The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release => Starbase Café => Topic started by: RTyp06 on April 16, 2007, 11:55:49 pm



Title: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on April 16, 2007, 11:55:49 pm
Quote
There's an insect (I don't know the english name) that can actually sting a tree leaf and inject some DNA that mutates the leaf so it grows a little house for the insect. Or so I've heard. You've probably seen a little round bulge on a leaf at some occasion, that would be it.

I have seen this, or somthing similar. The nodules were on leaves lining the creek where I grew up. Opening them up there are small insects inside. if the insects are indeed injecting DNA to build a home as you say, how would you suspect somthing like this evolves without any sort of planning or foresight? (Not trying to derail, just one question)


Title: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Deus Siddis on April 17, 2007, 04:38:08 pm
If plants or mulitcellular euglenoids or something wanted to branch out into the territory of another kingdom, they would have to compete with already established symbiotic organism pairs in which one of the two has photosynthesis capabilities, like lichens or a lettuce leaf nudibranch.


Title: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Death 999 on April 17, 2007, 08:47:13 pm
Opening them up there are small insects inside. if the insects are indeed injecting DNA to build a home as you say, how would you suspect somthing like this evolves without any sort of planning or foresight? (Not trying to derail, just one question)
Well, let's see what ingredients you need:
1) a venom-injecting insect whose venom dissolves cell membranes
1a) its defense against its own poison is not perfect

2) it builds this sort of cocoon around itself normally.

step 1: the insect, building its cocoon on a handy tree, stabs the tree to hold on. This injects some of the venom
step 1a: note that this venom has bits of the insect cells in it, due to ingredient 1a, above.
probability: likely

step 2: the venom dissolves some tree cells. At some radius from the injection point, the cells are weakened but not destroyed.
probability: certainty

step 3: DNA from the venom fluid (which, as noted above, contains insect cell fragments) diffuses into the affected tree cells.
probability: kind of unlikely in any one case

step 4: the tree tries to heal up, and the affected cells (those first cells to survive the attack) are those who do most of the reproducing to replace the destroyed cells. This happens to spread the insect DNA.
probability: near certainty

step 5: the insect has been spreading the signalling proteins to turn on its 'cocoon' genes; some of these diffuse out into the tree, activate those genes
probability: depends. Could be very likely.

step 6: the infected tree cells help make the cocoon
probability: follows from the earlier steps

and there you go.  Unlikely but possible to happen by accident. Leaves lots of room for gradual improvement.

By the way, you were asking for a 'just-so story', right? Cause that's all I've got, not having looked at the situation.


Title: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Valaggar on April 17, 2007, 09:18:43 pm
This is not something that transmits genetically, and insects aren't capable of learning. Ergo, this would remain an accident and nothing more, not a species trait. No way to evolve this one (as, generally, other learning-needing traits on more "primitive" species).


Title: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Death 999 on April 18, 2007, 04:38:01 pm
The ability to make this happen can be transmitted genetically.
What else could I possibly mean? The actual event itself is transmitted genetically? That makes about as much sense as the idea that having a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch is transmitted genetically.


Title: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Valaggar on April 18, 2007, 04:43:32 pm
You know, in order for this to be transmitted genetically there must be a gene for it. And the gene surely won't appear out of nowhere if, by accident, such a cocoon is formed.


Title: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Death 999 on April 18, 2007, 04:45:29 pm
Let's split this off...
Moderator? If I make a new thread, can the relevant posts of this thread be prepended to it?


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: meep-eep on April 18, 2007, 06:00:04 pm
Not sure, but I can split off part of a thread into a new thread, which I just did.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Death 999 on April 18, 2007, 06:08:39 pm
Muchas gracias.

Valaggar, did you notice that both of these 'ingredients' that I pointed out would be necessary would be things that would be genetically encoded, and moreover would be able to vary in a nearly continuous fashion towards making this process more reliable?

It doesn't have to be one gene; it can be, and usually is, a suite of genes.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Valaggar on April 18, 2007, 06:50:38 pm
Apropos, my last report said report said that meep-eep is Scottish... err, Dutch, not Spanish.

Ah, I hadn't noticed. Anyway, the evolution of all sorts of symbiosis (especially mutualism) is unlikely - both sides must evolve cooperation at the same time, which is practically impossible.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on April 20, 2007, 12:00:36 am
I wonder if Arne's example is "symbiosis" because I'm not seeing the benefit to the plant itself. i do question as to why would an insect sting a plant leaf in the first place, let alone inject DNA that forms a cocoon.

A better example of animal/plant symbiosis might be somthing like orchids that mimic female wasp colors and pheremones to attract a specific sort of wasp to pollinate it. The wasp benefits by collecting pollen for food although he doesn't get to breed.

Seems most true symbiosis between animals and plants take place in the sea.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Valaggar on April 20, 2007, 01:32:18 pm
Symbiosis is not necessarily mutualism. It may be commensalism, amensalism, neutralism, parasitism or even competition.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Draxas on April 20, 2007, 04:40:33 pm
However, it's general good practice to use symbiosis only when discussing mutualism, and the other terms when discussing them specifically. It halps keep your point clearer.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: jucce on April 20, 2007, 09:30:28 pm
Apropos, my last report said report said that meep-eep is Scottish... err, Dutch, not Spanish.

Ah, I hadn't noticed. Anyway, the evolution of all sorts of symbiosis (especially mutualism) is unlikely - both sides must evolve cooperation at the same time, which is practically impossible.
No it doesn't have to evolve at the same time. It could simply be an organism changing to benefit from one of its common parasites or a parasite changing to benefit its host for example.


What is this insect you speak of called?


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Valaggar on April 20, 2007, 09:48:20 pm
Quote from: jucce
No it doesn't have to evolve at the same time. It could simply be an organism changing to benefit from one of its common parasites or a parasite changing to benefit its host for example.
Of course, but this is unlikely for some symbiotic pairs. and, generally, the difference between a hypothetic non-symbiotic ancestor of one of the symbionts and the symbiont itself is a bit bigger than usual for a normal mutation (also note that this can't evolve gradually). See lichens for example.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: jucce on April 21, 2007, 02:49:12 am
Quote from: jucce
No it doesn't have to evolve at the same time. It could simply be an organism changing to benefit from one of its common parasites or a parasite changing to benefit its host for example.
Of course, but this is unlikely for some symbiotic pairs. and, generally, the difference between a hypothetic non-symbiotic ancestor of one of the symbionts and the symbiont itself is a bit bigger than usual for a normal mutation

All it may take is adapting to utilize a new food source or a subtle change in the waste from an organism. Basically a mutation to benefit better from the environment, directly or indirectly.

And the relationships can of course be more complex, like the example with the parasite. A parasite evolving to change its waste or feed of something different/additional thereby inadvertently benefitting its host making the host more successful and therefore making the parasite (or symbiot as the relationship is now mutualism) more successful.

