
falsifiable, of scientific theories. In Popper's view, any hypothesis
that does not make testable predictions is simply not science. Such a
hypothesis may be useful or valuable, but it cannot be said to be
science. Confirmation holism, developed by W.V. Quine, states that
empirical data are not sufficient to make a judgement between
theories. In this view, a theory can always be made to fit with the
available empirical data."
Vend
> In article <2d4s2393r10ng80ujntciva1n29ai7q...@4ax.com>,
> Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> writes:
>
> > Nor is it possible to enlighten Creationists and educate them.
>
> Strictly speaking, that only applies to creationist demagogues.
>
> Ordinary creationists can be and sometimes are educated. It's the
> Hams, Hovinds, Dembskis, Paganos, Pitmans, and McCoys of the world
> that are beyond both education and reason.
Or, more likely, they pretend to.
Bobby Bryant
Throwback <throw...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Apr 24, 4:09 am, "Rolf" <r...@tele2.no> wrote:
>> "Frank J" <f...@comcast.net> skrev i
>
>> > > If not, here is some food for thought: Should tax money be invested in
>> > > textbooks that affirm the common ancestry as fact?"
>>
>> > > What's the easiest way to prove him wrong?
>>
>> > Before you defend evolution, get him to say exactly what he thinks
>> > happened instead. Exactly which lineages originated independently, and
>> > *when* those abiogenesis events occurred.
>>
>> I agree with "Before you defend evolution, get him to say exactly what he
>> thinks happened instead".
>
> This is darwin's cult belief #1 :
>
> "We believe since their is no other hypothesis to account for our
> observations, our hypothesis/theory must be true."
I'm wondering what fantasy world you live in.
Mark VandeWettering
> On Apr 24, 4:09 am, "Rolf" <r...@tele2.no> wrote:
>> "Frank J" <f...@comcast.net> skrev i
>
>> > > If not, here is some food for thought: Should tax money be invested in
>> > > textbooks that affirm the common ancestry as fact?"
>>
>> > > What's the easiest way to prove him wrong?
>>
>> > Before you defend evolution, get him to say exactly what he thinks
>> > happened instead. Exactly which lineages originated independently, and
>> > *when* those abiogenesis events occurred.
>>
>> I agree with "Before you defend evolution, get him to say exactly what he
>> thinks happened instead".
>
> This is darwin's cult belief #1 :
>
> "We believe since their is no other hypothesis to account
> for our observations, our hypothesis/theory must be
> true."
There is lots of evidence that supports evolutionary theory, and virtually
no credible evidence to contradict it. Given that, there is no real
reason to conclude that evolution is false, or even wrong. Of course
evolutionary theory isn't true by fiat, but barring any evidence to suggest
that it isn't true, it seems like a grand waste of time not to yield
provisional assent.
> Now the only way a new hypothesis can be formulated, is to take
> a look at what was actually found in the fossil record (was it
> a fragment?), strip it of the speculative, conjectural interpretations
> placed on it by the theory in extant, and then formulate a new
> hypothesis.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Theory-dependence_of_observation
>
> "Thomas Kuhn denied that it is ever possible to isolate the theory
> being tested from the influence of the theory in which the
> observations are grounded. He argued that observations always rely on
> a specific paradigm, and that it is not possible to evaluate competing
> paradigms independently."
So, Kuhn believed that what you think needs to be done is impossible.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Indeterminacy_of_theory_under_empirical_testing
>
> "According to the Duhem-Quine thesis, after Pierre Duhem and W.V.
> Quine, any theory can be made compatible with any empirical
> observation by the addition of suitable ad hoc hypotheses. This is
> analogous to the way in which an infinite number of curves can be
> drawn through any finite set of data points on a graph.
>
> This thesis was accepted by Karl Popper, leading him to reject naïve
> falsification in favour of 'survival of the fittest', or most
> falsifiable, of scientific theories. In Popper's view, any hypothesis
> that does not make testable predictions is simply not science. Such a
> hypothesis may be useful or valuable, but it cannot be said to be
> science. Confirmation holism, developed by W.V. Quine, states that
> empirical data are not sufficient to make a judgement between
> theories. In this view, a theory can always be made to fit with the
> available empirical data."
And neither did Popper.
I'm not certain how these quotes are supposed to support your proposal.
Mark
Vend
> > I agree with "Before you defend evolution, get him to say exactly what he
> > thinks happened instead".
>
> This is darwin's cult belief #1 :
>
> "We believe since their is no other hypothesis to account
> for our observations, our hypothesis/theory must be
> true."
This is not stated correctly. Try this one: "Since our theory is the
simplest known to accout for all observations, we belive that our
theory is correct until some observation that contraddicts it is
made."
It's an application of the Occam's razor.
> Now the only way a new hypothesis can be formulated, is to take
> a look at what was actually found in the fossil record (was it
> a fragment?), strip it of the speculative, conjectural interpretations
> placed on it by the theory in extant, and then formulate a new
> hypothesis.
So?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Theory-dependence_...
>
> "Thomas Kuhn denied that it is ever possible to isolate the theory
> being tested from the influence of the theory in which the
> observations are grounded. He argued that observations always rely on
> a specific paradigm, and that it is not possible to evaluate competing
> paradigms independently."
This is true to a certain extent: if you are measuring the length of
an object with a ruler, you usually assume that the ruler doesn't
contract or extends as you do the measure (or at least it doesn't do
that differently from the object under observation).
But how is this relevant to the argument?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Indeterminacy_of_t...
>
> "According to the Duhem-Quine thesis, after Pierre Duhem and W.V.
> Quine, any theory can be made compatible with any empirical
> observation by the addition of suitable ad hoc hypotheses.
This is way ad hoc hypothesis are considered bad science.
> This is
> analogous to the way in which an infinite number of curves can be
> drawn through any finite set of data points on a graph.
However not all curves can be drawn through any finite set of data
points.
This is how science works:
You have a set of observations (data points) and you try to find a
theory (curve) that fits them all. Since there are infinitely many of
them, you choose the simplest one you can think of (according to some
criterion).
As a new observation (data point) becomes available, you test whether
it fits in the theory (curve). If it does, the theory remains the
same, if it does not, you change the theory, choosing the simplest one
that fits all the old and the new observations.
> This thesis was accepted by Karl Popper, leading him to reject naïve
> falsification in favour of 'survival of the fittest', or most
> falsifiable, of scientific theories. In Popper's view, any hypothesis
> that does not make testable predictions is simply not science. Such a
> hypothesis may be useful or valuable, but it cannot be said to be
> science. Confirmation holism, developed by W.V. Quine, states that
> empirical data are not sufficient to make a judgement between
> theories. In this view, a theory can always be made to fit with the
> available empirical data."
Popper initially rejected the Theory of Evolution but later accepted
it, AFAIK.
Throwback
> On 25 Apr, 21:24, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I agree with "Before you defend evolution, get him to say exactly what he
> > > thinks happened instead".
>
> > This is darwin's cult belief #1 :
>
> > "We believe since their is no other hypothesis to account
> > for our observations, our hypothesis/theory must be
> > true."
>
> This is not stated correctly. Try this one: "Since our theory is the
> simplest known to accout for all observations, we belive that our
> theory is correct until some observation that contraddicts it is
> made."
> It's an application of the Occam's razor.
It is the only theory.
>
> > Now the only way a new hypothesis can be formulated, is to take
> > a look at what was actually found in the fossil record (was it
> > a fragment?), strip it of the speculative, conjectural interpretations
> > placed on it by the theory in extant, and then formulate a new
> > hypothesis.
>
> So?
I am simply stating how an alternate theory would have to be
constructed.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Theory-dependence_...
>
> > "Thomas Kuhn denied that it is ever possible to isolate the theory
> > being tested from the influence of the theory in which the
> > observations are grounded. He argued that observations always rely on
> > a specific paradigm, and that it is not possible to evaluate competing
> > paradigms independently."
>
> This is true to a certain extent: if you are measuring the length of
> an object with a ruler, you usually assume that the ruler doesn't
> contract or extends as you do the measure (or at least it doesn't do
> that differently from the object under observation).
>
> But how is this relevant to the argument?
He is stating in a way, the scientist have this theory, so
when they look at the fossil record, they speculate and
conjecture on what they find and assimilate it based on
their theory.
Also, when they have 3 species alleged to have a common ancestor,
what they conjecture and speculate is based on their theory
and what they then assimilate into their theory.
Now, the only way to change that one is to have an alternate
hypothesis,
which would state that the 3 species in question did not have a common
ancestor, and then assimilate that into the new theory.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Indeterminacy_of_t...
>
> > "According to the Duhem-Quine thesis, after Pierre Duhem and W.V.
> > Quine, any theory can be made compatible with any empirical
> > observation by the addition of suitable ad hoc hypotheses.
>
> This is way ad hoc hypothesis are considered bad science.
>
> > This is
> > analogous to the way in which an infinite number of curves can be
> > drawn through any finite set of data points on a graph.
>
> However not all curves can be drawn through any finite set of data
> points.
But what if the data points are all there is, ie that there is
a step discontinuity throughout it?
Then all the speculative, conjectural lines drawn through it
would not exist in reality.
>
> This is how science works:
> You have a set of observations (data points) and you try to find a
> theory (curve) that fits them all. Since there are infinitely many of
> them, you choose the simplest one you can think of (according to some
> criterion).
> As a new observation (data point) becomes available, you test whether
> it fits in the theory (curve). If it does, the theory remains the
> same, if it does not, you change the theory, choosing the simplest one
> that fits all the old and the new observations.
>
> > This thesis was accepted by Karl Popper, leading him to reject naďve
Frank J
> On Apr 24, 4:09 am, "Rolf" <r...@tele2.no> wrote:
>
> > "Frank J" <f...@comcast.net> skrev i
> > > > If not, here is some food for thought: Should tax money be invested in
> > > > textbooks that affirm the common ancestry as fact?"
>
> > > > What's the easiest way to prove him wrong?
>
> > > Before you defend evolution, get him to say exactly what he thinks
> > > happened instead. Exactly which lineages originated independently, and
> > > *when* those abiogenesis events occurred.
>
> > I agree with "Before you defend evolution, get him to say exactly what he
> > thinks happened instead".
>
> This is darwin's cult belief #1 :
>
> "We believe since their is no other hypothesis to account
> for our observations, our hypothesis/theory must be
> true."
>
> Now the only way a new hypothesis can be formulated, is to take
> a look at what was actually found in the fossil record (was it
> a fragment?), strip it of the speculative, conjectural interpretations
> placed on it by the theory in extant, and then formulate a new
> hypothesis.
>
>
> "Thomas Kuhn denied that it is ever possible to isolate the theory
> being tested from the influence of the theory in which the
> observations are grounded. He argued that observations always rely on
> a specific paradigm, and that it is not possible to evaluate competing
> paradigms independently."
>
>
> "According to the Duhem-Quine thesis, after Pierre Duhem and W.V.
> Quine, any theory can be made compatible with any empirical
> observation by the addition of suitable ad hoc hypotheses. This is
> analogous to the way in which an infinite number of curves can be
> drawn through any finite set of data points on a graph.
>
> This thesis was accepted by Karl Popper, leading him to reject naïve
> falsification in favour of 'survival of the fittest', or most
> falsifiable, of scientific theories. In Popper's view, any hypothesis
> that does not make testable predictions is simply not science. Such a
> hypothesis may be useful or valuable, but it cannot be said to be
> science. Confirmation holism, developed by W.V. Quine, states that
> empirical data are not sufficient to make a judgement between
> theories. In this view, a theory can always be made to fit with the
> available empirical data."
Your snipping of the important part of my post without the
"netiquette" of adding a (snip), use of the term "Darwin's cult" and
diversion into philosophy is entertaining.
Now fish or cut bait. Tell us exactly what you think happened instead.
Exactly which lineages originated independently, and *when* those
abiogenesis events occurred. Or if you agree that, with or without
"Darwinism" it's still common descent, whether it's saltation, front
loading, etc. There too, give us some time lines of major events - at
least an order of magnitude of when the first life appeared on Earth.
Instead of whining about other "hypotheses," support yours on its own
merits, without reference to your perceived weaknesses of evolution,
or the usual false dichotomy with design.
Vend
> On Apr 26, 10:33 am, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 25 Apr, 21:24, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I agree with "Before you defend evolution, get him to say exactly what he
> > > > thinks happened instead".
