Australopithecus Sediba

What do you contend concerning the interrelatedness of "species," then? And how is that not a component of the Theory?

 

I guess because I think that you think that the theory of evolution is a religion in itself, because you don’t see the relevant evidence of TOE, and since you think in terms of religion, you place others in the same structure of thought.

Religion – based on faith and belief of un-evidenced stories, deals with the supernatural and unexplainable, the spiritual.

Science – based on observable evidence and data that is used to predict, and explain physical things in the real world.

I guess that you think Science is a religion, though it really couldn’t be further from the truth.

I guess you think because A. Sediba has certain features that are more, what you call “primitive” than older hominids, that this somehow de-validates the TOE, and because people like me say that it only strengthens the TOE, that we are an example of spin, and evidence of us “believing” in the Religion of the TOE.

If I am off then by all means correct me, because you are rather cryptic in how you explain what you are really saying. I think you are cryptic on purpose so that you can move the goal posts whenever you come across a dissenting opinion that you cannot argue against, and tell others that they are off topic, or arguing something you are not arguing, or something similar.

you know there are great message boards devoted to this topic, I would be happy to PM you a great one, but I cannot post it here, because I do not want Admin/Mods to think I am spamming for other sites.

 

We all share common ancestry. How that ancestor come to be is irrelevant concerning the nature of evolution.

 

You have continually argued that I am creating an argument from ignorance because you apparently don't accept one of my premises. I'm trying to figure out which premise that is. What don't you accept? You just keep saying "Nope, nope, nope," and aren't actually arguing anything.

 

What is your clear evidence of this common ancestry? GFP is saying DNA is that evidence, but that only shows hereditary relationships between like organisms--there isn't evidence that unlike organisms share anything but the building blocks-- Are amino acids our "ancestors?" Are carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, & oxygen our "ancestors?" There is a theory that life and early evolution occurred on iron sulfide minerals...are THEY our ancestors? And if they are, how do you connect us to that in the time frame of the earth within reasonable mathematical probability? And, can you give even one example that shows the interrelatedness of organisms WITHOUT the HUGE assumption that is that the matter of which we are made MUST denote inter-relatedness biologically. That is simply an assumption.

Three things are at work here:
1. The assumptions inherent in Evolutionary Theory


2. The probability of the complexity and diversity of the human organism (and other organisms)

and...

3. The consistent discovery of fossils of biological organisms that do not fit in the theory and massaging of the theory to the point of incredulity.

 

That's what my point was.You can advance that idea in your argument for the biological aspects of evolution. I simply could not isolate the aspects of biology from creation, we use the word of GOD as the basis for our understanding of the nature of life. I can't separate the two in my argument within the "origin of species". Everything was done with a purpose by a higher power. That is the issue- Creation vs. Evolution. Thanks for the debate.

 

See above. The premise that DNA necessarily denotes a single origin.

Here's an analogy--and remember that all analogies limp.

I have sugar, flour, eggs, milk, vanilla, salt, chocolate chips, and tomato sauce. How many different foods can I concoct from these items? LOTS! Does that mean that chocolate chip cookies are related to Spaghetti Marinara? Does that mean that cookies are pasta? NO. It just means there are common elements that combine differently to make different foods.

Now--I suppose I could arbitrarily make a paradigm that states that if there is flour in anything, it's in the family we'll call bobbledorf. Then I suppose i could say that cookies and pasta are related because they are in the family of bobbledorf. But really, that's just me making it up and defending it as fact because I say so. It's my PARADIGM. And if I got enough people to go along with my bobbledorf paradigm, I suppose it would be considered fact--and yet the only relationship is the "ingredients," and those ingredients are not related at all.

 

That isn't a premise, it's a conclusion. The premises are:

1. DNA is the genetic code and is inherited from parents.
2. Closely related organisms will have more DNA in common than non-closely related organisms.

I know that you haven't missed these premises, so I'm a bit confused about how you can mix up a conclusion and a premise.