(also note that this can't evolve gradually). See lichens for example.
Why couldn't it be gradual? Wikipedia says:
Quote
For some algae, the symbiosis may be obligatory for survival in a particular habitat; in other cases, the symbiosis might not be advantageous for the alga. Thus, there is some controversy as to whether the lichen symbiosis should be considered an example of mutualism or parasitism or commensalism.
So when it comes to the lichen for example the fungus and the bacteria/algae could very well have started separately and then evolved into a parasitic or commensalist relationship and eventually to a mutually beneficial one.

Symbiosis feels very natural to me, almost like a cheeta feeding from a gaselle, a bacteria growing on fungus. Everything in nature is really connected and feeding on and off each other. So adapting mostly means adapting to benefit better from the other organisms in the eco-system around you.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Arne on April 21, 2007, 04:42:10 pm
I just found this, which seems to be on topic. Enjoy.

EVOLUTION OF GALL MORPHOLOGY AND HOST-PLANT RELATIONSHIPS IN
WILLOW-FEEDING SAWFLIES (HYMENOPTERA: TENTHREDINIDAE)

http://cc.oulu.fi/~tonyman/Reprints/Nyman.etal.2000.pdf


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on April 22, 2007, 06:11:17 pm
Interesting link.. Learned a few things. The attacking animal is not stinging the plant but laying eggs. The produced galls offer food and shelter for the offspring. The insects often compete for the best position on  the plant.

Here's an oak tree example that gives the general synopsis:

http://members.frys.com/~bpmosley/GALLS.HTM

And here's some common types:

http://www.uky.edu/Ag/Entomology/entfacts/trees/ef403.htm

The PDF paper you linked says that galling has evolved seperately many times in different species of insect. It is also believed to have evolved from leaf rollers (or more primitive processes) What I find curious about such claims is that seperate evolution of a similar process, to me, rules out random mutation. Just like the eye evolving seperately many times or the sex organs not  evolving independently. If macro evolution does exist I still believe strongly that it is somewhat guided and ,for me, this sort of evolution only bolsters that belief.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: jucce on April 22, 2007, 08:12:52 pm
Interesting link.. Learned a few things. The attacking animal is not stinging the plant but laying eggs. The produced galls offer food and shelter for the offspring. The insects often compete for the best position on  the plant.

Here's an oak tree example that gives the general synopsis:

http://members.frys.com/~bpmosley/GALLS.HTM

And here's some common types:

http://www.uky.edu/Ag/Entomology/entfacts/trees/ef403.htm

The PDF paper you linked says that galling has evolved seperately many times in different species of insect. It is also believed to have evolved from leaf rollers (or more primitive processes) What I find curious about such claims is that seperate evolution of a similar process, to me, rules out random mutation. Just like the eye evolving seperately many times or the sex organs not  evolving independently. If macro evolution does exist I still believe strongly that it is somewhat guided and ,for me, this sort of evolution only bolsters that belief.

Why does it rule out random mutations? It's a well known phenomenon called convergent evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Convergent_Evolution
http://science.jrank.org/pages/2608/Evolution-Convergent.html
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=evolutionary%20convergence
http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Convergent_Evolution
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/4/l_014_01.html
http://waynesword.palomar.edu/evolutio.htm#convergent
etc. also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_relay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_evolution
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Parallelism


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Arne on April 23, 2007, 10:52:23 am
Yeah, I was going to mention convergent evolution. It's possible that gall in this case was just the best closest solution. It's one of the sub-peaks of mount improbable where some lifeforms tend to gather. Some exobiologists use convergent evolution as an argument for the idea that some aliens might look similar to us. Maybe not funny-forehead similar, but the overall construct with limbs branching into sub-limbs, a stereo sensory limb placed high up, etc.

This is actually a problem when using genetic algoritms. Solutions tend to flock at a 'local optimum' if the population is too small or the selection method does not allow less fit solutions to sometimes reproduce aswell.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on April 23, 2007, 11:42:44 pm
Convergent evolution is an interesting idea. But there had to be an original evolutionary ancestor in each case to deliver the novel new genetic code to offspring . To me this brings up questions.. Lots of them. We're looking at a fairly complex breeding cycle here, not a chance, happenstance process in my view.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: jucce on April 24, 2007, 02:48:38 am
Convergent evolution is an interesting idea. But there had to be an original evolutionary ancestor in each case to deliver the novel new genetic code to offspring .

What do you mean exactly? Presumably the features have arisen gradually over many generations through mutations and natural selection like evolution normally progresses.

To me this brings up questions.. Lots of them. We're looking at a fairly complex breeding cycle here, not a chance, happenstance process in my view.

Sure the mutations are random, but natural selection is not.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Arne on April 24, 2007, 10:11:53 am
Put evolution of galls into google.

It would appear there's has been a lot of research on the subject. None of us here are gall evolution researchers (...?) and I'm not going to pretend I am. The proper channel for refuting the existing theories would probably be peer review and scientific journals. Good luck!



Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on April 25, 2007, 03:15:37 am
OK Arne, fair enough..

Jucce said:

Quote
What do you mean exactly? Presumably the features have arisen gradually over many generations through mutations and natural selection like evolution normally progresses.

What I mean exactly is that it is too contrived and essential to have accidentally been stumbled upon irregardless of how gradual the evolutionary process. Especially in light of convergent evolution where the evolutionary feature is nearly identical in many completely different species of animal. It's difficult for me to simply dismiss this as coincidence which is basicly what evolutionary biologists are doing in these cases.


Quote
Sure the mutations are random, but natural selection is not.

Natural selection is random. It is an undirected process. An amimal may evolve bigger teeth but without the legs to chase down it's prey, they're useless. And if it did evolve longer legs so what if it's heart is too weak to utilize them. And none of this would matter without sensory organs and a brain to detect prey in the first place.

So to stay on topic, how can natural selection gradually fine tune the gall producing insects life cycle to what it is today? Think about how many things had to go just right to make it possible. And not only once but within many species. Just evolving the tools to break the plant skin and deposit it's eggs is improbable across multiple species let alone the larve having the nessicary tools to break out of it's cocoon.

Nearly every aspect of life from DNA itself on up is just too contrived to attribute to random chance, and esentailly that is where all new novel genetic code comes from according to evolutionary scientists.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: jucce on April 25, 2007, 02:45:02 pm
OK Arne, fair enough..

Jucce said:

Quote
What do you mean exactly? Presumably the features have arisen gradually over many generations through mutations and natural selection like evolution normally progresses.

What I mean exactly is that it is too contrived and essential to have accidentally been stumbled upon irregardless of how gradual the evolutionary process. Especially in light of convergent evolution where the evolutionary feature is nearly identical in many completely different species of animal. It's difficult for me to simply dismiss this as coincidence which is basicly what evolutionary biologists are doing in these cases.

I don't think they regard it as a coincident. And this hasn't been stumbled upon accidentally, the mutations are random but natural selection really isn't.

It seems like the five sense for example are very common and beneficial evolutionery functions. Any tendency for vision for example would likely be very beneficial and have much evolutionary benefit.

Like convergant evolution says, organisms will frequently evolve similar mechanisms if they fill similar niches. For example birds, insects, pterosaurs have similar wings. And the design of wings are strictly limited by aerodynamic principles, one might even say that there's a perfect wing design that evolution will strive towards.