>
> > > This is darwin's cult belief #1 :
>
> > > "We believe since their is no other hypothesis to account
> > > for our observations, our hypothesis/theory must be
> > > true."
>
> > This is not stated correctly. Try this one: "Since our theory is the
> > simplest known to accout for all observations, we belive that our
> > theory is correct until some observation that contraddicts it is
> > made."
> > It's an application of the Occam's razor.
>
> It is the only theory.
In the past there were various competing theories (for instance,
Lamarkian evolution).
Currently the modern Theory of Evolution, which exist in different
versions that differ in the details, is the only accepted theory.
> > > Now the only way a new hypothesis can be formulated, is to take
> > > a look at what was actually found in the fossil record (was it
> > > a fragment?), strip it of the speculative, conjectural interpretations
> > > placed on it by the theory in extant, and then formulate a new
> > > hypothesis.
>
> > So?
>
> I am simply stating how an alternate theory would have to be
> constructed.
There is no need to construct an alternate theory unless some problem
is found in the current one.
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Theory-dependence_...
>
> > > "Thomas Kuhn denied that it is ever possible to isolate the theory
> > > being tested from the influence of the theory in which the
> > > observations are grounded. He argued that observations always rely on
> > > a specific paradigm, and that it is not possible to evaluate competing
> > > paradigms independently."
>
> > This is true to a certain extent: if you are measuring the length of
> > an object with a ruler, you usually assume that the ruler doesn't
> > contract or extends as you do the measure (or at least it doesn't do
> > that differently from the object under observation).
>
> > But how is this relevant to the argument?
>
> He is stating in a way, the scientist have this theory, so
> when they look at the fossil record, they speculate and
> conjecture on what they find and assimilate it based on
> their theory.
> Also, when they have 3 species alleged to have a common ancestor,
> what they conjecture and speculate is based on their theory
> and what they then assimilate into their theory.
I don't think so. The structure of a fossil can be studied mostly
independently from the ToE.
> Now, the only way to change that one is to have an alternate
> hypothesis,
> which would state that the 3 species in question did not have a common
> ancestor, and then assimilate that into the new theory.
What theory?
A theory that claims that 3 different species don't have a common
ancestor despite their great similarity (at biochemical level, for
instance) would be more complex.
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Indeterminacy_of_t...
>
> > > "According to the Duhem-Quine thesis, after Pierre Duhem and W.V.
> > > Quine, any theory can be made compatible with any empirical
> > > observation by the addition of suitable ad hoc hypotheses.
>
> > This is way ad hoc hypothesis are considered bad science.
>
> > > This is
> > > analogous to the way in which an infinite number of curves can be
> > > drawn through any finite set of data points on a graph.
>
> > However not all curves can be drawn through any finite set of data
> > points.
>
> But what if the data points are all there is, ie that there is
> a step discontinuity throughout it?
> Then all the speculative, conjectural lines drawn through it
> would not exist in reality.
Usually discontinuos curves are considered more complex than continous
ones, anyway, it's is also possible to fit data with discontinuos
curves. What is your point?
Throwback
They find a fossil(or a fragment), and speculate and conjecturally
assign it into a chart of evolutionary descent that may be
unwarranted or wrong, based on their overriding theory.
>
> > Now, the only way to change that one is to have an alternate
> > hypothesis,
> > which would state that the 3 species in question did not have a common
> > ancestor, and then assimilate that into the new theory.
>
> What theory?
> A theory that claims that 3 different species don't have a common
> ancestor despite their great similarity (at biochemical level, for
> instance) would be more complex.
>
Not necessarily.
>
>
>
>
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Indeterminacy_of_t...
>
> > > > "According to the Duhem-Quine thesis, after Pierre Duhem and W.V.
> > > > Quine, any theory can be made compatible with any empirical
> > > > observation by the addition of suitable ad hoc hypotheses.
>
> > > This is way ad hoc hypothesis are considered bad science.
>
> > > > This is
> > > > analogous to the way in which an infinite number of curves can be
> > > > drawn through any finite set of data points on a graph.
>
> > > However not all curves can be drawn through any finite set of data
> > > points.
>
> > But what if the data points are all there is, ie that there is
> > a step discontinuity throughout it?
> > Then all the speculative, conjectural lines drawn through it
> > would not exist in reality.
>
> Usually discontinuos curves are considered more complex than continous
> ones, anyway, it's is also possible to fit data with discontinuos
> curves. What is your point?
A different hypothesis.
That a unicellular organism over time became a giraffe.
That a different unicellular organism over time became
a duck billed platypus.
You will note that the giraffe and the duck billed platypus
had no common ancestor.
Vend
> They find a fossil(or a fragment), and speculate and conjecturally
> assign it into a chart of evolutionary descent that may be
> unwarranted or wrong, based on their overriding theory.
If the new fossil can be fit in the existing hypothesis this is
correct. If it can't they revise the hypothesis of descent of that.
Actually it happens often that the philogenetical tree is revised
(minor revisions usually). I don't see any problem in that.
What do you think a paleontologist should do when he finds a new
fossil?
> > > Now, the only way to change that one is to have an alternate
> > > hypothesis,
> > > which would state that the 3 species in question did not have a common
> > > ancestor, and then assimilate that into the new theory.
>
> > What theory?
> > A theory that claims that 3 different species don't have a common
> > ancestor despite their great similarity (at biochemical level, for
> > instance) would be more complex.
>
> Not necessarily.
It would be hard to explain how unrelated organism share the same
basic biochemistry unless one assumes some law of process that
constrain them to do so.
> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Indeterminacy_of_t...
>
> > > > > "According to the Duhem-Quine thesis, after Pierre Duhem and W.V.
> > > > > Quine, any theory can be made compatible with any empirical
> > > > > observation by the addition of suitable ad hoc hypotheses.
>
> > > > This is way ad hoc hypothesis are considered bad science.
>
> > > > > This is
> > > > > analogous to the way in which an infinite number of curves can be
> > > > > drawn through any finite set of data points on a graph.
>
> > > > However not all curves can be drawn through any finite set of data
> > > > points.
>
> > > But what if the data points are all there is, ie that there is
> > > a step discontinuity throughout it?
> > > Then all the speculative, conjectural lines drawn through it
> > > would not exist in reality.
>
> > Usually discontinuos curves are considered more complex than continous
> > ones, anyway, it's is also possible to fit data with discontinuos
> > curves. What is your point?
>
> A different hypothesis.
>
> That a unicellular organism over time became a giraffe.
> That a different unicellular organism over time became
> a duck billed platypus.
> You will note that the giraffe and the duck billed platypus
> had no common ancestor.
And why should we assume that?
Throwback
> On 27 Apr, 16:05, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > They find a fossil(or a fragment), and speculate and conjecturally
> > assign it into a chart of evolutionary descent that may be
> > unwarranted or wrong, based on their overriding theory.
>
> If the new fossil can be fit in the existing hypothesis this is
> correct. If it can't they revise the hypothesis of descent of that.
> Actually it happens often that the philogenetical tree is revised
> (minor revisions usually). I don't see any problem in that.
> What do you think a paleontologist should do when he finds a new
> fossil?
>
> > > > Now, the only way to change that one is to have an alternate
> > > > hypothesis,
> > > > which would state that the 3 species in question did not have a common
> > > > ancestor, and then assimilate that into the new theory.
>
> > > What theory?
> > > A theory that claims that 3 different species don't have a common
> > > ancestor despite their great similarity (at biochemical level, for
> > > instance) would be more complex.
>
> > Not necessarily.
>
> It would be hard to explain how unrelated organism share the same
> basic biochemistry unless one assumes some law of process that
> constrain them to do so.
>
Simple. There are only a few different kinds of biochemistries
that work to sustain life forms on earth. The few we have work,
so we observe them to exist. Any life that didn't have these,
wouldn't exist. So the reason why 3 different species have the
same biochemistry is that that particular biochemistry works,
and if it didn't they wouldn't be here.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Indeterminacy_of_t...
>
> > > > > > "According to the Duhem-Quine thesis, after Pierre Duhem and W.V.
> > > > > > Quine, any theory can be made compatible with any empirical
> > > > > > observation by the addition of suitable ad hoc hypotheses.
>
> > > > > This is way ad hoc hypothesis are considered bad science.
>
> > > > > > This is
> > > > > > analogous to the way in which an infinite number of curves can be
> > > > > > drawn through any finite set of data points on a graph.
>
> > > > > However not all curves can be drawn through any finite set of data
> > > > > points.
>
> > > > But what if the data points are all there is, ie that there is
> > > > a step discontinuity throughout it?
> > > > Then all the speculative, conjectural lines drawn through it
> > > > would not exist in reality.
>
> > > Usually discontinuos curves are considered more complex than continous
> > > ones, anyway, it's is also possible to fit data with discontinuos
> > > curves. What is your point?
>
> > A different hypothesis.
>
> > That a unicellular organism over time became a giraffe.
> > That a different unicellular organism over time became
> > a duck billed platypus.
> > You will note that the giraffe and the duck billed platypus
> > had no common ancestor.
>
> And why should we assume that?
The theory of evolution can't adequately explain
the duck billed platypus. It simply should not be.
And yet it is.
Perhaps my hypothesis will account for it.
Vend
> > It would be hard to explain how unrelated organism share the same
> > basic biochemistry unless one assumes some law of process that
> > constrain them to do so.
>
> Simple. There are only a few different kinds of biochemistries
> that work to sustain life forms on earth. The few we have work,
> so we observe them to exist. Any life that didn't have these,
> wouldn't exist. So the reason why 3 different species have the
> same biochemistry is that that particular biochemistry works,
> and if it didn't they wouldn't be here.
We don't observe a few of different kinds of biochemistries. We
observe one biochemistry, with minor variations.
There are various features of biochemstry that don't seem to be the
unique possible option. I'm not an expert, but I can think of
chirality (life on earth would work the same if the chirality of all
the biological molecules were reversed), and the genetic code. I'm
confident that experts can give you more examples.
> > > That a unicellular organism over time became a giraffe.
> > > That a different unicellular organism over time became
> > > a duck billed platypus.
> > > You will note that the giraffe and the duck billed platypus
> > > had no common ancestor.
>
> > And why should we assume that?
>
> The theory of evolution can't adequately explain
> the duck billed platypus. It simply should not be.
> And yet it is.
What is the problem with the platypus?
AFAIK, the current theory says that it descends from an early branch
of mammals.
> Perhaps my hypothesis will account for it.
Your hypotheis would be that it descends from an independently
abiogenetically generated organism?
Cheezits
[etc.]
> The theory of evolution can't adequately explain
> the duck billed platypus. It simply should not be.
Why not?
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Perplexed in Peoria
"Vend" <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote in message news:1177779990.3...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 28 Apr, 16:46, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It would be hard to explain how unrelated organism share the same
> > > basic biochemistry unless one assumes some law of process that
> > > constrain them to do so.
> >
> > Simple. There are only a few different kinds of biochemistries
> > that work to sustain life forms on earth. The few we have work,
> > so we observe them to exist. Any life that didn't have these,
> > wouldn't exist. So the reason why 3 different species have the
> > same biochemistry is that that particular biochemistry works,
> > and if it didn't they wouldn't be here.
>
> We don't observe a few of different kinds of biochemistries. We
> observe one biochemistry, with minor variations.
Throwback may have a bit of a point if you interpret that word
'biochemistry' in a particular way. If you take it to mean the
main metabolic pathways and the core set of small molecules, then
I suppose you might say that there are several variant 'biochemistries'.
Furthermore, it might be the case that the ones we find are the only
ones that work well. Morowitz, for example, has published several papers
arguing that the core set of citric acid cycle intermediates is the
'best solution' to the 'problem', except for an arbitrary choice of
chirality.
> There are various features of biochemstry that don't seem to be the
> unique possible option. I'm not an expert, but I can think of
> chirality (life on earth would work the same if the chirality of all
> the biological molecules were reversed), and the genetic code. I'm
> confident that experts can give you more examples.
Those are good examples. And yes, there are many more. My favorite is
the precise shapes of the various co-enzymes. For example, the chemical
function of coenzyme A is entirely contained in the -CH2-CH2-SH group at
the end. The entire remainder of the molecule is simply a 'handle' which
enzymes use to grab hold of the coenzyme molecule so as to put the active
part in the right place at the right time. Just about any recognizable
shape would do the job. But the particular shape chosen is universal in
existing life.
