A Conversation for Discrepancies in the Theory of Evolution - Part II
Xanatic Started conversation Jun 19, 2002
You still use the phrase "Slighest major mutation"
I think you have gotten something wrong. Nothing in an organism develops as a "some assembly required" model. It's like with a foetus, if you look at the development of that. You don't first see a fully formed leg appear, then after a while another leg, then a fully formed torso and so on. It all forms gradually at the same time.
So that mousetrap you mention, it is true that it wouldn't work if you removed a part of it. But it would still work with for example a smaller spring, or a smaller "hook". It would not be as effecient maybe, but it would work.
Josh the Genius Posted Jun 21, 2002
And that is precisely the problem with creating new species by genetic gradiations. A mutation may occur in one part of an organism or another, but unless the whole organism changes, the change is useless, probably even harmful.
Regarding the mousetrap, there is a bare minimum potential energy for the spring. Unless it is of a certain strength, the mice will be able to escape. Likewise, in organisms, we each must have a certain capacity for certain things or else we die. If any part of your mousetrap is less than the minimum size or strength required for catching mice, you won't catch any. Therefore, I can see a mousetrap getting stronger and more effient, but that doesn't answer the question of where the mousetrap started out at, because the mousetrap, at its earliest useful stage was still a mousetrap. This is comparative to humans. Suppose that humans become stronger and faster. We will still be humans. Whether we actually can, as a species, get faster and stronger...well, there's another debate.
Ste Posted Jun 24, 2002
Ah, I see, still spouting misinterpretations about evolution I see. Can I ask a question? Are these deliberate Strawman arguments or do you honestly not know what you are talking about?
Anyway. "A mutation may occur in one part of an organism or another, but unless the whole organism changes, the change is useless, probably even harmful."
Perhaps mutations occur in the parents of the individual, or the genetic change occurs during meiosis (sex cell formation) where the parent's double set of chromosomes are jumpled up to create new genetic variants in the next generation? Or perhaps mutation occurs during embryogenesis?
What about a mutation or adaptation that improves the antlers of a deer so that it is a better fighter? It doesn't change "the entire organism" does it? Does it have an evolutionary advantage? YES.
Josh, trying to disprove evolution in such a way only makes you look like a bit of a fool. Proving one thing wrong does not automatically make your own personal faith true fact.
Mousetraps (I've dealt with this on another thread so apologies for repetition):
Biological molecular machines are assembled and jury-rigged from other parts (other genes and proteins). For example, a part of the bacterium's flagellum (basically a motor and propellor that powers the littler fellow forwards) can be found in a different role as a weapon injecting toxins into other bacteria. Also, proteins found in mammalian digestive systems can be seen in an adapted form as blood clotting agents.
To "adapt" this to the rather tired mousetrap analogy: If you take away the catch and the metal bar from the mousetrap you might not have a mousetrap anymore, but you would have a pretty good paperclip. The catch would make a good fishhook and the bar would make a great toothpick. The spring would have started elsewhere and would be recruited into the "design". All of the components of a mousetrap could have a use. Irreducible complexity is a myth, born out of a lack of understanding of molecular genetics and evolution. Either that or it is the usual creationist strawman.
Leo Posted Jan 4, 2004
Its incredible how you can bring in a series of unrelated items, tie them together, and sound smug about it.
Firstly: Mutations occuring during meiosis: DUH! When else would it occur? Mutations occur during meiosis often enough. Its called downs syndrome, for one. there are others, few are at all beneficial. And the likelihood of a mutation in more then one chromosone on any given fetus is too high. Therefore,
"A mutation may occur in one part of an organism or another, but unless the whole organism changes, the change is useless, probably even harmful."
still stands as truth. Even a fetus is not going to mutate into something totally different. Imagine a bat giving birth to a bird. The bat already has the flight structure, so I'm giving you an advantage.
Firstly: feathers: assuming some mutation happened to the fetus and a bat was born with feathers, what evolutionary advantage does the feathered bat have? You say the mousetrap hook would be good for fishing, true, assuming that the hook evolved in a place that could utilize it for fishing, that could eat fish, and that the hook evolves in a convenient place, say, not as a leg replacement.
Even a neutral mutation, like feathers is not garunteed to spread becuase it gives no advantage.
you give the example of a deer getting stronger antlers. That is not evolution, becuae you are working with something that already exists. What evolutionists have yet to prove is, where exactly did the antlers come from? Did the first deer with antlers have an evolutionary advantage? Doubtful, beucause he had nobody to clash with over the does. More likely he would get taken down by wolves while he rubs the moss off them one spring morning.
As for the mousetrap. Undoubtably, in seperate peices the mousetrap would make handy little items. However the real feat is to get them together in one peice in an advantageous manner.
Anyone who studies physics knows that the second law of thermodynamics is that nothiing but chaos results from an explosion.