Quote
Sure the mutations are random, but natural selection is not.

Natural selection is random. It is an undirected process. An amimal may evolve bigger teeth but without the legs to chase down it's prey, they're useless. And if it did evolve longer legs so what if it's heart is too weak to utilize them. And none of this would matter without sensory organs and a brain to detect prey in the first place.

Natural selection is a non-random cumulative process. If an animal developes something that's neutral or detrimental it probably won't be passed on to future generations.

So to stay on topic, how can natural selection gradually fine tune the gall producing insects life cycle to what it is today? Think about how many things had to go just right to make it possible. And not only once but within many species. Just evolving the tools to break the plant skin and deposit it's eggs is improbable across multiple species let alone the larve having the nessicary tools to break out of it's cocoon.

Well like I said, natural selection is a gradual, cumulative and non-random process. Sure the end result is complicated, but it's not like it was formed from nothing instantly, the change was gradual, cumulative and over very long timespans. Gradual change can and do result in very complicated results.

Someone described it as opposed to drawing lottery numbers until you hit the exact ones you have, instead draw the numbers but keep the ones that fit. That way you'll reach your own improbably numbers much faster.

Yes here it was:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDFJviGQth4
That user has other interesting videos too:
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=cdk007

Nearly every aspect of life from DNA itself on up is just too contrived to attribute to random chance, and esentailly that is where all new novel genetic code comes from according to evolutionary scientists.
Yes the mutations themselves are random, but like I said natural selection is not.

And there are also other things than random genetic mutations that may contribute to much change in the genetic code. Hybridisation, gene flow, genetic drift and even symbiosis etc.

And other interesting ideas:
http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521317932 (http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521317932)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cm....;amp;query_hl=2 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10468593&query_hl=2)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cm....3935&query_hl=4 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12703935&query_hl=4)

Here's a text about how it may be intuitively difficult to see that so much arose through random genetic mutations selected over time. And they use the "antibody response" as an example.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on April 26, 2007, 02:09:34 am

Quote
I don't think they regard it as a coincident. And this hasn't been stumbled upon accidentally, the mutations are random but natural selection really isn't.

Uhhh yes, it really is random. Think about it man, natural selection covers things like mass extinction. A plauge or meteor is a random event. Local phenomena. Local preadators. Isn't it random that a powerful predator will exist in any given area? Biological features themseleves only benifit a species if the enivornment is just right. etc. etc. There are so many variables we cannot even begin to fathom them all. Just because an animal is prolific is no gaurentee of survival..

Now your turn.. How is natural selection NOT random? You are simply wrong here in my view.

Quote
It seems like the five sense for example are very common and beneficial evolutionery functions. Any tendency for vision for example would likely be very beneficial and have much evolutionary benefit.

Couldn't this legitamitley also be viewd as common design?  Think about common design in real life human engineering. Don't most cars have four wheels?


Quote
Natural selection is a non-random cumulative process. If an animal developes something that's neutral or detrimental it probably won't be passed on to future generations.

Exactly HOW is it cumulative? Have we ever witnessed this in nature? Breeding produces limited change around a median genome in every species we've studied. Every single one. Yes we can breed some dramatic differences but always within bounderies. Even Darwins finches went right back to the same diversity of beak size once the drought (selection pressure) subsided.

Quote
Well like I said, natural selection is a gradual, cumulative and non-random process.

No it's not dude.. Show me the tangible, real world scientific evidence please. (Please no link spams) I'd like your thoughts. Thoughts that truely belong to you.

Quote
Someone described it as opposed to drawing lottery numbers until you hit the exact ones you have, instead draw the numbers but keep the ones that fit. That way you'll reach your own improbably numbers much faster.

Yes, keep the ONES THAT FIT. That is INTELLIGENT design. You are saving hits on a pre-determined number sequence. Natural Selection has no way of predetermining an outcome. For natural selection to work as you describe, every saved "one that fits" has to have a selection advantage or it may fade away. Just as any neutral changes have an equal chance of being replaced or kept.

In your lottery ball example there is no gaurentee that eventually every position will be replaced to eventually hit the right combination. That is because natural selection IS random by nature and thus your powerball example is downright silly in my opinion.



Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Elvish Pillager on April 26, 2007, 02:27:56 am
What are you two arguing about?

RTyp06, your statements are downright silly in my opinion. :-\


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Baltar on April 26, 2007, 07:04:18 am
In a way his arguments are quite clever.

The fact that RType06 survives is evidence that natural selection does not work at all.  So RType wins.  QED.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Valaggar on April 26, 2007, 03:09:52 pm
Quote from: Baltar
The fact that RType06 survives is evidence that natural selection does not work at all.
While this IS a clever insinuation, it is not an appropriate one.

Also, nobody says that NATURAL SELECTION does not exist - the thing that is argued about is whether it can produce new species or not.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Lukipela on April 26, 2007, 06:49:57 pm
Also, nobody says that NATURAL SELECTION does not exist - the thing that is argued about is whether it can produce new species or not.

Indeed. One side claims that natural selection can only allow animals to adapt, but not to change. Others claim that adaption under a sufficiently long period gives rise to new species.

Quote
Uhhh yes, it really is random. Think about it man, natural selection covers things like mass extinction. A plauge or meteor is a random event. Local phenomena. Local preadators.

Mass extinctions are part of natural selection just like everything else. It is simply rearranging the rules. Look at the dinousaur. First, natural selection fgavours huge big giants because vegetation and climate is favourable. After the meteorstrike, the rules change, and dinosaurs no longer have an advantage. There is no logical progress behind natural selection, but it isn't a random process. Those best adapted to the current enviroment whatever that might be, do well.

Quote
Isn't it random that a powerful predator will exist in any given area?

Wouldn't it be weirder to have no powerful predators? Assuming that natural selection favours those individual in a population that are best at getting sustenance and reproducing, predators are quite logical. And assuming Panagaea existed, what is now local might not always have been. It would seem more questionable from a ID standpoint, if everything is part of a plan, why place large and different predators everywhere? Why not just have one ur-predator that then adapts to local circumstances through natural selection but is still of the same species?

Quote
Biological features themseleves only benifit a species if the environment is just right. etc. etc. There are so many variables we cannot even begin to fathom them all. Just because an animal is prolific is no guarantee of survival..

Very true. Thus only biological features that are beneficial (or at the very least non-harmful) are preserved. That is natural selection. Just because there are many variables doesn't mean something is impossible. It's impossible to accurately simulate a fluid-bed reactor


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: jucce on April 26, 2007, 07:08:25 pm

Quote
I don't think they regard it as a coincident. And this hasn't been stumbled upon accidentally, the mutations are random but natural selection really isn't.

Uhhh yes, it really is random. Think about it man, natural selection covers things like mass extinction. A plauge or meteor is a random event. Local phenomena. Local preadators. Isn't it random that a powerful predator will exist in any given area? Biological features themseleves only benifit a species if the enivornment is just right. etc. etc. There are so many variables we cannot even begin to fathom them all. Just because an animal is prolific is no gaurentee of survival..

Now your turn.. How is natural selection NOT random? You are simply wrong here in my view.