Another example is the difference between the coenzymes NAD and NADP.
Again, the difference is far from the metabolically active part of the
molecule. The difference is part of the 'handle' - a difference whose
apparent function is simply to distinguish the two coenzymes so that the
right enzyme uses the right coenzyme.
> > > > That a unicellular organism over time became a giraffe.
> > > > That a different unicellular organism over time became
> > > > a duck billed platypus.
> > > > You will note that the giraffe and the duck billed platypus
> > > > had no common ancestor.
> >
> > > And why should we assume that?
> >
> > The theory of evolution can't adequately explain
> > the duck billed platypus. It simply should not be.
> > And yet it is.
>
> What is the problem with the platypus?
> AFAIK, the current theory says that it descends from an early branch
> of mammals.
>
> > Perhaps my hypothesis will account for it.
We sometimes see anti-evolutionists as a monolithic mob - all sharing the
same core beliefs. I find it amusing that here Throwback is claiming that
the platypus shouldn't exist under evolutionary theory, whereas elsewhere
we have people complaining that evolution is suspect because not enough
'transitional forms' have survived to the present day.
But it is also amusing that there is a certain mindset which proclaims "Here
is an anomaly in the standard account. Since I am smarter than everyone
else, I will solve this anomaly by completely rejecting the standard account
and replafcing it with a new account of my own invention. (But don't ask
me for details yet; I'm still working on it!)". And this mindset is almost
always found in people who know almost nothing about the standard account
except for the supposed existence of the anomaly.
Throwback
The platypus has fur, is warm-blooded, and suckles its young as do
mammals. It lays leathery eggs, has a single ventral opening (for
elimination, mating, and birth), and has claws and a shoulder girdle
as most reptiles do. The platypus can detect electrical currents (AC
and DC) as some fish can, and has a bill somewhat like a duck-a bird.
It has webbed forefeet like an otter, a flat tail like a beaver, and
the male can inject poisonous venom like a pit viper.
Throwback
wrote:
> We sometimes see anti-evolutionists as a monolithic mob - all sharing the
> same core beliefs. I find it amusing that here Throwback is claiming that
> the platypus shouldn't exist under evolutionary theory, whereas elsewhere
> we have people complaining that evolution is suspect because not enough
> 'transitional forms' have survived to the present day.
What do other people's claims have to do with my point?
gregwrld
Funny how all these are biological processes. Funny how evolution is
all
about biological processes. Funny how there's no evidence for
supernatural
processes, no?
Says you.
It simply should not be.
> And yet it is.
> Perhaps my hypothesis will account for it.
And what hypothesis is that (and be specific, showing us the level
of detail you would expect from the TOE)?
gregwrld
got an error message - hope this doesn't double post!
John Harshman
Go on. Why is this a problem for evolution? The eggs, cloaca, and
interclavicles are all primitive features that have been transformed in
other extant mammals; as such they argue in favor of evolution, not
against it. The other features you mention are superficial resemblances.
Nobody who actually looked would confuse a platypus beak with a duck's
beak, and none of the other convergences on other animals are at all
problematic for evolution. Aquatic animals evolve webbed feet for
obvious reasons.
>>>Perhaps my hypothesis will account for it.
>>
>>Your hypotheis would be that it descends from an independently
>>abiogenetically generated organism?
I see you ignored this question. What *is* your hypothesis?
Perplexed in Peoria
"Throwback" <throw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1177784610....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Absolutely nothing. However, other people's claims may have something to
do with how easily you communicate your point. If you wish to attack
evolution without carrying the baggage of other people's claims, you
must write VERY clearly, and you must also occasionally throw in a disclaimer
regarding those other claims which might be confused with yours. It takes
some work. Get to it!
Mark Isaak
> On Apr 28, 1:06 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>> On 28 Apr, 16:46, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>[...]
>> > The theory of evolution can't adequately explain
>> > the duck billed platypus. It simply should not be.
>> > And yet it is.
>>
>> What is the problem with the platypus?
>
> The platypus has fur, is warm-blooded, and suckles its young as do
> mammals. It lays leathery eggs, has a single ventral opening (for
> elimination, mating, and birth), and has claws and a shoulder girdle
> as most reptiles do. The platypus can detect electrical currents (AC
> and DC) as some fish can, and has a bill somewhat like a duck-a bird.
> It has webbed forefeet like an otter, a flat tail like a beaver, and
> the male can inject poisonous venom like a pit viper.
I am curious about your statement, too. What is the problem with the
platypus?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Ye Old One
how do you know this?
> So the reason why 3 different species have the
>same biochemistry is that that particular biochemistry works,
>and if it didn't they wouldn't be here.
The fact is that we (that is ALL life on earth) are descended from a
single common ancestor.
>>
>> > > Usually discontinuos curves are considered more complex than continous
>> > > ones, anyway, it's is also possible to fit data with discontinuos
>> > > curves. What is your point?
>>
>> > A different hypothesis.
>>
>> > That a unicellular organism over time became a giraffe.
>> > That a different unicellular organism over time became
>> > a duck billed platypus.
>> > You will note that the giraffe and the duck billed platypus
>> > had no common ancestor.
>>
>> And why should we assume that?
>
>The theory of evolution can't adequately explain
>the duck billed platypus. It simply should not be.
Why should it "not be"?
>And yet it is.
>Perhaps my hypothesis will account for it.
--
Bob.
Mark VandeWettering
In what sense are these problems?
Maybe if I keep my posts short, you'll have difficulty snipping them.
Troll.
Mark
John Wilkins
> > > The theory of evolution can't adequately explain
> > > the duck billed platypus. It simply should not be.
> > > And yet it is.
> >
> > What is the problem with the platypus?
> > AFAIK, the current theory says that it descends from an early branch
> > of mammals.
>
> The platypus has fur, is warm-blooded, and suckles its young as do
> mammals. It lays leathery eggs, has a single ventral opening (for
> elimination, mating, and birth), and has claws and a shoulder girdle
> as most reptiles do. The platypus can detect electrical currents (AC
> and DC) as some fish can, and has a bill somewhat like a duck-a bird.
> It has webbed forefeet like an otter, a flat tail like a beaver, and
> the male can inject poisonous venom like a pit viper.
First of all, the primitive or basal state of all animals is egg laying,
live bearing being an independently derived mode in several lineages
including us.
Secondly, the evolution of separate "tools" for mating is also derived.
The platypus, being a species that evolved from the ancestral state of
protomammals, simply retains those traits.
I can detect electrical currents if you put a 9v battery to my tongue.
Why should the fact that the platypus have nerve receptors in its bill
be a problem for evolution? So we are left with the venomous spur on the
hindlegs.
Pit vipers do not have spurs in their hindlegs. Pit vipers do not have
hindlegs. So it is a bit disingenuous to claim that the platypus is
"like a pit viper". The platypus has a spur - spurs of this kind are not
that unusual on tetrapods. So now we are left with the venom.
Wiki notes that the venom is very different to non-mammalian venoms, and
is not lifethreatening. The second site listed below indicates that the
venom causes hyperalgia (extreme pain, probably by acting directly on
nerve endings) and coagulation. So we have a serum that acts on nerves
and on coagulation. Gosh. Fancy there being chemicals in a mammal that
act on nerves and on coagulation! Who would have thought?
The third site says, "there are at least 25 components in the platypus
venom, including a protein that lowers blood pressure causing shock,
digestive enzymes called hyaluronidases and peptidases that dissolve
body tissue helping the poison to spread, and a protein that increases
blood-flow to the spur site causing severe swelling. The slight acidity
of the venom adds further sting.
"But the special ingredient in platypus venom that accounts for its
outstanding pain-inducing qualities is thought to act directly on nerve
cells that register pain, called nocioceptors. Greg de Plater, who
discovered the compound recently at the John Curtin School of Medical
Research in Canberra, says it works a bit like capsacin (the active
ingredient in chillies that makes them taste hot) by stimulating
electrical activity in the pain cells. "
In point of fact, as we investigate the platypus, we find there is a
good explanation for all these things evolving as they did. Most of the
"surprising" features are just retained from our shared ancestor. The
rest are enzymes and anatomical features that are redirected to novel
uses. What is new is the *function* not the basic structure or molecule.
And this is what we should expect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus
http://www.kingsnake.com/toxinology/old/mammals/platypus.html
http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/shorter/story.htm
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Martin Hutton
Yes, yes
> and suckles its young as do mammals.
Not really...no nipples you see. The milk is emitted by
mammary glands which are arranged in two parallel lines
down the chest and abdomen. The young suck the milk soaked
fur.
> It lays leathery eggs, has a single ventral opening (for
> elimination, mating, and birth.
As do all monotremes (Echidnas and Platypus)...and reptiles.
(oooooh, spooky).
> and has claws...
As do many mammalian orders.
> and a shoulder girdle as most reptiles do.
Which makes it waddle walk like many reptiles (oooh, spooky).
It also has the defining characteristics of a mammal:
A single lower jaw bone and three inner ear bones.
Young monotremes also develop a three-lobed tooth, which
is then reabsorbed.
> The platypus can detect electrical currents (AC and DC)
> as some fish can,
Not really. It detects changes in electrical fields and
associates that with pressure changes in the water.
(The snout has both electrical sensors and touch sensors).
Fish detect (and some generate) electric fields down the
midline of their torso.
> and has a bill somewhat like a duck-a bird.
It's really nothing like a bill. It is an extended snout
covered with sensory flesh. Here's a picture of a
platypus skeleton...check out the snout and you can see
it is an extension of the nose rather than the upper
jaw. The jaw opens at the back third of the snout (unlike
a bill).
http://tinyurl.com/24jlka
(You can also see the reptile-like shoulder bones)
> It has webbed forefeet like an otter, a flat tail like a beaver,..
As do many aquatic mammals. They seem to be common adaptations.
> the male can inject poisonous venom like a pit viper.
Not really. The poison is delivered through spurs on the hind
leg (you can see them in the picture above). The poison is a
defensin type protein that that is very similar to defensin
type proteins used by almost every multicellular animals to
help ward off bacterial, fungal and viral infections.
Only the males make the toxin and only during mating season.
So the question remains...why shouldn't the platypus be?
All the features described above can be explained in an
evolutionary context. Is your "theory" platypus intelligent
design?
>
> >
> > > Perhaps my hypothesis will account for it.
> >
> > Your hypotheis would be that it descends from an independently
> > abiogenetically generated organism?
--
Martin Hutton
Throwback
> On 28 Apr 2007 07:46:31 -0700, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com>
Photosynthesis plants have different biochemistries
than animals.
>
> > So the reason why 3 different species have the
> >same biochemistry is that that particular biochemistry works,
> >and if it didn't they wouldn't be here.
>
> The fact is that we (that is ALL life on earth) are descended from a
> single common ancestor.
Or simply that the biochemistry works.
It doesn't infer they have a common ancestor at all.
Throwback
>
> > > It would be hard to explain how unrelated organism share the same
> > > basic biochemistry unless one assumes some law of process that
> > > constrain them to do so.
>
> > Simple. There are only a few different kinds of biochemistries
> > that work to sustain life forms on earth. The few we have work,
> > so we observe them to exist. Any life that didn't have these,
> > wouldn't exist. So the reason why 3 different species have the
> > same biochemistry is that that particular biochemistry works,
> > and if it didn't they wouldn't be here.
>
> We don't observe a few of different kinds of biochemistries. We
> observe one biochemistry, with minor variations.
> There are various features of biochemstry that don't seem to be the
> unique possible option. I'm not an expert, but I can think of
> chirality (life on earth would work the same if the chirality of all
> the biological molecules were reversed), and the genetic code. I'm
> confident that experts can give you more examples.
You were of an impressionable age in school (this is where you
go to learn and educate yourself!), in class, a science class!, being
taught by an authority figure, a science teacher (why would they
try to deceive you?), from a section in a science book. Given
this setting, you would have no reason to question the indoctrination
which would follow.
Now what just occurred? A young, impressionable kid has
been brainwashed into accepting this theory as an undisputed
scientific fact.
Now when I went to school, we were running behind in the course,
so the section on evolution was skipped, so I have no reason
to accept the theory as an undisputed fact, having never been
brainwashed by it.