Perhaps disproving evolution doesnt prove creationism. But that's OK. Any relegion worth following should be able to prove themselves through other means. A relegion based on insecure faith is as ridiculous as the steady state theory.
And Ste? Do me a favor. Skip the personal insults. It tends to show insecurity, which I dont think you want to advertise.
Ste Posted Jan 4, 2004
*Dusts thread off*
The tone of the last post was the end point of a long and tedious 'debate' with Josh where he blatantly refused to engage in any sort of argument, even when his points were answered/disproved one-by-one and very convincingly. Let's just say his listening skills weren't so great, which peeved quite a few people off. He was also a fundamentalist bigot, which didn't help.
'Mutations occuring during meiosis: DUH! When else would it occur?'
'DUH' indeed, but Josh didn't know and he was trying to be an authority about it. Downs is more of a chromosome fragmentation rather than the mutation I was talking about (eg, point mutations, frameshifts, etc). What about pleiotropy? linkage? homeotic mutations?
Perhaps feathers on bats in a single generation is a bit far-fetched, but dramatic changed in body-plan from a single mutation are possible and have been observed (homeotic genes again). I don't know how feathers came to exist, but the potential aerodynamic advantages are obvious. Once this new allele started to spread then you have evolution. I don't think every single cell in an entire foetus (maybe a single-celled zygote) will mutate in the same way, that's just silly.
'You say the mousetrap hook would be good for fishing, true, assuming that the hook evolved in a place that could utilize it for fishing, that could eat fish, and that the hook evolves in a convenient place, say, not as a leg replacement.'
There's no convenience involved. There's chance occurances and the selection of beneficial combinations IN A POPULATION. What happens to work is used if it is happened to be selected.
'you give the example of a deer getting stronger antlers. That is not evolution, becuae you are working with something that already exists.'
Simply wrong I'm afraid. Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time.
'What evolutionists have yet to prove is, where exactly did the antlers come from?'
True, it's something that's being worked on right now (not antlers but the arising of novel phenotypic traits). That's one of the reasons why evolution is such a fun field to study, a lot of it is unknown. However antlers came about, the advantages of having a weapon on your head when competing for females is kind of clear, wouldn't you say?
'As for the mousetrap. Undoubtably, in seperate peices the mousetrap would make handy little items. However the real feat is to get them together in one peice in an advantageous manner.'
The thing with irreducible complexity is that it views things back to front, like a reverse explosion. It sees a structure and says in disbelief 'how can that happen?, if you break it down it's useless' (even though that's incorrect). That's not how it happens, it is not an explosion randomly throwing things together, but a gradual building-up.
'Perhaps disproving evolution doesnt prove creationism. But that's OK. Any relegion worth following should be able to prove themselves through other means.'
Agreed. Proving one belief system with another (science) is ridiculous.
'A relegion based on insecure faith is as ridiculous as the steady state theory.'
And that is what the religion of people who indulge in creationism have.
'Skip the personal insults. It tends to show insecurity...'
Apollyon - Grammar Fascist Posted Nov 23, 2005
"I don't know how feathers came to exist, but the potential aerodynamic advantages are obvious."
Feathers began as small fibrous growths on the skins of small dinosaurs. These fibres trapped air, allowing the dinos to keep warm easier. This made them better adapted for survival, and to the feather allele spread, with feathers gradually getting bigger and more insulative.
The first birds did not fly, they ran along thr ground. After several million years, their feathers were big enough to allow them to glide short distances. As feathers propagated, they were able to glide longer and longer distances, until eventually they were able to outright fly.
Xanatic Posted Nov 23, 2005
Small fibrous growths, that would be hair wouldn't it? Still a bit of a jump from having fur to having feathers.
Apollyon - Grammar Fascist Posted Nov 23, 2005
Not necessarily. They can both be fibrous while made out of a different kind of fibre.
I'm not quite sure how the quill came about, but what I said pretty much stands.
Xanatic Posted Nov 23, 2005
But without the quill, feathers are really just another kind of hair. The quill is the difficult part.
Ictoan Posted Dec 9, 2005
thought it had been shown that feathers were modified scales?
Ste Posted Dec 9, 2005
Go to pubmed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
I searched with this search criteria: feathers scales evolved
Got 9 interesting papers on the topic dating back to the 70s.
Key: Complain about this post
- 1: Xanatic (Jun 19, 2002)
- 2: Josh the Genius (Jun 21, 2002)
- 3: Ste (Jun 24, 2002)
- 4: Leo (Jan 4, 2004)
- 5: Ste (Jan 4, 2004)
- 6: Apollyon - Grammar Fascist (Nov 23, 2005)
- 7: Xanatic (Nov 23, 2005)
- 8: Apollyon - Grammar Fascist (Nov 23, 2005)
- 9: Xanatic (Nov 23, 2005)
- 10: Ictoan (Dec 9, 2005)
- 11: Ste (Dec 9, 2005)