Natural selection a process that results in favorable traits being passed on to future generations. If you look at the definition in Wikipedia for example, natural selection really just is a description of a process in nature:
Quote
Natural selection is the evolutionary process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common.

After a meteor strike for example the environment may change but natural selection will not, it just states that the organisms that best fit their environment will pass on their traits.


So the process of natural selection isn't random, it states that organisms that are fit for their particular environment pass on their favorable traits to the next generation.

So it's not random which organisms die and which procreate, which pass on certain traits and which don't. On the individual level, say an animal falling of a cliff it may be random but not when you look at an entire population. It all depends on how well they're adapted to the current environment.

Just take a look on any internet page or book about natural selection:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/ns.cum.l.html
Quote
A common criticism of natural selection is "how can it produce novel complex useful structures by pure random chance?" Darwin's answer to this "difficulty", (which he actually raised himself), was that selection is NOT a random process, and furthermore, it is cumulative, which he ably explained.

Quote
It seems like the five sense for example are very common and beneficial evolutionery functions. Any tendency for vision for example would likely be very beneficial and have much evolutionary benefit.

Couldn't this legitamitley also be viewd as common design?  Think about common design in real life human engineering. Don't most cars have four wheels?

I see it as a testament to the fact that receiving and processing input from the five sense are a very useful evolutionary adaption.

Quote
Natural selection is a non-random cumulative process. If an animal developes something that's neutral or detrimental it probably won't be passed on to future generations.

Exactly HOW is it cumulative? Have we ever witnessed this in nature? Breeding produces limited change around a median genome in every species we've studied. Every single one. Yes we can breed some dramatic differences but always within bounderies. Even Darwins finches went right back to the same diversity of beak size once the drought (selection pressure) subsided.

Really Darwin himself says that it's cumulative and non-random from the start.

It's cumulative because the beneficial traits stay as evolution progresses. We have witnessed it in the evolution of all species really, the traits that are beneficial stay and the species continue to evolve. For example the mutation that confers immunity to AIDS in certain situations, appeared about 700 years ago and has stayed in the humane genome. So is also the case with lactose tolerance and sickle-cell resistance in areas with malaria for example.

Also we clearly share very much of our genome with our close relatives, chimpanzees and neanderthals for example. And a significant amount with all life on Earth really.

One interesting example related to the chimpanzees is that one of our chromosomes is a fusion of two chromosomes apes like chimpanzees have separately.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M

Quote
Well like I said, natural selection is a gradual, cumulative and non-random process.

No it's not dude.. Show me the tangible, real world scientific evidence please. (Please no link spams) I'd like your thoughts. Thoughts that truely belong to you.

Quote
Someone described it as opposed to drawing lottery numbers until you hit the exact ones you have, instead draw the numbers but keep the ones that fit. That way you'll reach your own improbably numbers much faster.

Yes, keep the ONES THAT FIT. That is INTELLIGENT design. You are saving hits on a pre-determined number sequence. Natural Selection has no way of predetermining an outcome. For natural selection to work as you describe, every saved "one that fits" has to have a selection advantage or it may fade away. Just as any neutral changes have an equal chance of being replaced or kept.

In your lottery ball example there is no gaurentee that eventually every position will be replaced to eventually hit the right combination. That is because natural selection IS random by nature and thus your powerball example is downright silly in my opinion.



The hits that stay are the traits that are passed on as described by natural selection.

Well, like I said, I don't agree that natural selection is random. Also natural selection is an ongoing process. That lottery analogy is really just to describe how gradual cumulative change can reach very complicated seemingly improbable results.


Quote from: Baltar
The fact that RType06 survives is evidence that natural selection does not work at all.
While this IS a clever insinuation, it is not an appropriate one.

Also, nobody says that NATURAL SELECTION does not exist - the thing that is argued about is whether it can produce new species or not.

It can and does:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on April 27, 2007, 05:07:23 am
Quote
Those best adapted to the current enviroment whatever that might be, do well.

..and there it is, the famous argument. "Those best adapted to the current enviornment." What is that? It's impossible to quantify such a thing, thus explains nothing in my view.


Quote
Wouldn't it be weirder to have no powerful predators? Assuming that natural selection favours those individual in a population that are best at getting sustenance and reproducing, predators are quite logical.


Absolutely.

Quote
And assuming Panagaea existed, what is now local might not always have been.

Sounds completely reasonable...

 
Quote
It would seem more questionable from a ID standpoint, if everything is part of a plan, why place large and different predators everywhere?


I cant speak for all IDists but I for one don't believe everything is part of a plan..ie God . Instead, I believe all evolutionary factors are built into life at the onset and it's called microevolution. If macro evolution exists, then I believe it is part of life programmed into genetics from the begining of life itself.


Quote
Very true. Thus only biological features that are beneficial (or at the very least non-harmful) are preserved. That is natural selection. Just because there are many variables doesn't mean something is impossible. It's impossible to accurately simulate a fluid-bed reactor

This is one area where I agree with the old creationist argument; what good is half an eye, half a bat wing, half the birthing process of gall building insects. I know, it always starts with a simple version and gets perfected over time so say the evolutionists. From my view, there are too many irreducibly complex biological systems in nature that makes this idea very difficult to accept. Even if a four chamber heart evolved from a 1 chamber heart, the very idea of a heart had to start somewhere. Annd even that would have been useless without blood, veins, electrical stimulus and a respritory system. Once again, too contrived to chalk up to random chance.

To me, looking at the cardiovascular system of any species and asuming it's the work of random natraulistic forces is akin to popping the hood of a car, pulling the fuel lines and fuel pump and attribute it to naturalistic forces.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on April 27, 2007, 05:55:05 am
Quote
Natural selection a process...

It's not even a process bro. It just IS.  It's somthing that happens AFTER the fact and isn't quantifiable.

Quote
...that results in favorable traits being passed on to future generations.


Please give me a tangible example of this. The classic example is Darwin's finches with larger beaks which is micro evolution. There has never been anything to indicate that micro evolutionary changes such as this will "stick" indefinately. The changes are temporary and part of the normal variation  of the animal. No new species.

Quote
Natural selection is the evolutionary process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common.

I read an article where some scientists are stumped as to why us humans not all beautiful, fit and trim. Why do we all not look like supermodels by now? Why are some people still bald, obese, hairy, short etc. etc. Well even though "ugly" people still breed there should be enough natural selection in place to put most of us into beautiful status by now. I believe the answer is that just like all other species, we have enough natural variation that includes these "ugly" traits and it will always be with us.

So the idea that "favorable" traits remain and unfavorable traits evolve away is pure fantasy unless we can find some concrete evidence that it is true. To my knowledge, thus far, science has never produced this evidence.

Quote
So the process of natural selection isn't random, it states that organisms that are fit for their particular environment pass on their favorable traits to the next generation.

We can't even define what "fit for thier particular enviornment" is.



Quote
Just take a look on any internet page or book about natural selection:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/ns.cum.l.html" A common criticism of natural selection is "how can it produce novel complex useful structures by pure random chance?" Darwin's answer to this "difficulty", (which he actually raised himself), was that selection is NOT a random process, and furthermore, it is cumulative, which he ably explained.