That is the difference between me and you on the theory
of evolution: I was never brainwashed in school to accept
it as undisputed scientific fact.
The result of the indoctrination, or its purpose, is to
blind you, or create a certain outlook or philosophy
or accept a certain worldview or viewpoint.
'Today's class: abiogenesis - life from non-life.'
"In the primordial slime of the sea, through
natural and random forces, a unicellular
organism arose. That's right class, all
it takes is just one unicellular
organism ..."
Now what just occurred? The class has just been indoctrinated
in how life originated, by natural and random forces, without
any purpose, intelligence, or design. And it was done
without any science, without an explanation how non-life
assembled itself into life, and without one single shred of proof.
This is the foundation of evolution.
wf3h
Throwback wrote:
> You were of an impressionable age in school (this is where you
> go to learn and educate yourself!), in class, a science class!, being
> taught by an authority figure, a science teacher (why would they
> try to deceive you?), from a section in a science book. Given
> this setting, you would have no reason to question the indoctrination
> which would follow.
>
> Now what just occurred? A young, impressionable kid has
> been brainwashed into accepting this theory as an undisputed
> scientific fact.
>
> Now when I went to school, we were running behind in the course,
> so the section on evolution was skipped, so I have no reason
> to accept the theory as an undisputed fact, having never been
> brainwashed by it.
>
> That is the difference between me and you on the theory
> of evolution: I was never brainwashed in school to accept
> it as undisputed scientific fact.
hmmm i took chemistry in high school. i'm now a chemist. am i
'brainwashed' into chemistry?
you statement is simply illogical. there are atheists, for example,
whose parents were religious. there are fundies whose parents were
atheists.
which of these is brainwashed?
>
> Now what just occurred? The class has just been indoctrinated
> in how life originated, by natural and random forces, without
> any purpose, intelligence, or design.
and what purpose is there in physics? in chemistry? if there IS one,
by all means, tell us. if purpose is SUCH a POWERFUL force it should
be widely applicable across all sciences
so go ahead: tell us what purpose physics points to.
And it was done
> without any science, without an explanation how non-life
> assembled itself into life, and without one single shred of proof.
> This is the foundation of evolution.
no...randomness and purposelessness (?) is the function of religion.
in religion, purpose depends on the whim of god. whose god? no one
knows. how do we KNOW it's the will of god? no one knows.
religion is random
mel turner
[snip]
> You were of an impressionable age in school (this is where you
> go to learn and educate yourself!), in class, a science class!, being
> taught by an authority figure, a science teacher (why would they
> try to deceive you?), from a section in a science book. Given
> this setting, you would have no reason to question the indoctrination
> which would follow.
What you call "indoctrination", others will likely call "an education".
So, how exactly does learning something about a topic prevent someone
from later learning some other, possibly more correct, information
about it?
> Now what just occurred? A young, impressionable kid has
> been brainwashed into accepting this theory as an undisputed
> scientific fact.
Or has gained a bit of a scientific education.
> Now when I went to school, we were running behind in the course,
> so the section on evolution was skipped, so I have no reason
> to accept the theory as an undisputed fact, having never been
> brainwashed by it.
In other words, you somehow seem to think the fact that you never
learned anything about evolutionary science better qualifies you to
criticize it than those who have studied the subject for a lifetime.
Perhaps you'd also like to take the same approach to all other
areas of knowledge? All you need is a good slogan.
How about "Ignorance is Strength"?
> That is the difference between me and you on the theory
> of evolution: I was never brainwashed in school to accept
> it as undisputed scientific fact.
You wear your ignorance so very proudly. No doubt it's
inspirational that you haven't let your handicap inhibit you.
Are you sure you're not a Loki troller?
> The result of the indoctrination, or its purpose, is to
> blind you, or create a certain outlook or philosophy
> or accept a certain worldview or viewpoint.
>
> 'Today's class: abiogenesis - life from non-life.'
> "In the primordial slime of the sea, through
> natural and random forces, a unicellular
> organism arose. That's right class, all
> it takes is just one unicellular
> organism ..."
I doubt any real science class has ever been taught any such thing.
But of course you wouldn't actually know anything about what is or
isn't being taught, since as you said you'd skipped that part of
your education. This of course qualifies you to make reckless
claims about the things you don't know about.
> Now what just occurred?
Nothing much. You just imagined something pretty silly.
> The class has just been indoctrinated
> in how life originated, by natural and random forces, without
> any purpose, intelligence, or design.
No, you just imagined that your imaginary class would have heard your
imaginary teacher make such an imaginary claim. How does that force
them all to believe the claim? Are you "indoctinated" by everything
you are told?
> And it was done
> without any science, without an explanation how non-life
> assembled itself into life, and without one single shred of proof.
> This is the foundation of evolution.
And if you actually attended a science class, you'd likely know
this last claim of yours is just a lie.
Anyway, since you never did learn anything about it you not
only won't know what is and isn't being taught, you also won't
know if it is supported by "shreds of proof" or not.
It's an admirably neat trick for you to argue that your not knowing
what you're talking about is somehow a plus in debating a topic.
Perhaps you should get a job in the current Administration?
cheers
John Harshman
> "Throwback" <throw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1177873521.3...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> It's an admirably neat trick for you to argue that your not knowing
> what you're talking about is somehow a plus in debating a topic.
> Perhaps you should get a job in the current Administration?
What makes you think he does't already have one?
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Apr 28, 1:06 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>> On 28 Apr, 16:46, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > It would be hard to explain how unrelated organism share the same
>> > > basic biochemistry unless one assumes some law of process that
>> > > constrain them to do so.
>>
>> > Simple. There are only a few different kinds of biochemistries
>> > that work to sustain life forms on earth. The few we have work,
>> > so we observe them to exist. Any life that didn't have these,
>> > wouldn't exist. So the reason why 3 different species have the
>> > same biochemistry is that that particular biochemistry works,
>> > and if it didn't they wouldn't be here.
>>
>> We don't observe a few of different kinds of biochemistries. We
>> observe one biochemistry, with minor variations.
>> There are various features of biochemstry that don't seem to be the
>> unique possible option. I'm not an expert, but I can think of
>> chirality (life on earth would work the same if the chirality of all
>> the biological molecules were reversed), and the genetic code. I'm
>> confident that experts can give you more examples.
>
>You were of an impressionable age in school (this is where you
>go to learn and educate yourself!), in class, a science class!, being
>taught by an authority figure, a science teacher (why would they
>try to deceive you?),
Well, why would they?
>from a section in a science book. Given
>this setting, you would have no reason to question the indoctrination
>which would follow.
>
>Now what just occurred? A young, impressionable kid has
>been brainwashed into accepting this theory as an undisputed
>scientific fact.
>
>Now when I went to school, we were running behind in the course,
>so the section on evolution was skipped,
And the result, as we can see, is a poorly educated person.
> so I have no reason
>to accept the theory as an undisputed fact, having never been
>brainwashed by it.
>
>That is the difference between me and you on the theory
>of evolution: I was never brainwashed in school to accept
>it as undisputed scientific fact.
Evolution is a fact. The ToE is the best explanation of that.
>
>The result of the indoctrination, or its purpose, is to
>blind you, or create a certain outlook or philosophy
>or accept a certain worldview or viewpoint.
>
>'Today's class: abiogenesis - life from non-life.'
>"In the primordial slime of the sea, through
>natural and random forces,
Natural, yes. Random, no. The process obeyed that rules of chemistry.
> a unicellular
>organism arose.
Well, maybe after many millions of years life may have got to that
stage - but life was already old by then.
>That's right class, all
>it takes is just one unicellular
>organism ..."
>
>Now what just occurred?
The class was lied to - by you.
> The class has just been indoctrinated
>in how life originated, by natural and random forces,
Repeating the lie doesn't make it any less a lie.
> without
>any purpose, intelligence, or design.
That part is true.
> And it was done
>without any science, without an explanation how non-life
>assembled itself into life, and without one single shred of proof.
The proof is that you and I are here.
>This is the foundation of evolution.
No, evolution is the foundation of life on Earth.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
I know that.
Now, can you answer the question?
>
>>
>> > So the reason why 3 different species have the
>> >same biochemistry is that that particular biochemistry works,
>> >and if it didn't they wouldn't be here.
>>
>> The fact is that we (that is ALL life on earth) are descended from a
>> single common ancestor.
>
>Or simply that the biochemistry works.
>It doesn't infer they have a common ancestor at all.
I still think you need to answer my question above.
--
Bob.
mel turner
news:ck7Zh.13029$YL5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
A good, if chilling, question.
George, is that you?
cheers
Steven J.
First, it is irrelevant to Vend's point whether he was indoctrinated
at an impressionable age. He has presented an argument, and it is the
quality of his argument and evidence, not his supposed motives for
accepting that argument himself, that needs to be addressed.
Second, I do not know about Vend (but then, of course, neither do
you), but I do not recall any such indoctrination in school.
Evolution was passed over very lightly indeed in the biology classes I
took. Furthermore, I was raised as a creationist, so I had plenty of
reason to reject any attempts to indoctrinate me to accept evolution.
All I had to do was read the weekly magazines they gave me in Sunday
School to be told that scientists had all sorts of wild, unbiblical
ideas about origins. Of course, most of my education in evolution
came from books I read on my own (starting with books about dinosaurs
in elementary school), and so, for that matter, did most of my
education in creationism. What ultimately turned me against
creationism was not "indoctrination," but the discovery that
creationists tended to grossly misunderstand evolutionary theory and
other aspects of modern science.
>
> Now what just occurred? A young, impressionable kid has
> been brainwashed into accepting this theory as an undisputed
> scientific fact.
>
In other classes, of course, this young, impressionable kid will be
"brainwashed" into accepting, as undisputed fact, the idea that the
Earth orbits the sun (disputed by geocentrist creationists), the idea
that the Nazis murdered circa six million Jews (disputed by holocaust
deniers), probably the idea that HIV causes AIDS (disputed by a
variety of devotees of pseudoscience), and many other things.
>
> Now when I went to school, we were running behind in the course,
> so the section on evolution was skipped, so I have no reason
> to accept the theory as an undisputed fact, having never been
> brainwashed by it.
>
You have the reason that the evidence supports common descent and the
importance of natural selection as a mechanism of adaption, whether
they got around to telling you this in school or not (as I said, in my
case they never did).
>
> That is the difference between me and you on the theory
> of evolution: I was never brainwashed in school to accept
> it as undisputed scientific fact.
>
Why do you accept creationism? Are you saying that you were never
indoctrinated into it, but simply studied the evidence and came to
that conclusion? I would find such an assertion unlikely, but feel
free to relate to me what evidence turned you to creation. For my own
part, I am convinced that creationists fall into two categories: those
who were indoctrinated into creationism at an impressionable age (and
never bothered to throw off that indoctrination), and those who
converted to fundamentalism as adults, and just accepted creationism
as part of the package. Actual consideration of the evidence has, I
think, convinced no one of creationism, though it has convinced a
number of people to give up creationism in favor of accepting
evolution.
>
> The result of the indoctrination, or its purpose, is to
> blind you, or create a certain outlook or philosophy
> or accept a certain worldview or viewpoint.
>
Is "evidence matters" a worldview or viewpoint?
>
> 'Today's class: abiogenesis - life from non-life.'
> "In the primordial slime of the sea, through
> natural and random forces, a unicellular
> organism arose. That's right class, all
> it takes is just one unicellular
> organism ..."
>
Now you have gone beyond making assumptions to just making stuff up.
No textbook and no course says anything like that. There are, quite
possibly, alongside the admission that no one knows how life
originated, some discussion of how parts of the basic biochemistry can
originate from simpler, inorganic chemicals.
>
> Now what just occurred? The class has just been indoctrinated
> in how life originated, by natural and random forces, without
> any purpose, intelligence, or design. And it was done
> without any science, without an explanation how non-life
> assembled itself into life, and without one single shred of proof.
> This is the foundation of evolution.
>
If you do not know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution, I
think we can safely assume that your views on evolution do not reflect
an understanding of the theory and the evidence bearing on it.
-- Steven J.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message news:p16a339pg04s9gqi9...@4ax.com...
Would you mind if I ask you the same question, Bob? How do you know that?