A terrible analogy considering we are dealing with inheritance. It is like the idiotic car analogy: all cars have some of the same parts, does it mean that they are all "evolved" from a pre-car? No, because a car doesn't reproduce and pass on DNA.

 

I still do not see the relevancy, evolution is the evolution of life abiogensis is the rise of life. Two very separate fields.

 

Sure that's true, but you are suggesting that it is something that can be predicted--as in what genes are passed on and to whom and there is only a chance that specific genes get passed on and from there the same chance that it would go on to the following generation and onward. Some are dominant, some are recessive, and some have incomplete dominance. There is no way to predict how it will turn out or where it came from. Perhaps you can make reasonable guesses, but in reverse, back down through history to a presupposed primordial soup, it is impossible to trace due to the variations and the combinations. Simply because organisms use the same coding system does not necessarily mean that there is interrelatedness.

You are suggesting that DNA/genetic codes are something more than mere codes. You assume in your premise that DNA and inheritance means all organisms are related in some way. That is a fine hypothesis, but it ain't anything more than that. It sets up a paradigm which I believe has inhibited inquiry at this point rather than advanced it.

Fine--leave the pasta and the cookie out on the counter for a few days....is the mold "related?" roll: I'm being sarcastic)

What is organic that you wouldn't argue is somehow related? Since you worship at the altar of the God DNA, you have made your theory unfalsifiable.

 

I'VE GOT IT! Are all computer viruses related? Did they all come from one source? Or...is it just a code that is written many different ways producing myriad un-related "viruses?"

How's that for an analogy?

 

Computer viruses are not self replicating, do not observe Darwinian evolution (yet), and therefore you analogy falls on its face. They are written and perpetrated by man.

 

Hmmmmmmmm.....really?



Think about it.



and, BTW...they do replicate, how the hell do you think they spread?

They self-replicate, but no...they DON'T self-create. I think it's a fantastic analogy!

 

1) What? We can predict what genetic information will be transferred. Ever hear of Mendel's laws? We learned about them in early junior high, or at least I did.

2) What a ludicrously improbable claim. Are you honestly suggesting that every single organism, for whatever reason, evolved thousands to tens of thousands of genes that are exactly the same for every organism, hundreds of millions - billions of nucleotides that are exactly the same (not sure exactly how many nucleotides we share with every single organism)? The more probable conclusion is that we are all related.

 

I mean self replicating as creating themselves, they create copies of themselves. There is no program/gene swapping, so the analogy fails.

 

Did you learn that not all genes are Mendelian?
http://www.infoplease.com/cig/biology/post-mendelian-inheritance-factors.html

See? You assume "evolution" when really, all that has been scientifically verified is inheritance patterns of specific traits within similar organisms from the same family of creatures.

By the way--your incredulity ("ludicrously improbable") is irrelevant. Please consider the mathematical realities related to the claims you are making. You are in a glass house, and you shouldn't throw a stone like that.

 

Yes, I know, that doesn't mean we can't predict what genes will be passed. I'm a bit unsure as to what this had to do with what we were speaking about anyways.

What do you mean I assume evolution? I have already given examples of observed evolution, it isn't assumed any longer.

And what mathematical realities are those? Probability is incredibly useful in this case. It is highly MORE probable that all organisms are related than every single organism sharing the same (*)(*)(*)(*) DNA sequencing.

 

Perhaps we didn't "create [our]selves" either!

What? Yeah there is.

 

Really? Why, then, can't we even predict the sex of a baby without LOOKING at it or testing the genes?

You have only given examples of heredity and called it "evolution." The specious science has become so ingrained that the language to talk of these things becomes limited to (perhaps) faulty ideas.

Support that claim.

 

Um, no there isn't. The computer viruses may self-replicate however they do not swap bits of information. Yet anyways, that isn't far off. Programmers may swap code and tactics however that is not the same as the virus itself evolving within its environment.

There have been quite a few articles in Scientific American concerning the subject. Very interesting, the new age of computer viruses and security will be the programs that can adapt on their own. Rather than McAfee programing writing new code to combat viruses, the virus protection would evolve to protect against new threats. Indistinguishable from an immune system.