Darwin wrote this stuff in the 19th century and he clearly saw that random anything can't produce what we see biologically. That was the industrial age.. Imagine if he had lived in the Information or upcoming genetic age? Natural selection can't be a random process in his mind because his theory would completly fall apart otherwise.

Natural Selection can judge design, that what it is, a natural judge so to speak. It's powerless to PRODUCE design.

Quote
I see it as a testament to the fact that receiving and processing input from the five sense are a very useful evolutionary adaption.

Yes, but you could argue that for just about anything once you are convinced it did evolve.

Quote
Also we clearly share very much of our genome with our close relatives, chimpanzees and neanderthals for example. And a significant amount with all life on Earth really.

I could probably pull some parts off my SUV and use them on my motorcycle.. So what? Once again, why is common design completely out of the question? And futhermore, perhaps try thinking about the DIFFERENCES for once. What seperates us from chimps?

Quote
One interesting example related to the chimpanzees is that one of our chromosomes is a fusion of two chromosomes apes like chimpanzees have separately.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M

So what? There are some parts of our DNA sequence where we have more in common with a bannana or a mouse than a chimp. Also, don't brush our genetic differences under the rug.


Quote
The hits that stay are the traits that are passed on as described by natural selection.

Yeah, ok, I understand that idea but you are keeping ANY number that falls into the correct sequence where it doesnt matter if you get say the six first or the one first etc... Thus it's not a very good example in my opinion.

Thanx for your post.






Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on April 27, 2007, 06:05:51 am
Baltar: I can tell you are a fairly intelligent person by some of your posts. I even considered responding to you in some of the previous evolution threads where you argued against my points. It's too bad you feel the need to come across so dickish. There's no need for that.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Valaggar on April 27, 2007, 03:40:04 pm
nobody says that NATURAL SELECTION does not exist - the thing that is argued about is whether it can produce new species or not.

It can and does:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Are those really new species, or just variations on the same species? They're neither so different nor unable to cross-reproduce (probably).


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Lukipela on April 27, 2007, 08:15:59 pm
..and there it is, the famous argument. "Those best adapted to the current enviornment." What is that? It's impossible to quantify such a thing, thus explains nothing in my view.

I don't understand your intent or argument here. It is perfectly possible to analyse an enviroment and the creatures within. You can even look at different creatures competing within a system and compare which are "better" evolved to suit the current enviroment. There are also countless examples of creatures that have been well adapted, but who have been wiped out when the enviroment changes. Could you please elaborate on what the problem is here?

Quote
I cant speak for all IDists but I for one don't believe everything is part of a plan..ie God . Instead, I believe all evolutionary factors are built into life at the onset and it's called microevolution. If macro evolution exists, then I believe it is part of life programmed into genetics from the begining of life itself.

Doesn't that argue against your point though? correct me if i've misunderstood, but you're of the opinion that microevolution is possible due to selection pressures and random mutation, but macro isn't- So it is possible for a creature to change it's fur, but not possible to evolve into another species. Thus macro evolution implies that code is hidden somewhere in all creatures that guides macro evolution, bringing forth new species when optimal. Shouldn't this mean that we'd have fewer species? If all creatures are coded for this sort of behaviour, all local ecosystems should mirror each other. So you'd have the same bovine everywhere, just looking different but able to interbreed. The same large cat predator, the same elephant, the same everything essentially.

]quote]
This is one area where I agree with the old creationist argument; what good is half an eye, half a bat wing, half the birthing process of gall building insects. I know, it always starts with a simple version and gets perfected over time so say the evolutionists. From my view, there are too many irreducibly complex biological systems in nature that makes this idea very difficult to accept. Even if a four chamber heart evolved from a 1 chamber heart, the very idea of a heart had to start somewhere. Annd even that would have been useless without blood, veins, electrical stimulus and a respritory system. Once again, too contrived to chalk up to random chance.
[/quote]

Even though you quote the solution, you seem unable to utilize it. If the eye hails from some ancient light sensitive skin patch, why can't the heart hail from some other ancient function. The first creatures to have a heart might not even have used it for pumping blood. Just because you feel it is too complicated is no reasn to assume it's impossible.

Quote
To me, looking at the cardiovascular system of any species and asuming it's the work of random natraulistic forces is akin to popping the hood of a car, pulling the fuel lines and fuel pump and attribute it to naturalistic forces.

To me looking at evolution and assuming it's the work of some great hidden piece of code present in each and every one of us guiding us to become exactly these creatures seems akin to looking up into the sky and assuming that today was always meant to be sunny. Because hey, weather is a complex and unpredictable system too.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on April 28, 2007, 01:35:07 am
Quote
I don't understand your intent or argument here. It is perfectly possible to analyse an enviroment and the creatures within. You can even look at different creatures competing within a system and compare which are "better" evolved to suit the current enviroment.


But can you? How do you figue which is better? Do you count individuals? So if there is more fir trees than pine trees "competeing" in the same area, which is better evolved? If you find 500 different species of fish in the Amazon river or an ocean area all competeing for the same food source, which of these is better evolved? Can you honestly tell me that a trilobite is more or less evolved than a modern horseshoe crab?

Quote
There are also countless examples of creatures that have been well adapted, but who have been wiped out when the enviroment changes.


Such as.... ?

Quote
Could you please elaborate on what the problem is here?

I hope that I have done just that.

Quote
Doesn't that argue against your point though? correct me if i've misunderstood, but you're of the opinion that microevolution is possible due to selection pressures and random mutation, but macro isn't-

Selection pressures may be the reason for animals with certain genomic variables expressed to thrive while others of the same species die . This is natural selection at work. But I believe these are variables programmed into the genome. The genome "allows" these to vary as a survival strategy. And this may extend to the macro level but it has yet to be demonstrated scientificly. It's certainly possible as we all work off the same genetic information system. Intelligent scientists have been able to isolate genes and sequence them into lab rats, but it has never been shown to happen naturally.

Also, The only seemigly random biological aspects are inconsiquential. Such as no two fingerprints, deer horn, zebra stripe, brain arrangement of neurons, immune system etc. are identical. But each coresponding species has them, and always will.


Quote
So it is possible for a creature to change it's fur, but not possible to evolve into another species.


It may be possible but scientific expirimentaion has shown stability and longevity in genomes. The fossil record mirrors this as well, species stasis, usually into the millions of years.
 
Quote
Thus macro evolution implies that code is hidden somewhere in all creatures that guides macro evolution, bringing forth new species when optimal.


That is certainly a possibility but I think the evolutionary tools are present, if anything, rather than full sections of pre-existing code. We know DNA is an information storage molecule. We know that the tools are present to read, write, cut-n-paste the DNA information.. Is it so strange to think that, if evolution occurs, that some microcellular machines might have the ability write new code?

Quote
Shouldn't this mean that we'd have fewer species? If all creatures are coded for this sort of behaviour, all local ecosystems should mirror each other.So you'd have the same bovine everywhere, just looking different but able to interbreed.