I ask because I would not have agreed with Throwback that photosynthetic
plants have different biochemistries than animals. The same 20 amino acids
are used in proteins. The genetic code is the same. The biosynthetic
pathways are 95% the same. The enzymes are homologous. The non-green
tissues of a plant derive energy from sugars in just about exactly the
same way that animals do. Animals can construct sugars from simpler materials
just as plants can. The major differences are that animals have lost some
of the pathways for building vitamins and a few amino acids, since they
get those things from the diet. And plants also have a few pathways and
enzymes for photosynthesis which animals lack. Also, there are a few
specialized pathways limited to either some plants or some animals. For
example, pine trees produce terpenes to ward off bugs but mammals produce
steroids for a variety of hormonal purposes. But both plants and animals
build these things from the same common 5-carbon building block, using
exactly the same pathway to construct that building block. And archaeobacteria
use the same pathways and the same 5-carbon basic building block to build
their membrane lipids.
The earliest absolutely uncontroversial evidence for life on earth comes
from hydrocarbon deposits that are about 2.7 billion years old. Examination
of these hydrocarbons shows signs of this same 5-carbon branched-chain building
block. Geochemical processes can create hydrocarbons without life being
involved. Geochemical processes can create things that look like bacterial
fossils in 3.5 billion year old sediments. Geochemical processes can create
odd ratios in the ratio of C12 to C13. But it takes living organisms to
create hydrocarbons containing that signature branched 5-carbon chain in a
big fraction of the hydrocarbons analyzed.
And how do I know this? I have read lots and lots of biochemistry textbooks
and research papers because I study abiogenesis as a hobby.
Vend
Actually I always questioned what teachers taught me, since I was in
the primary school. Anyway, why has the discussion turned to an ad
hominem argument about me?
I've presented two points about why I think that it's is improbable
that living beings have distinct ancestors. Perplexed in Peoria
presented another one. Would you care to address them or do you think
that they are just falsehood fabricated by the Interplanetary
Conspiracy of Atheist Evil Scientsts?
> Now when I went to school, we were running behind in the course,
> so the section on evolution was skipped, so I have no reason
> to accept the theory as an undisputed fact, having never been
> brainwashed by it.
You went to a very poor school. Anyway, in the era of the Internet,
you can educate yourself if you are willing.
> That is the difference between me and you on the theory
> of evolution: I was never brainwashed in school to accept
> it as undisputed scientific fact.
A proper school doesn't brainwash student. It presents scientific
theories in a way that students can understand and show them, as far
as practically possible, the evidence on which the theories rest upon.
Brainwashing occours in cults.
I guess that you got your belifs about evolution from some kind of
religious authority, didn't you?
> The result of the indoctrination, or its purpose, is to
> blind you, or create a certain outlook or philosophy
> or accept a certain worldview or viewpoint.
Sounds like, well, religion.
> 'Today's class: abiogenesis - life from non-life.'
> "In the primordial slime of the sea, through
> natural and random forces, a unicellular
> organism arose. That's right class, all
> it takes is just one unicellular
> organism ..."
This is an oversimplification. And it is incorrect.
What a teacher should tell the students is something like that:
1. We don't know how life on Earth started, yet.
2. We know that life started somehow, since the Earth has been in
existence for a finite time.
3. The most reasonable current scientific hypothesis claim that in the
early ocean, rich of abiotically-produced (mention the Miller-Urey
experiment) organic compounds, a chemical system capable of
replicating itself (probably simpler than a cell) appeared. Then
evolution did the rest.
4. It's is bad science to assume gods, unknown space aliens, or
unspecified "intelligent designers" as the cause of phenomena whose
cause is scientifically unknown (Example: Thor/Zeus and lightning).
> Now what just occurred? The class has just been indoctrinated
> in how life originated, by natural and random forces, without
> any purpose, intelligence, or design.
Actually, it says nothing about "purpose, intelligence, or design" or
lack of thereof.
> And it was done
> without any science, without an explanation how non-life
> assembled itself into life, and without one single shred of proof.
This is done with the honest admission that we don't know the
mechanism, and presenting some hypothesis without going into the
details, that potetially conform to what the scientific method
requires.
> This is the foundation of evolution.
This is actually abiogenesis and it has little to do with evolution.
In fact, even if the first organism was made by Yahweh, the aliens
worshiped by the Raelians or the Flying Spagetti Monster, the Theory
of Evolution would work the same.
JQ
Evolution wasn't taught to me at an 'impressionable age'. Nothing was
even mentioned (unless you count the occasional comment that a
particular animal has a feature 'for' a particular job, which I
wouldn't because this observation doesn't lead directly to evolution)
until I was about 16, and even then the basics were only touched on.
(Fortunately for me i had studied the theory previously, but many in
the class hadn't and the disconnected remnants of information we were
given just confused them.)
>
> Now what just occurred? A young, impressionable kid has
> been brainwashed into accepting this theory as an undisputed
> scientific fact.
You're not talking to a bunch of people who just left the classroom
and unthinkingly adopted what they had been told. You're talking to
people who have not only studied the theory at length, but who are
here, in their recreational time (or maybe when the boss/techer isn't
looking), discussing it with you. Wouldn't you say that these people
might know something about what they're talking about? I for one
invested a lot of time checking the facts and annoying every scientist
or science teacher I know in a biology-related field. I understand
that this is the standard story.
>
> Now when I went to school, we were running behind in the course,
> so the section on evolution was skipped, so I have no reason
> to accept the theory as an undisputed fact, having never been
> brainwashed by it.
Do you mean you don't understand it?
>
> That is the difference between me and you on the theory
> of evolution: I was never brainwashed in school to accept
> it as undisputed scientific fact.
>
> The result of the indoctrination, or its purpose, is to
> blind you, or create a certain outlook or philosophy
> or accept a certain worldview or viewpoint.
Again, I'm not going to debate with you on this because it's
irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We are not disinterested
schoolchildren (well, some people here go to school, but nobody relies
on the classroom as their primary source of information on something
they're interested in).
>
> 'Today's class: abiogenesis - life from non-life.'
> "In the primordial slime of the sea, through
> natural and random forces, a unicellular
> organism arose. That's right class, all
> it takes is just one unicellular
> organism ..."
>
> Now what just occurred? The class has just been indoctrinated
> in how life originated, by natural and random forces, without
> any purpose, intelligence, or design. And it was done
> without any science, without an explanation how non-life
> assembled itself into life, and without one single shred of proof.
> This is the foundation of evolution.
You're not in the classroom now. Go look the evidence up. Or ask these
guys, most of whom are better informed than I am; I'm sure they love
posting the same info over and over in a million different threads.
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Throwback
It wasn't a personal attack. I simply believe you have been
blinded by the teaching of evolution in school.
>
> I've presented two points about why I think that it's is improbable
> that living beings have distinct ancestors. Perplexed in Peoria
> presented another one. Would you care to address them or do you think
> that they are just falsehood fabricated by the Interplanetary
> Conspiracy of Atheist Evil Scientsts?
I don't see anything contained in them that would point me
to think that all living beings have common ancestors. None
at all.
And they look at a simple unicellular organism, and
the greatest "experts" and scientific minds in the
world cannot explain how it occurred ...
Throwback
wrote:
> "Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in messagenews:p16a339pg04s9gqi9...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 29 Apr 2007 11:26:11 -0700, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com>
Oh really?
> The same 20 amino acids
> are used in proteins. The genetic code is the same. The biosynthetic
> pathways are 95% the same. The enzymes are homologous. The non-green
> tissues of a plant derive energy from sugars in just about exactly the
> same way that animals do. Animals can construct sugars from simpler materials
> just as plants can.
Sounds almost similar. So far just 95% variation!
Please note that makes them different.
And:
> The major differences are that animals have lost some
> of the pathways for building vitamins and a few amino acids, since they
> get those things from the diet. And plants also have a few pathways and
> enzymes for photosynthesis which animals lack. Also, there are a few
> specialized pathways limited to either some plants or some animals.
Sounds like to me there are a few different biochemistries on earth,
as I claimed ...
Throwback
I don't see anything in his argument that has anything
that would lead me to believe all life on earth has a common
ancestor.
>
> Second, I do not know about Vend (but then, of course, neither do
> you),
Actually, I do know a little bit about vend.
> > Now what just occurred? A young, impressionable kid has
> > been brainwashed into accepting this theory as an undisputed
> > scientific fact.
>
> In other classes, of course, this young, impressionable kid will be
> "brainwashed" into accepting, as undisputed fact, the idea that the
> Earth orbits the sun (disputed by geocentrist creationists), the idea
> that the Nazis murdered circa six million Jews (disputed by holocaust
> deniers), probably the idea that HIV causes AIDS (disputed by a
> variety of devotees of pseudoscience), and many other things.
>
> > Now when I went to school, we were running behind in the course,
> > so the section on evolution was skipped, so I have no reason
> > to accept the theory as an undisputed fact, having never been
> > brainwashed by it.
>
> You have the reason that the evidence supports common descent and the
> importance of natural selection as a mechanism of adaption, whether
> they got around to telling you this in school or not (as I said, in my
> case they never did).
>
> > That is the difference between me and you on the theory
> > of evolution: I was never brainwashed in school to accept
> > it as undisputed scientific fact.
>
> Why do you accept creationism?
I am not a creationist.
Throwback
> > Now when I went to school, we were running behind in the course,
> > so the section on evolution was skipped, so I have no reason
> > to accept the theory as an undisputed fact, having never been
> > brainwashed by it.
>
> You have the reason that the evidence supports common descent and the
> importance of natural selection as a mechanism of adaption, whether
> they got around to telling you this in school or not (as I said, in my
> case they never did).
Now I notice in the study of the comparison of 3 species,
human, chimp , and some monkey:
First, the three have 93% similarity in their DNA.
But, alas, this doesn't take into account the fact
that the chimp DNA is 7.5% longer. With this taken
into account the similarity of the 3 approaches
85%.
Secondly, I found this article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070420153635.htm
"In addition to tallying positively selected genes, Zhang's group also
looked at which genes in humans and chimps were under positive
selection. Again, the results were a surprise. It's been suggested
that genes expressed in the brain underwent rapid evolution by
positive selection in humans. "But we didn't see that," Zhang said. In
fact, the researchers found no discernable trends in where within the
body positively selected genes were expressed.
That finding doesn't negate the role of positive selection in human
brain development, Zhang noted. "I believe that human brain evolution
is due to changes in a small number of genes, not large numbers, and
that is why we do not see a genome-wide signal."
What does this mean? The DNA can't account for how
the human brain tripled in size over the chimp brain ...
John Harshman
You are deflecting attention from Steven's point, which is that you seem
to be claiming that your ignorance of biology is an advantage in
understanding biology.
What sort of evidence *would* lead you to believe that all life has a
common ancestor?
[snip]
>>
>>Why do you accept creationism?
>
>
> I am not a creationist.
>
What are you? And whatever theory you believe, why do you believe it?
John Harshman
> On Apr 29, 6:38 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Now when I went to school, we were running behind in the course,
>>>so the section on evolution was skipped, so I have no reason
>>>to accept the theory as an undisputed fact, having never been
>>>brainwashed by it.
>>
>>You have the reason that the evidence supports common descent and the
>>importance of natural selection as a mechanism of adaption, whether
>>they got around to telling you this in school or not (as I said, in my
>>case they never did).
>
>
> Now I notice in the study of the comparison of 3 species,
> human, chimp , and some monkey:
>
> First, the three have 93% similarity in their DNA.
Not true. They are not all equally similar. The human and chimp are much
more similar to each other, by any measure you care to make, than either
is to the monkey.
> But, alas, this doesn't take into account the fact
> that the chimp DNA is 7.5% longer. With this taken
> into account the similarity of the 3 approaches
> 85%.
Again, there is no such thing as "the similarity of the 3"; similarity
is a binary measure. And we have been over the question of similarity
measures before. The measure you are trying to adopt is biologically absurd.
> Secondly, I found this article:
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070420153635.htm
>
> "In addition to tallying positively selected genes, Zhang's group also
> looked at which genes in humans and chimps were under positive
> selection. Again, the results were a surprise. It's been suggested
> that genes expressed in the brain underwent rapid evolution by
> positive selection in humans. "But we didn't see that," Zhang said. In
> fact, the researchers found no discernable trends in where within the
> body positively selected genes were expressed.
>
> That finding doesn't negate the role of positive selection in human
> brain development, Zhang noted. "I believe that human brain evolution
> is due to changes in a small number of genes, not large numbers, and
> that is why we do not see a genome-wide signal."