 

Because that's determined by which sperm "wins the race". There are some circumstances that will influence this hormonally, but really it has nothing to do with inheritance at all. What a crappy question.

I'm pretty sure that I gave you two examples of evolution occurring. One dealing with the nylon-eating bacteria and one dealing with citrate consumption by E. Coli.

...

If you understand probabilities, I shouldn't have to explain that to you. We know definitively that organisms that are related share the same DNA sequences. Do you know how rare mutations are? Do you know how many different sequences can be used for the exact same functions? It's pretty clear cut.

Here's an example dealing with chimpanzee and human cytochrome c sequencing:

 

Creation is not a SCIENTIFIC theory. The ToE is based on empirical evidence generated via the scientific method- the peer review process within scientific disciplines is an integral part of the scientific method as it is employed today. Because there is no scientific evidence- i.e. evidence gathered and analyzed via the scientific method- that supports the creationist's explanation for the observed condition of life on earth, creationism can't be considered a scientific alternative to the ToE. The quality of a scientific theory is not measured by the amount of money made off the sales of media related to the topic. Consequently, the popularity of a particular idea in the publics eye has absolutely no bearing on the quality of science that supports the idea.

 

What I say I believe. Two opposing theory's. Science isn't just limited to the evolution of organisms and the systems in biology? Creationists believe the dinosaurs existed, we believe that the earths atmosphere had a higher oxygen content people lived longer. Plants grew larger. And we also disagree with carbon dating.There are a number of actual scientific issues we have our own explanations for.

 

Environment has alllllll kinds of things to do with heredity and what gets passed on. Isn't that ALSO a tenet of the Theory?

Clearly we can't predict eye color, hair texture, yadda yadda...with any sort of certainty. Sure--educated guessing....but it is still g.u.e.s.s.i.n.g, --and across generations--NADA.

I think I remember reading something like that--it was in a quote box, so it got lost along the way--here it is...

Frankly, those examples are paradigm bound. They are restricted in that the assumption is that a new "behavior" or "ability" has "evolved" rather than simply been uncovered. What i mean is this:

CONCERNING THE E-COLI:
The e-coli was subjected to an environment that it had never been subjected to over time. The mutation that occurred ended up being NOT ADVANTAGEOUS. And the e-coli that survived where simply unlocking what was already there in their genes. NOTHING new. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20259-steady-beats-flashy-in-evolution-death-match.html
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/n...eveals-the-benefits-of-being-slow-and-steady/


You know...you actually have to read this (*)(*)(*)(*). The abstracts wont give you the real story.


CONCERNING THE NYLON EATERS:
This one is simple. If nylon didn't exist, how do you know they didn't have in their genetic code a means to come to metabolize nylon? Even if it was a mutation that happened as a freak of nature, it STILL could have happened in the past and been IRRELEVANT since it didn't have the nylon to metabolize. This is not evidence of adaptive evolution, it is typical changes that occur in living cells. It doesn't add up to "proof" of the theory of evolution.

You are aware that 70% of mutations are actually NEGATIVE to an organism, and the rest are irrelevant or mildly positive? Okay...give me the probabilities that the human imagination could develop in a billion years from a simple multi-cellular organism to the grand complexity of the human mind through this process you adhere to. Go ahead...I guarantee it is stupid ridiculously not gonna happen in any reasonable estimation.


Need an example of how mutation is not a reliable mode of "adaptation" for the long-haul? Check out your dearly departed "citrate metabolizing" e-coli. That experiment, rather than supporting your position, shows the reliability of what's already in the genes and only uncovered through recombining gene structures existent or potentially existent in the organism.

 

BTW--I don't mind talkorigins.org ...you may as well cite them when you lift whole discussions from their site:


Here ya go~~ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html


Oh...and...from the site (note the bold):

In other words--the whoLE argument rests upon the assumption of common descent. IT'S A CIRCULAR ARGUMENT!!!!!!!!!