Ahh, but isn't that the case (except for the interbeeding part)? Don't we have fewer phyla of animal species today than preserved in the cambrian strata? And notice how there are hunders of thousands of frog , ant , bird, dog, cat, cattle  etc. varients? And don't most similar local ecosystems approximate eachother? Deserts tend to have scorpions lizards and snakes for example.

As for bovine, american buffalo, oxen, water buffalo, domestic cows can all interbreed. Aren't they all just different looking and esentailly the same species? And it is possible that a species of animal can be seperated long enough that they cannot interbreed anymore. This could be a survival strategy to leave bad mutaions such as birth defects behind.

Quote
The same large cat predator, the same elephant, the same everything essentially.

All large cats can interbreed and I believe all the paciderms can interbreed.

Quote
Even though you quote the solution, you seem unable to utilize it. If the eye hails from some ancient light sensitive skin patch, why can't the heart hail from some other ancient function.

That may be the case but how did the first "light sensitive patch" come into existance? To me, somthing had to realize the importance of detecting light. I don't think it happend by chance or co-opted from other existing systems. We are just going to have to disagree here.

Quote
The first creatures to have a heart might not even have used it for pumping blood. Just because you feel it is too complicated is no reasn to assume it's impossible.

Very true, I shouldn't assume it's impossible, and really I don't.. I just find it very improbable. And if it was just one single organ that is one impobability, but nearly every aspect of biology contains this amount of improbabilty which only compounds the problem for me.

Quote
To me looking at evolution and assuming it's the work of some great hidden piece of code present in each and every one of us guiding us to become exactly these creatures seems akin to looking up into the sky and assuming that today was always meant to be sunny. Because hey, weather is a complex and unpredictable system too.

Good point, however I don't believe humans were nessicarily destined to become exactly the creatures we are. And as I said above, any evolutionary properties life has I believe were preprogrammed to make evolutionary decisions.

I am agnostic. There may be a god, and an overall plan. This is an area that I ponder alot and am currently undecided.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: jucce on April 28, 2007, 03:53:17 am
Quote
Natural selection a process...

It's not even a process bro. It just IS.  It's somthing that happens AFTER the fact and isn't quantifiable.

I'd say it's a description of a process in nature.

Quote
...that results in favorable traits being passed on to future generations.


Please give me a tangible example of this. The classic example is Darwin's finches with larger beaks which is micro evolution. There has never been anything to indicate that micro evolutionary changes such as this will "stick" indefinately. The changes are temporary and part of the normal variation  of the animal. No new species.

Like I mentioned before. For example the mutation that confers immunity to AIDS in certain situations, appeared about 700 years ago and has stayed in the humane genome. So is also the case with lactose tolerance and sickle-cell resistance in areas with malaria for example.

And if you want to go into speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Quote
Natural selection is the evolutionary process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common.

I read an article where some scientists are stumped as to why us humans not all beautiful, fit and trim. Why do we all not look like supermodels by now? Why are some people still bald, obese, hairy, short etc. etc. Well even though "ugly" people still breed there should be enough natural selection in place to put most of us into beautiful status by now. I believe the answer is that just like all other species, we have enough natural variation that includes these "ugly" traits and it will always be with us.

So the idea that "favorable" traits remain and unfavorable traits evolve away is pure fantasy unless we can find some concrete evidence that it is true. To my knowledge, thus far, science has never produced this evidence.

Well beauty is something very subjective. Beauty is a very complex concept, not at all controlled by a single gene like things like eyecolor for example. Even if you have two parents that you consider to be beautiful there's no guarantee you'll think the child is.

However I've read ideas that propose that the reduction of jaw size and the size and shape of brow ridges, foreheads and chins in early humans was caused to a large degree by sexual selection.

Quote
So the process of natural selection isn't random, it states that organisms that are fit for their particular environment pass on their favorable traits to the next generation.

We can't even define what "fit for thier particular enviornment" is.

Basically if the organism is more successful than others in passing on its genes it's more fit.

Wikipedi says this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
Quote
...individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes. If these phenotypes have a genetic basis, then the genotype associated with the favorable phenotype will increase in frequency in the next generation. Over time, this process can result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species.

Quote
Just take a look on any internet page or book about natural selection:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/ns.cum.l.html" A common criticism of natural selection is "how can it produce novel complex useful structures by pure random chance?" Darwin's answer to this "difficulty", (which he actually raised himself), was that selection is NOT a random process, and furthermore, it is cumulative, which he ably explained.

Darwin wrote this stuff in the 19th century and he clearly saw that random anything can't produce what we see biologically. That was the industrial age.. Imagine if he had lived in the Information or upcoming genetic age? Natural selection can't be a random process in his mind because his theory would completly fall apart otherwise.

Natural Selection can judge design, that what it is, a natural judge so to speak. It's powerless to PRODUCE design.

Yes natural selection pretty much acts as a filter. When we put natural selection with genetic mutations and time we get evolution.

Quote
I see it as a testament to the fact that receiving and processing input from the five sense are a very useful evolutionary adaption.

Yes, but you could argue that for just about anything once you are convinced it did evolve.

To me it feels quite reasonable that being able to receive and process the large amounts of data from the senses would be very beneficial to an organisms survival.

Quote
Also we clearly share very much of our genome with our close relatives, chimpanzees and neanderthals for example. And a significant amount with all life on Earth really.

I could probably pull some parts off my SUV and use them on my motorcycle.. So what? Once again, why is common design completely out of the question? And futhermore, perhaps try thinking about the DIFFERENCES for once. What seperates us from chimps?

Well how do you feel about things like retroviruses that become part of the genome? Humans and chimps for example share those in many places in our genome, the same type at the same location.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/erv/

Quote
One interesting example related to the chimpanzees is that one of our chromosomes is a fusion of two chromosomes apes like chimpanzees have separately.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M

So what? There are some parts of our DNA sequence where we have more in common with a bannana or a mouse than a chimp. Also, don't brush our genetic differences under the rug.

"So what?" I think it's a very significant find giving much credence to the theory of evolution. Don't you agree that the example with the fused chromosome and the retroviruses are strong signs for evolution? And I'm not brushing the differences under the rug, if you want to mention something about it feel free.

Quote
The hits that stay are the traits that are passed on as described by natural selection.

Yeah, ok, I understand that idea but you are keeping ANY number that falls into the correct sequence where it doesnt matter if you get say the six first or the one first etc... Thus it's not a very good example in my opinion.

Could you elaborate on that?

Thanx for your post.

Well, thanks for your post too.


nobody says that NATURAL SELECTION does not exist - the thing that is argued about is whether it can produce new species or not.

It can and does:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Are those really new species, or just variations on the same species? They're neither so different nor unable to cross-reproduce (probably).

They're classified as new species, if any of them can interbreed I don't know. However we have clearly witnessed speciation.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Valaggar on April 28, 2007, 08:56:21 am
Classified as new species, well... but they don't have to obey the classification we set for them. If interbreeding is unsure, this means that their status as different species is unsure.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: jucce on April 28, 2007, 09:51:16 pm
Classified as new species, well... but they don't have to obey the classification we set for them. If interbreeding is unsure, this means that their status as different species is unsure.
It's possible that some of them can interbreed, it doesn't say for most of them, however interbreeding alone doesn't make it one species.