>
> What does this mean? The DNA can't account for how
> the human brain tripled in size over the chimp brain ...
No, it doesn't mean anything of the sort. It means that the crucial
differences are hard to find in a genome of 3 billion bases. If DNA
doesn't account for the differences between chimps and humans, what
does? Do you have an alternative theory to explain individual
development as wall as evolution?
Ernest Major
Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> writes
>Throwback wrote:
>
>> On Apr 29, 6:38 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Now when I went to school, we were running behind in the course,
>>>>so the section on evolution was skipped, so I have no reason
>>>>to accept the theory as an undisputed fact, having never been
>>>>brainwashed by it.
>>>
>>>You have the reason that the evidence supports common descent and the
>>>importance of natural selection as a mechanism of adaption, whether
>>>they got around to telling you this in school or not (as I said, in my
>>>case they never did).
>>
>>
>> Now I notice in the study of the comparison of 3 species,
>> human, chimp , and some monkey:
>>
>> First, the three have 93% similarity in their DNA.
>
>Not true. They are not all equally similar. The human and chimp are much
>more similar to each other, by any measure you care to make, than either
>is to the monkey.
>
>> But, alas, this doesn't take into account the fact
>> that the chimp DNA is 7.5% longer. With this taken
>> into account the similarity of the 3 approaches
>> 85%.
>
>Again, there is no such thing as "the similarity of the 3"; similarity
>is a binary measure. And we have been over the question of similarity
>measures before. The measure you are trying to adopt is biologically absurd.
And the factoid appears to be wrong as well.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ye Old One
I can remember my science classes.
>
>I ask because I would not have agreed with Throwback that photosynthetic
>plants have different biochemistries than animals.
Yes, in retrospect I answered the surface point, that palants (with
photosynthesis) get their energy by a different biochemical route to
animals.
>The same 20 amino acids
>are used in proteins. The genetic code is the same. The biosynthetic
>pathways are 95% the same. The enzymes are homologous. The non-green
>tissues of a plant derive energy from sugars in just about exactly the
>same way that animals do.
Yes, I should have thought of the deeper level of his point.
>Animals can construct sugars from simpler materials
>just as plants can. The major differences are that animals have lost some
>of the pathways for building vitamins and a few amino acids, since they
>get those things from the diet. And plants also have a few pathways and
>enzymes for photosynthesis which animals lack. Also, there are a few
>specialized pathways limited to either some plants or some animals. For
>example, pine trees produce terpenes to ward off bugs but mammals produce
>steroids for a variety of hormonal purposes. But both plants and animals
>build these things from the same common 5-carbon building block, using
>exactly the same pathway to construct that building block. And archaeobacteria
>use the same pathways and the same 5-carbon basic building block to build
>their membrane lipids.
>
>The earliest absolutely uncontroversial evidence for life on earth comes
>from hydrocarbon deposits that are about 2.7 billion years old. Examination
>of these hydrocarbons shows signs of this same 5-carbon branched-chain building
>block. Geochemical processes can create hydrocarbons without life being
>involved. Geochemical processes can create things that look like bacterial
>fossils in 3.5 billion year old sediments. Geochemical processes can create
>odd ratios in the ratio of C12 to C13. But it takes living organisms to
>create hydrocarbons containing that signature branched 5-carbon chain in a
>big fraction of the hydrocarbons analyzed.
>
>And how do I know this? I have read lots and lots of biochemistry textbooks
>and research papers because I study abiogenesis as a hobby.
I will attempt to learn the lesson - that I should not just reply to
Throwback at his own level :)
>
>> Now, can you answer the question?
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > So the reason why 3 different species have the
>> >> >same biochemistry is that that particular biochemistry works,
>> >> >and if it didn't they wouldn't be here.
>> >>
>> >> The fact is that we (that is ALL life on earth) are descended from a
>> >> single common ancestor.
>> >
>> >Or simply that the biochemistry works.
>> >It doesn't infer they have a common ancestor at all.
>>
>> I still think you need to answer my question above.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bob.
>>
What I'm still waiting for is an answer from Throwback to my question.
--
Bob.
Vend
> It wasn't a personal attack. I simply believe you have been
> blinded by the teaching of evolution in school.
Is presenting rational points evidence of intellectual blindness?
> > I've presented two points about why I think that it's is improbable
> > that living beings have distinct ancestors. Perplexed in Peoria
> > presented another one. Would you care to address them or do you think
> > that they are just falsehood fabricated by the Interplanetary
> > Conspiracy of Atheist Evil Scientsts?
>
> I don't see anything contained in them that would point me
> to think that all living beings have common ancestors. None
> at all.
Now who is the blind?
You claimed that the basic biochemistry of living beings was the only
one possible. You have been presented example of features that are
identical or almost identical in all living being despite the fact
that if they were different the organisms would have functioned the
same.
If there were multiple unrelated ancestors, how do you explain the
fact that they all picked the same options out the many other equally
good for survival that were available?
> > This is actually abiogenesis and it has little to do with evolution.
>
> And they look at a simple unicellular organism, and
> the greatest "experts" and scientific minds in the
> world cannot explain how it occurred ...
They explain that it evolved from past unicellular organisms that in
turn evolved from a simpler organism that was not a cell. They
honestly say that they don't know exactly how this organism looked
like. There is no shame in it, one cannot possibly know everything.
And saying "I don't know" is for sure a better answer than "Goddidit".
Throwback
wrote:
> Throwback wrote:
> > On Apr 29, 6:38 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Now when I went to school, we were running behind in the course,
> >>>so the section on evolution was skipped, so I have no reason
> >>>to accept the theory as an undisputed fact, having never been
> >>>brainwashed by it.
>
> >>You have the reason that the evidence supports common descent and the
> >>importance of natural selection as a mechanism of adaption, whether
> >>they got around to telling you this in school or not (as I said, in my
> >>case they never did).
>
> > Now I notice in the study of the comparison of 3 species,
> > human, chimp , and some monkey:
>
> > First, the three have 93% similarity in their DNA.
>
> Not true.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070412141025.htm
""Human-Chimp Differences Uncovered With Analysis Of Rhesus Monkey
Genome
Science Daily - An international consortium of researchers has
published the genome sequence of the rhesus macaque monkey and
aligned
it with the chimpanzee and human genomes. Published April 13 in a
special section of the journal Science, the analysis reveals that the
three primate species share about 93 percent of their DNA, yet have
some significant differences among their genes."
Throwback
> On 30 Apr, 16:38, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It wasn't a personal attack. I simply believe you have been
> > blinded by the teaching of evolution in school.
>
> Is presenting rational points evidence of intellectual blindness?
You mentioned the genetic "code".
I know you code computers.
Here is what the "code" does:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dna
"Deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA is a nucleic acid molecule that
contains the genetic instructions used in the development and
functioning of all living organisms. The main role of DNA is the long-
term storage of information and it is often compared to a set of
blueprints, since DNA contains the instructions needed to construct
other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules
"It is the sequence of these four bases along the backbone that
encodes information. This information is read using the genetic code,
which specifies the sequence of the amino acids within proteins. The
code is read by copying stretches of DNA into the related nucleic acid
RNA, in a process called transcription. Most of these RNA molecules
are used to synthesize proteins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rna
"It is transcribed (synthesized) from DNA by enzymes called RNA
polymerases and further processed by other enzymes. RNA serves as the
template for translation of genes into proteins, transferring amino
acids to the ribosome to form proteins, and also translating the
transcript into proteins.
>
> > > I've presented two points about why I think that it's is improbable
> > > that living beings have distinct ancestors. Perplexed in Peoria
> > > presented another one. Would you care to address them or do you think
> > > that they are just falsehood fabricated by the Interplanetary
> > > Conspiracy of Atheist Evil Scientsts?
>
> > I don't see anything contained in them that would point me
> > to think that all living beings have common ancestors. None
> > at all.
>
> Now who is the blind?
> You claimed that the basic biochemistry of living beings was the only
> one possible.
No, I claimed there are a few different biochemistries of
life on earth.
> You have been presented example of features that are
> identical or almost identical in all living being despite the fact
> that if they were different the organisms would have functioned the
> same.
>
> If there were multiple unrelated ancestors, how do you explain the
> fact that they all picked the same options out the many other equally
> good for survival that were available?
Because that particular biochemistry works.
Vend
> You mentioned the genetic "code".
> I know you code computers.
Nothing to do with that.
> Here is what the "code" does:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dna
>
> "Deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA is a nucleic acid molecule that
> contains the genetic instructions used in the development and
> functioning of all living organisms. The main role of DNA is the long-
> term storage of information and it is often compared to a set of
> blueprints, since DNA contains the instructions needed to construct
> other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules
>
> "It is the sequence of these four bases along the backbone that
> encodes information. This information is read using the genetic code,
> which specifies the sequence of the amino acids within proteins. The
> code is read by copying stretches of DNA into the related nucleic acid
> RNA, in a process called transcription. Most of these RNA molecules
> are used to synthesize proteins
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rna
>
> "It is transcribed (synthesized) from DNA by enzymes called RNA
> polymerases and further processed by other enzymes. RNA serves as the
> template for translation of genes into proteins, transferring amino
> acids to the ribosome to form proteins, and also translating the
> transcript into proteins.
I infer that you don't know what "genetic code" means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code
"The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded in
genetic material (DNA or RNA sequences) is translated into proteins
(amino acid sequences) by living cells. Specifically, the code defines
a mapping between tri-nucleotide sequences called codons and amino
acids; every triplet of nucleotides in a nucleic acid sequence
specifies a single amino acid. Because the vast majority of genes are
encoded with exactly the same code (see #RNA codon table), this
particular code is often referred to as the canonical or standard
genetic code, or simply the genetic code, though in fact there are
many variant codes (thus, the canonical genetic code is not
universal). For example, in humans, protein synthesis in mitochondria
relies on a genetic code that varies from the canonical code.
[...]
Despite the variations that exist, the genetic codes used by all known
forms of life on Earth are very similar. Since there are many possible
genetic codes that are thought to have similar utility to the one used
by Earth life, the theory of evolution suggests that the genetic code
was established very early in the history of life and meta-analysis of
transfer RNA suggest it was established soon after the formation of
earth."
It's not that all the possible genetic codes were equally functional,
but it's likely there were more than the few options we observe.
> > If there were multiple unrelated ancestors, how do you explain the
> > fact that they all picked the same options out the many other equally
> > good for survival that were available?
>
> Because that particular biochemistry works.
As well as the other possibile ones.
AC
Throwback <throw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 7:58 am, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>> On 26 Apr, 19:56, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 26, 10:33 am, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>>
>> > > On 25 Apr, 21:24, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > I agree with "Before you defend evolution, get him to say exactly what he
>> > > > > thinks happened instead".
>>
>> > > > This is darwin's cult belief #1 :
>>
>> > > > "We believe since their is no other hypothesis to account
>> > > > for our observations, our hypothesis/theory must be
>> > > > true."
>>
>> > > This is not stated correctly. Try this one: "Since our theory is the
>> > > simplest known to accout for all observations, we belive that our
>> > > theory is correct until some observation that contraddicts it is
>> > > made."
>> > > It's an application of the Occam's razor.
>>
>> > It is the only theory.
>>
>> In the past there were various competing theories (for instance,
>> Lamarkian evolution).
>> Currently the modern Theory of Evolution, which exist in different
>> versions that differ in the details, is the only accepted theory.
>>
>> > > > Now the only way a new hypothesis can be formulated, is to take
>> > > > a look at what was actually found in the fossil record (was it
>> > > > a fragment?), strip it of the speculative, conjectural interpretations
>> > > > placed on it by the theory in extant, and then formulate a new
>> > > > hypothesis.
>>
>> > > So?
>>
>> > I am simply stating how an alternate theory would have to be
>> > constructed.
>>
>> There is no need to construct an alternate theory unless some problem
>> is found in the current one.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Theory-dependence_...
>>
>> > > > "Thomas Kuhn denied that it is ever possible to isolate the theory
>> > > > being tested from the influence of the theory in which the
>> > > > observations are grounded. He argued that observations always rely on
>> > > > a specific paradigm, and that it is not possible to evaluate competing
>> > > > paradigms independently."