And we have examples where they can't interbreed at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Artificial_speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq%2Dspeciation.html#part5


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on April 29, 2007, 12:52:29 am
These two seperate videos say it all...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMHNnhAEDN4&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2klREiCejzI

:)


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Baltar on April 29, 2007, 02:00:50 am
Baltar: I can tell you are a fairly intelligent person by some of your posts. I even considered responding to you in some of the previous evolution threads where you argued against my points. It's too bad you feel the need to come across so dickish. There's no need for that.

Initially I tried.  But really, you can't come in here saying you have been totally dignified.  You have repeatedly made insinuations and allegations about the evolution 'camp'.  All of these threads are hemorrhaging arguments that you have simply never attempted to respond to, and you have repeated the same arguments over and over ad nauseum.  And you keep making new threads to drive your 'point' home.  How many is it now?  Three?

I'm just tired, and you shouldn't feel welcome.  Your conduct is blatantly flame baiting.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on April 29, 2007, 07:34:31 pm

Quote
Initially I tried.  But really, you can't come in here saying you have been totally dignified.  You have repeatedly made insinuations and allegations about the evolution 'camp'.  All of these threads are hemorrhaging arguments that you have simply never attempted to respond to, and you have repeated the same arguments over and over ad nauseum.  And you keep making new threads to drive your 'point' home.  How many is it now?  Three?

I'm just tired, and you shouldn't feel welcome.  Your conduct is blatantly flame baiting.

The very subject matter invokes strong responses from people but it's still a fascinating subject that some of us wish to discuss. Nobody's holding a gun to your head forcing you to read or respond.

Jucce: Good point about the shared DNA of chimps and man. It is interesting. Unfortunately, we can find similar sequences between squid and man as well. Most likely the sequences are used in different ways. Not outside the realm of common design imo.

The powerball example, you are establishing a fixed goal and comparing the random results to this goal and keeping the numbers that fall into the positions that fit. Every step along that path has to yield a selection advantage or natural selection is powerless to retain the information. Thus the process becomes very unlikely.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: jucce on April 30, 2007, 02:37:04 am
These two seperate videos say it all...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMHNnhAEDN4&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2klREiCejzI

:)

As far as I know Dawkins paused because he just realized they were creationists, and also it seems it was cut unfairly.

And we have seen new information beeing added to the genome. For example polyploidy, gene duplication and mutations can and do results in new information. For example isn't the ability of Nylonase to break down nylon by-products new information?

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/new_info.html
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_of_new_information

And what was with the first video?

EDIT: I found an article by Dawkins himself about the incident:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm
And here's another article about it:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1998/3_crexpose.htm


Jucce: Good point about the shared DNA of chimps and man. It is interesting. Unfortunately, we can find similar sequences between squid and man as well. Most likely the sequences are used in different ways. Not outside the realm of common design imo.

It's not just similar genetic sequences but a very special mechanism in which certain viruses fuse with the genome and that means we can track which of those parts of virus DNA we have in common with different species. Pointing to the fact that we were one species when those viruses fused with our genome.

And the fused chromosomes too go beyond simply similarities in the DNA.

The powerball example, you are establishing a fixed goal and comparing the random results to this goal and keeping the numbers that fall into the positions that fit. Every step along that path has to yield a selection advantage or natural selection is powerless to retain the information. Thus the process becomes very unlikely.

Yes each ball that sticks is a beneficial trait passed on by natural selection. What I was trying to show really is that natural selection is gradual, cumulative and non-random.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on May 01, 2007, 12:13:53 am
Quote
As far as I know Dawkins paused because he just realized they were creationists, and also it seems it was cut unfairly.

Ahh always two sides to every story.

Quote
And we have seen new information beeing added to the genome. For example polyploidy, gene duplication and mutations can and do results in new information. For example isn't the ability of Nylonase to break down nylon by-products new information?

Do you honestly think the nylonase example can be extrapolated into the morphic changes we saw in the Sagen video? nylonase is most likely a 1 or 2 point mutation realized in a single bacterial generation.


Quote
And what was with the first video?

Just somthing to contrast the second video. That was classic Carl Sagan and it illustrates just how much novel new information had to be generated over the course of 600 million years in the evolutionary theory. So it's hard to be impressed by a nylonase enzyme that may be the result of a one or two point mutation to an existing enzyme.

To me, if you have to rely on such flimsy evolutionary examples to explain what we see in the Sagan video, your theory may be in trouble.

Quote
EDIT: I found an article by Dawkins himself about the incident:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm
And here's another article about it:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1998/3_crexpose.htm

Ahh those crazy creationists! ;) Well he didn't look mad but who knows. And knowing Dawkins is an athiest, he may not have any qualms about lying and backtracking...


Quote
It's not just similar genetic sequences but a very special mechanism in which certain viruses fuse with the genome and that means we can track which of those parts of virus DNA we have in common with different species. Pointing to the fact that we were one species when those viruses fused with our genome.

Do we really know that those "viruses" fused with our genome? Perhaps the viruses evolved from our genome? ;)  Kidding of course.. this is your best evidence yet.


Quote
Yes each ball that sticks is a beneficial trait passed on by natural selection. What I was trying to show really is that natural selection is gradual, cumulative and non-random.

Ok so if a 1 sticks in the first position and it is kept it is a beneficial trait irregardless of any other numbers?

so 1888888888 is the same as 1452326429 and is the same as 1000000000 ? Then what if the 6 in the 6th place came first. 8888868888 and that is kept.

See I don't think this is a good example because it is nowhere near reality. it's difficult to take this idea seriously when you consider irreducibly complex systems such as the inner ear or gall producing insects where everything has to be present for the system to function properly.

Furthermore this suggests that complex organs can arise in any unspecific order, thus the eye would not need the first light sensing cell to start but could have proceeded from anywhere as long as a selection advantage for any part was obtained, which is too vauge and very doubtful.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: jucce on May 01, 2007, 03:50:38 am
Quote
As far as I know Dawkins paused because he just realized they were creationists, and also it seems it was cut unfairly.

Ahh always two sides to every story.

Yes indeed.

Quote
And we have seen new information beeing added to the genome. For example polyploidy, gene duplication and mutations can and do results in new information. For example isn't the ability of Nylonase to break down nylon by-products new information?

Do you honestly think the nylonase example can be extrapolated into the morphic changes we saw in the Sagen video? nylonase is most likely a 1 or 2 point mutation realized in a single bacterial generation.

Yes the nylonase mutation wasn't a huge change but that's the idea with evolution, the change is gradual, incremental, cumulative, in small steps, slow etc., over large quantities of time.

I mean 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+... does eventually reach 1.000.000.

Quote
And what was with the first video?

Just somthing to contrast the second video. That was classic Carl Sagan and it illustrates just how much novel new information had to be generated over the course of 600 million years in the evolutionary theory. So it's hard to be impressed by a nylonase enzyme that may be the result of a one or two point mutation to an existing enzyme.

To me, if you have to rely on such flimsy evolutionary examples to explain what we see in the Sagan video, your theory may be in trouble.