>>
>> > > This is true to a certain extent: if you are measuring the length of
>> > > an object with a ruler, you usually assume that the ruler doesn't
>> > > contract or extends as you do the measure (or at least it doesn't do
>> > > that differently from the object under observation).
>>
>> > > But how is this relevant to the argument?
>>
>> > He is stating in a way, the scientist have this theory, so
>> > when they look at the fossil record, they speculate and
>> > conjecture on what they find and assimilate it based on
>> > their theory.
>> > Also, when they have 3 species alleged to have a common ancestor,
>> > what they conjecture and speculate is based on their theory
>> > and what they then assimilate into their theory.
>>
>> I don't think so. The structure of a fossil can be studied mostly
>> independently from the ToE.
>
> They find a fossil(or a fragment), and speculate and conjecturally
> assign it into a chart of evolutionary descent that may be
> unwarranted or wrong, based on their overriding theory.
So isn't it great that the genetic evidence by and large has confirmed
what the fossil record had already demonstrated? The twin-nested
hieararchy is a great and wonderous thing.
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Stuart
> I don't know enough about evolution to reply to this fool at the
> sparknotes messageboard (http://mb.sparknotes.com/mb.epl?
> b=15&m=1249692&t=352981), he says:
>
> "I would like to ask one, and only one thing from all you
> evolutionists out there. Please consider the background information
> below.
>
> Dogs, wolves, coyotes, panthers, cats, tigers, and humans exist.
> A dog's haploid gamete has 39 chromosomes,
> a wolf's has 39, and
> a coyote's has 39.
> A panther's has 19,
> a cat's has 19, and
> a tiger's has 19.
> Finally, a human being's haploid gamete has 23.
Oey. The fixation creationists have with Chromosome numbers.
>
> You have diploids with 46 chromosomes, and so do your parents.
Probably, but not necessarily. Even among humans, chromosme numbers
fluctuate, XYY
, XXX variants being the most common variants. Such humans can
reproduce with "normal"
humans that have 46.
If you examine the genome of plants you'll find that whole genomes
have been duplicated, sometimes more than once. This idea that
reproduction is impossible unless chromosome counts are exactly the
same only
exists in the minds of creationists.
> Dogs, wolves, and coyotes could have had a common ancestor that also
> had diploids with 78 chromosomes.
> Panthers, cats, and tigers could have had a common ancestor that also
> had diploids with 38 chromosomes.
>
> My question is: Is there any proof that there is even a possibility
> that all these organisms were slowly evolved from a common,
> unicellular, bacteria-like ancestor 3.5 billion years ago?
Yes.
Consult the FAQS at www.talkorigins.org
>
> If not, here is some food for thought: Should tax money be invested in
> textbooks that affirm the common ancestry as fact?"
Yes.
You had parents didn't you? Or were you spontaneously created?
>
> What's the easiest way to prove him wrong?
You can't reason somebody out of a position they didn't reach by
reason.
But you can mention that chromosome count is not a barrier to
reproduction, even in humans.
Thats the fact Jack.
Stuart
John Harshman
You just can't trust press releases for real scientific information. I
have no idea what the person (probably a science journalist, not a
scientist) who wrote that press release thought he meant, but it's wrong
as you interpret it, and I can't actually think of an interpretation
that makes sense. Again, the human and chimp will be closer to each
other than to the rhesus by any measure you can make. You may have to go
beyond press releases to find this out.
urthogie
It seems like whenever someone reached the climax of their point and
it became apparent that Throwback was wrong, he changed the subejct to
something new, like them being "indoctrinated" in their high school
class.
This wasn't exactly a debate, it was just some guy changing the
subject every time the evidence went against him.
Let's go through the points he's made that have been addressed:
1.Platypus...check
2. Biochemistry...check
3. Common ancestors...check
Aside from nitpicking peoples' replies, do you have any point/
criticism that remains, Throwback?
urthogie
Oh, one more thing:
4. Chromosomes as a barrier... check
Perplexed in Peoria
"John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:gNrZh.18208$Kd3...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
The paper is available online here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5822/222
An excerpt:
Nucleotide sequences that aligned between the human and rhesus
average 93.54% identity. If, however, small insertions and deletions
are included in the calculation, identity is reduced to 90.76%.
Considering regions that are difficult to align, such as lineage-specific
interspersed repeat elements, would further decrease the level of
computed identity.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Throwback" <throw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1177944134.6...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Er. 5% variation. 95% identity.
> Please note that makes them different.
> And:
>
> > The major differences are that animals have lost some
> > of the pathways for building vitamins and a few amino acids, since they
> > get those things from the diet. And plants also have a few pathways and
> > enzymes for photosynthesis which animals lack. Also, there are a few
> > specialized pathways limited to either some plants or some animals.
>
> Sounds like to me there are a few different biochemistries on earth,
> as I claimed ...
But if you adopt the stance that any difference in the details means that the
whole thing is different, then you don't have just 'a few' different biochemistries
on Earth - you have tens of thousands of them.
> > And how do I know this? I have read lots and lots of biochemistry textbooks
> > and research papers because I study abiogenesis as a hobby.
>
Incidentally, you have not yet answered Bob's question.
John Harshman
OK. So when they say "share 93% of their DNA", they mean that homologous
sequences are identical at 93% of sites between human and rhesus. By
this measure, humans and chimps share 98.8% of their DNA. I would
suppose that chimp and rhesus would share about 93% too. So the press
release badly misstated what it was trying to say, and so confused
Throwback.
The 90.76% figure is another way to count it, though as I've explained
it's a biologically meaningless way. By that measure, humans and chimps
are about 95% identical. Again, human and chimp are much closer by this
measure than human and rhesus, just as we would expect from evolution.
So now what's the problem for evolution, exactly?
John Harshman
I would also like to point out that plants actually have no major
metabolic processes that animals lack. Plants don't do photosynthesis.
They just play host to captive cyanobacteria that do the actual
photosynthesizing. Though this has been going on so long that we call
them "chloroplasts" instead of cyanobacteria, and some of the genes
necessary for the process have been transferred to the host genome and
are no longer contained in the chloroplast's genome. This phenomenon
(and the quite similar one involving mitochondria) seems quite
impossible to explain outside an evolutionary context. I wonder what
Throwback makes of it.
Steven J.
> On Apr 29, 6:38 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > > Now when I went to school, we were running behind in the course,
> > > so the section on evolution was skipped, so I have no reason
> > > to accept the theory as an undisputed fact, having never been
> > > brainwashed by it.
>
> > You have the reason that the evidence supports common descent and the
> > importance of natural selection as a mechanism of adaption, whether
> > they got around to telling you this in school or not (as I said, in my
> > case they never did).
>
> Now I notice in the study of the comparison of 3 species,
> human, chimp , and some monkey:
>
> First, the three have 93% similarity in their DNA.
> But, alas, this doesn't take into account the fact
> that the chimp DNA is 7.5% longer. With this taken
> into account the similarity of the 3 approaches
> 85%.
>
puts the sequence similarity between humans and chimps between 95% and
99%, depending on how one counts the differences. Again, every source
has humans and chimps, in most biochemical respects, close to each
other than either is to gorillas, much less to orangutans or rhesus
macaques. This is one of the strongest arguments for evolution: not
just the similarities between human and other apes' genomes, but the
way the similarities and differences fall into a consistent nested
hierarchy.
Now, the higher figures for DNA similarity count by the minimum number
of mutations needed to account for the differences between two
species' genomes. Since known sorts of mutations can add or subtract
large numbers of base pairs in one step (indeed, known sorts of
mutation can double the size of the genome in one step), this method
can count thousands of base pairs as one difference, just like a
single-nucleotide substitution. If one counts each base pair in one
species with no counterpart in another species as a single difference,
then you might get to less than 95% sequence similarity.
>
> Secondly, I found this article:
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070420153635.htm
>
> "In addition to tallying positively selected genes, Zhang's group also
> looked at which genes in humans and chimps were under positive
> selection. Again, the results were a surprise. It's been suggested
> that genes expressed in the brain underwent rapid evolution by
> positive selection in humans. "But we didn't see that," Zhang said. In
> fact, the researchers found no discernable trends in where within the
> body positively selected genes were expressed.
>
The article also says that different parts of the chimp genome have
been mapped to differing levels of accuracy, so they compared only the
best data, which is only a fairly small fraction of the chimp genome.
Other genes, not compared, may have had major effects on the
development of the human brain (although it's not known just how many
genes need to be modified to account for the difference between human
and chimp brains, anyway). Of course, given that humans are, usually,
less hair than chimps, and are obligate bipeds, unlike chimps, and
have a different diet than chimps, there are obviously many areas of
the body where one might expect genes to have been under selection,
not just the brain. These results fall into the "somewhat surprising
but hardly shocking" category.
>
> That finding doesn't negate the role of positive selection in human
> brain development, Zhang noted. "I believe that human brain evolution
> is due to changes in a small number of genes, not large numbers, and
> that is why we do not see a genome-wide signal."
>
> What does this mean? The DNA can't account for how
> the human brain tripled in size over the chimp brain ...
>
No, it definitely does not mean that. Zhang thinks that changes in a
very few genes can account for that tripling in size, and for other
differences between human and chimp genes (if only a few genes are
involved in the evolution of the brain from nonhuman ape to human,
then we shouldn't expect to find differences in many genes associated
with the brain). What this means is that we do not yet know what
changes in DNA correspond to the changes between a chimp (or gorilla
or orangutan) brain and a human brain. This is why geneticists keep
asking for more research grants.
-- Steven J.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Steven J." <stev...@altavista.com> wrote in message news:1177997820....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...[quoting an article]
> > That finding doesn't negate the role of positive selection in human
> > brain development, Zhang noted. "I believe that human brain evolution
> > is due to changes in a small number of genes, not large numbers, and
> > that is why we do not see a genome-wide signal."
> >
> > What does this mean? The DNA can't account for how
> > the human brain tripled in size over the chimp brain ...
> >
> No, it definitely does not mean that. Zhang thinks that changes in a
For a somewhat silly analogy, think of DNA as a recipe. It doesn't
take a big change in the DNA to change "next add three cups of neurons"
to "next add nine cups of neurons".
Of course to make this work, there may need to be some compensatory
changes elsewhere in the recipe. For example, change "...in a small bowl"
to "... in a large bowl".
Steven J.
>
>> Two points need to be made here.
>>
>> First, it is irrelevant to Vend's point whether he was indoctrinated
>> at an impressionable age. He has presented an argument, and it is the
>> quality of his argument and evidence, not his supposed motives for
>> accepting that argument himself, that needs to be addressed.
>
> I don't see anything in his argument that has anything
> that would lead me to believe all life on earth has a common
> ancestor.
>
been the point of your post.
However, Vend's point was straightforward: the biochemical similarities
among species cannot be explained by those being the only compounds and
reactions that work. For example, we know that humans and chimpanzees don't
need to have identical cytochrome-c (a respiratory enzyme), because we know
that there are many different variants of the enzyme that all perform the
same function. The cytochrome-c in rhesus macaques differs from our own in
one amino acid; that in, e.g. a pine tree differs much more, and that in a
bacterium differs yet more, yet they all engage in the same chemical
reactions. This, in turn, raises a question: if we invoke common design,
why are there all these variants, rather than one uniform sequence to
perform the same function? If we assume that species just use something
that works, and (for some reason) only cytochrome-c can perform this
function (although that seems rather unlikely), and that species are not
related by common descent, then why do we not see a purely random
arrangement of the variants, with, e.g. human cytochrome-c closest to oak
tree cytochrome-c or something? Or, if we assume a Designer trying to set
humans apart from the rest of creation (though you say you are not a
creationist), then why not give humans a unique cytochrome-c sequence? The
pattern actually observed (and the example given can be paralled with many
different proteins, pseudogenes, and endogenous retroviruses) is explicable
only in terms of branching common descent.
>
>> Second, I do not know about Vend (but then, of course, neither do
>> you),
>
> Actually, I do know a little bit about vend.
>
-- [snip]
>
>> Why do you accept creationism?
>
> I am not a creationist.
>
What, then, are your views on origins, if you don't mind saying?
>
-- Steven J.
Throwback
wrote:
> >>You have the reason that the evidence supports common descent and the
> >>importance of natural selection as a mechanism of adaption, whether
> >>they got around to telling you this in school or not (as I said, in my
> >>case they never did).
>
> > Now I notice in the study of the comparison of 3 species,
> > human, chimp , and some monkey:
>
> > First, the three have 93% similarity in their DNA.
>
> Not true. They are not all equally similar. The human and chimp are much
> more similar to each other, by any measure you care to make, than either
> is to the monkey.
>
> > But, alas, this doesn't take into account the fact
> > that the chimp DNA is 7.5% longer. With this taken
> > into account the similarity of the 3 approaches
> > 85%.
>
>
>
> > Secondly, I found this article:
>
> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070420153635.htm
>
> > "In addition to tallying positively selected genes, Zhang's group also
> > looked at which genes in humans and chimps were under positive
> > selection. Again, the results were a surprise. It's been suggested
> > that genes expressed in the brain underwent rapid evolution by
> > positive selection in humans. "But we didn't see that," Zhang said. In
> > fact, the researchers found no discernable trends in where within the
> > body positively selected genes were expressed.
>
> > That finding doesn't negate the role of positive selection in human
> > brain development, Zhang noted. "I believe that human brain evolution
> > is due to changes in a small number of genes, not large numbers, and
> > that is why we do not see a genome-wide signal."
>
> > What does this mean? The DNA can't account for how
> > the human brain tripled in size over the chimp brain ...
>
> No, it doesn't mean anything of the sort. It means that the crucial
> differences are hard to find in a genome of 3 billion bases. If DNA
> doesn't account for the differences between chimps and humans, what
> does?
This may be an indication, since chimp DNA is longer than
human DNA, and they can't account for the fact that the
human brain tripled in size over the chimp brain, that they
didn't properly line up the DNA when comparing, and if
they slid the DNA into a different position and compared it,
they may find out why the brain tripled in size over
the chimp brain. However, this would also place the
percentage difference far below the 85% range ...
Throwback
> On 30 Apr, 20:03, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You mentioned the genetic "code".
> > I know you code computers.
>
> Nothing to do with that.
>
Actually, it has everything to do with it.
When you see a computer code, you know
some intelligence was behind it.
When you examine a TV signal, you know
that is the code that tells which pixel to
be a certain color when it sweeps across
the TV screen. When you see this code,
you know it has intelligence behind it.
Similarly, when SETI sweeps the sky
looking for signals, they are looking for
a code that would indicate some
intelligence.
Now, all of a sudden, when you see
a code right under your nose, you don't
assign intelligence to it.
There can be central air in houses and apartments,
some places have swamp coolers, as it has
found a niche for that environment. Should I
now deduce, that buildings have a common
ancestor?
Throwback
> On Apr 30, 9:52 am, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 29, 6:38 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Now when I went to school, we were running behind in the course,
> > > > so the section on evolution was skipped, so I have no reason
> > > > to accept the theory as an undisputed fact, having never been
> > > > brainwashed by it.
>
> > > You have the reason that the evidence supports common descent and the
> > > importance of natural selection as a mechanism of adaption, whether
> > > they got around to telling you this in school or not (as I said, in my
> > > case they never did).
>
> > Now I notice in the study of the comparison of 3 species,
> > human, chimp , and some monkey:
>
> > First, the three have 93% similarity in their DNA.
> > But, alas, this doesn't take into account the fact
> > that the chimp DNA is 7.5% longer. With this taken
> > into account the similarity of the 3 approaches
> > 85%.
>
> You don't cite your source for this. Every source I have examined
> puts the sequence similarity between humans and chimps between 95% and
> 99%, depending on how one counts the differences.
But that doesn't take into account the difference in length.
Throwback
wrote:
> "John Harshman" <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote in messagenews:gNrZh.18208$Kd3...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
So their similarity would be pushed below 90%.
And it still doesn't take into account the length
difference.
John Harshman
Again, you insist on using a biologically meaningless measure. Why? And
the regions that are difficult to align *are* the length difference.
What else did you think it was made of?
Throwback
> On 28 Apr, 16:46, Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > basic biochemistry unless one assumes some law of process that
> > > constrain them to do so.
>
> > Simple. There are only a few different kinds of biochemistries
> > that work to sustain life forms on earth. The few we have work,
> > so we observe them to exist. Any life that didn't have these,
> > same biochemistry is that that particular biochemistry works,
> > and if it didn't they wouldn't be here.
>
> observe one biochemistry, with minor variations.
> There are various features of biochemstry that don't seem to be the
> unique possible option. I'm not an expert, but I can think of
> chirality (life on earth would work the same if the chirality of all
> the biological molecules were reversed), and the genetic code. I'm
> confident that experts can give you more examples.
If the chirality were all reversed, and it would still work
to sustain life, since their is even odds of that occurring,
and we don't see it, it may infer it wasn't done by a
random process.
John Harshman
I see you dodged that question. Perhaps you misspoke originally and you
really do agree that DNA does make the difference?
> This may be an indication, since chimp DNA is longer than
> human DNA,
Note that you still have not been able to establish this as true.
> and they can't account for the fact that the
> human brain tripled in size over the chimp brain, that they
> didn't properly line up the DNA when comparing, and if
> they slid the DNA into a different position and compared it,
> they may find out why the brain tripled in size over
> the chimp brain.
That's nonsense. But you are free to have a go at it. The entire human
and chimp genomes are available for comparison:
http://genome.ucsc.edu/index.html
The alignment of those parts that are homologous is really very simple,
and there is no chance that it's wrong. The few non-homologous bits
stand out, and their causes are well known. But this has nothing to do
with the problem of determining how our brains got bigger. That's a
problem not of homology, but of figuring out just what each bit of DNA
actually does. That's a huge problem that will engage hundreds of
scientists for years. Somewhere in there we'll figure out what
differences in DNA cause the differences in brain size.
> However, this would also place the
> percentage difference far below the 85% range ...
True, since it would end up wrongly aligning every single base. Why
would you do such a ridiculous thing, unless you had some sort of agenda
to make human and chimp seem less similar than they really are?
Throwback
Ernest Major
Throwback <throw...@gmail.com> writes
according to the results of the human and chimpanzee genome projects any
length difference is small.
--
alias Ernest Major
John Harshman
Actually, it does. Differences in length are causes by
insertion/deletion mutations. And we still don't know that there
actually is a difference in length. Can you support that claim?
Throwback
wrote:
> Throwback wrote:
> > This may be an indication, since chimp DNA is longer than
> > human DNA,
>
> Note that you still have not been able to establish this as true.
You are a troll. I believe others have posted the journal
articles that show that the chimp DNA is longer than
human DNA.
Stop trolling me.
Throwback
> In message <1178027665.065205.284...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> Throwback <throwba...@gmail.com> writes
You are trolling me, because you posted the journal
article yourself:
"Gregory, Nucleotypic effects without nuclei: Genome size and
erythrocyte size in mammals, Genome 43: 895-901 (2000) cites a 1982
paper for values of 3.5pg for Homo sapiens and 3.9pg for Pan
troglodytes.
Throwback
Please note, this is an 11.4% difference in length.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Throwback" <throw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1178027747....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
I'm pretty sure that the last quoted sentence does take into account the
length difference. But you are correct that the 93% and 90% figures do not.
Quite a bit of the length difference between mammalian genomes is accounted
for by those "lineage-specific interspersed repeat elements" that they mention.
In fact, you will find that not all humans have genomes of exactly the same
length, and the repeat elements are a good part of that.
A lot is known about genome structure, and it is interesting if you are the
kind of person who digs the details. You should read up. One thing you will
learn is that there are good reasons why people cite different numbers in
different contexts. There is no single 'right' way to measure genome
similarity.
Throwback
wrote:
> > The result of the indoctrination, or its purpose, is to
> > blind you, or create a certain outlook or philosophy
> > or accept a certain worldview or viewpoint.
>
> > 'Today's class: abiogenesis - life from non-life.'
> > "In the primordial slime of the sea, through
> > natural and random forces, a unicellular
> > organism arose. That's right class, all
> > it takes is just one unicellular
> > organism ..."
>
> I doubt any real science class has ever been taught any such thing.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/46951cbc2ae83656?dmode=source&hl=en
"Incidentally, many people do indeed suggest that abiogenesis produced
only
one organism. And then that that organism reproduced and it went on
from
there. To add some drama to this account:
There was only one ten-million-year interval in Earth's 4.5 billion
year
history when conditions were roughly right for life to arise. And
only
one place on Earth - in an Iceland-like setting where glaciers,
volcanos,
seacoast, and the remains of a large metallic meteorite came
together -
only one place where the conditions were exactly right. Yet still,
the
abiogenic event was so improbable that it only happened once during
that
short window of opportunity. But that one chance occurrence was
all it
took."
Ask perplexed where s/he got this quote.
Throwback
wrote:
> "Throwback" <throwba...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1178027747....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
That's all I see listed in the above quote, 93% and 90%.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Throwback" <throw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1178029424....@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
There is a reason he keeps asking. I Googled on 'genome length' and eventually
found a web site for a genome length 'database'. And with some searching,
I found a table containing various published estimates of chimp and human
genome length. The longest chimp estimate was 3.85 Gbp, which would make it
about 10% larger than the human (not 15% as you wrote). But the smallest
estimate was 3.45 Gbp - a little smaller than humans. Why the discrepancy?
That database includes all reports of genome length for all species (with
the citations, of course). Some of those estimates were made years ago
using methods that are now obsolete. But those estimates remain in the database.
If you would just give a citation for your 15% figure, Harshman (and I, and
anyone else who is interested) could check to see whether that is the most
current data or whether it is something which was improved upon long ago.
Science is not a collection of uncontested facts, which, once established,
are never changed.
Ernest Major
Throwback <throw...@gmail.com> writes
chimp DNA is longer than human DNA. (Some old articles, using techniques
with large uncertainties had chimp DNA larger, but the more recent
measurements from the human and chimpanzee genome projects have chimp
DNA marginally smaller, but perhaps by less than the uncertainites.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
Throwback <throw...@gmail.com> writes
--
Alias Ernest Major
Perplexed in Peoria
"Throwback" <throw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1178029018....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
It is conceivable that you could have an intelligently-designed
specially-created world where two different plants, say, differed only
in the chirality which they used. But that would create problems for
the animals on that world, because each chirality of animals would only
be able to get nutrition from the right chirality of plant!
In any case, common chirality is not a particularly good piece of evidence
for common ancestry and evolution. It is, after all, only one bit of
information. The genetic code, on the other hand is more like a thousand
bits of information. Very unlikely that those thousand bits would be
the same for most living things simply by chance.
Ernest Major
Throwback <throw...@gmail.com> writes
wrote, below.
"Gregory, Nucleotypic effects without nuclei: Genome size and
erythrocyte size in mammals, Genome 43: 895-901 (2000) cites a 1982
paper for values of 3.5pg for Homo sapiens and 3.9pg for Pan
troglodytes.
Morand and Ricklefs, Genome size is not related to life-history traits
in primates, Genome 48: 273-278 (2005) give values of 3.5pg for Homo
sapiens and 3.63pg for Pan troglodytes.
WikiPedia gives a size of 3.2 gigabases for Homo sapiens, and 3.1
gigabases of Pan troglodytes, citing papers in Nature.
It seems to me that human and chimpanzee genomes sizes are the same to
within measurement error; the error bars are larger for the older
techniques such as flow cytometry and Feulgen microdensitometry, and
even in the case of direct sequencing the length of repetitive sequences
is difficult to ascertain. Intraspecific variation also has to be taken
into account. (There have been reports of genome size variations far in
excess of 10% in plant species, but it's not clear that any of these
have stood up to re-examination.)
[1] Hendrix & Stewart, Estimation of the nuclear DNA content of
Gossypium species, Annals of Botany 95(5): 789-797 (2005)"
--
alias Ernest Major
Perplexed in Peoria
"Throwback" <throw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1178027512.8...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> There can be central air in houses and apartments,
> some places have swamp coolers, as it has
> found a niche for that environment. Should I
> now deduce, that buildings have a common
> ancestor?
No, of course not! The obvious conclusion is that all buildings
had the same designer! ;-)
Perplexed in Peoria
"Throwback" <throw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1178030505....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
I made it up. Sorry if it looked like I was quoting someone. The quotes
were intended to delimit a piece of fiction. But good fiction, I think.
The truth might actually be something like that. Who knows?
I'm not going to take a position on "mel turner"s suggestion that no science
class has ever taught something like what Throwback wrote. I really don't
know what gets taught in science classes these days.