It's more like 3 billion years. I mean we got the mutation in the nylon eating bacteria in just a couple of years, just imagine the same processes but over billions of years.

Quote
EDIT: I found an article by Dawkins himself about the incident:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm
And here's another article about it:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1998/3_crexpose.htm

Ahh those crazy creationists! ;) Well he didn't look mad but who knows. And knowing Dawkins is an athiest, he may not have any qualms about lying and backtracking...

No I don't think he's lying, and I don't see what him being an atheist has anything to do with it. I mean he's written books on the subject, also read the article by Barry Williams, it mentions some interesting things.

Quote
Further evidence of incompetence includes the tape showing the male "interviewer" in a completely different room from the Dawkins' drawing room where the interview took place, and with entirely different lighting. Moreover, the person who interviewed Prof Dawkins was named as Geoffrey Smith, while the "interviewer" shown in this clip is identified as Chris Nicholls, the narrator of the entire tape.
Quote
Nowhere else in the tape is an interviewer shown directly asking a question of any of the other four people who speak, nor is an interviewer seen posing any questions to Richard in his previous pieces.

And even if he wasn't able to answer, which I think he can, there really are mutations that add new information.

Quote
It's not just similar genetic sequences but a very special mechanism in which certain viruses fuse with the genome and that means we can track which of those parts of virus DNA we have in common with different species. Pointing to the fact that we were one species when those viruses fused with our genome.

Do we really know that those "viruses" fused with our genome? Perhaps the viruses evolved from our genome? ;)  Kidding of course.. this is your best evidence yet.

I'm glad.

Quote
Yes each ball that sticks is a beneficial trait passed on by natural selection. What I was trying to show really is that natural selection is gradual, cumulative and non-random.

Ok so if a 1 sticks in the first position and it is kept it is a beneficial trait irregardless of any other numbers?

so 1888888888 is the same as 1452326429 and is the same as 1000000000 ? Then what if the 6 in the 6th place came first. 8888868888 and that is kept.

See I don't think this is a good example because it is nowhere near reality. it's difficult to take this idea seriously when you consider irreducibly complex systems such as the inner ear or gall producing insects where everything has to be present for the system to function properly.

I don't know if the inner ear or gall producing insects are irreducibly complex, certainly others systems claimed to be have been proven otherwise like the flagellum and blood-clotting system. And either way irreducibly complex systems can actually evolve.

Furthermore this suggests that complex organs can arise in any unspecific order, thus the eye would not need the first light sensing cell to start but could have proceeded from anywhere as long as a selection advantage for any part was obtained, which is too vauge and very doubtful.

Yes any trait with a selection advantage is passed on. And in fact changing the use of already existing features is quite common. For example the bone structure in bat wings and human hands is quite similar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_%28biology%29
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section3.html#morphological_parahomology

Darwin also mentioned this in "The Origin of Species", although he may have been wrong about the order:
Quote
The illustration of the swimbladder in fishes is a good one, because it shows us clearly the highly important fact that an organ originally constructed for one purpose, namely flotation, may be converted into one for a wholly different purpose, namely respiration.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Baltar on May 01, 2007, 04:21:38 am
...And knowing Dawkins is an athiest, he may not have any qualms about lying and backtracking...


Alright stop the press.  What the hell is this?


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Lukipela on May 01, 2007, 05:54:13 pm
But can you? How do you figue which is better? Do you count individuals? So if there is more fir trees than pine trees "competeing" in the same area, which is better evolved? If you find 500 different species of fish in the Amazon river or an ocean area all competeing for the same food source, which of these is better evolved? Can you honestly tell me that a trilobite is more or less evolved than a modern horseshoe crab?

Ah, I understand what you mean. You are saying that because comparing and ranking each and every species in an ecosystem is a complicated and hard job, it is better to assume that none of these animals have an edge over any other. The thing is, when you have 500 fish competing over the exact same food source, then it is fairly easy to check which is better than the other Remove half of the food and see which species survive. Repeat until you have only one. In systems with plentiful nutrition, the need for extreme adapting will be smaller than in systems where resources are scarce.

Quote
Such as.... ?

  • Any animal that has come into contact from man, for instance buffalo. When the environment changes to include rifles, being huge is no longer the advantage it used to be. Another good example would be the Dodo.
  • Most animals in Australia, and on isolated islands after the introduction of european animals
  • Dinosaurs (assuming large scale enivormental changes were behind their mass extinction
  • Ice bears are now threatened by a warmer climate, where they are less well adapted

Quote
Selection pressures may be the reason for animals with certain genomic variables expressed to thrive while others of the same species die . This is natural selection at work. But I believe these are variables programmed into the genome. The genome "allows" these to vary as a survival strategy. And this may extend to the macro level but it has yet to be demonstrated scientificly. It's certainly possible as we all work off the same genetic information system. Intelligent scientists have been able to isolate genes and sequence them into lab rats, but it has never been shown to happen naturally.

So basically, even micro evolution can never be dependent on any sort of random mutation. Rather, somewhere within the genome lies a optimization program that adapts to new circumstances. However, somewhere within this optimization program lies some sort of random seed, where the program in some individuals will vary in one way, whereas other individual of the same species will react differently under the same circumstances. Other than this slight allowance for randomness, the only random things are completely inconsequential, such as fingerprints. Did I understand your position correctly?

Quote
It may be possible but scientific expirimentaion has shown stability and longevity in genomes. The fossil record mirrors this as well, species stasis, usually into the millions of years.

Out of pure interest, could you link me to some info about this. Search as I may, I can't really find any articles about million year old genomes, are they extracted from fossilized remains?

Quote
That is certainly a possibility but I think the evolutionary tools are present, if anything, rather than full sections of pre-existing code. We know DNA is an information storage molecule. We know that the tools are present to read, write, cut-n-paste the DNA information.. Is it so strange to think that, if evolution occurs, that some microcellular machines might have the ability write new code?

This would seem to indicate that I understood your thoughts on micro evolution correctly. Would it then, in your opinion, be fair to say, that every living being carries this program, which allows for optimization and evolution? So you could start with, say E.coli, and through calling a series of commands (Get Respiratory system, Get Optical system 3, and so forth) you could reproduce any animal from an E.Coli?

Quote
Ahh, but isn't that the case (except for the interbeeding part)?

Yes, if we ignore the crucial part then it is exactly the same. However, my point was that if there is a set blueprint that the cells work from, all those similar species should also be able to interbreed, i.e the same species with some extra bling. Seeing as I misunderstood your idea (you're thinking adaptive programming, not pre made blueprints), the argument changes. If, we start from simple life-forms, and move up to complex ones through adaptive programming, shouldn't there be more species rather than less? I mean, obviously they'd all have roughly the same parts (because they are calling object functions like "heart", "eye" and so forth which are stored somewhere), but shouldn't the program then allow them to take pretty much any path which is at all feasible, rather than just sticking to "Cow" shape, "cat" shape and so forth? In evolution it makes sense that the most succesful shapes stick around, and then evolve to fill differing niches. To me at least it seems that ID should have quite a few more classes of animals.

Quote
Don't we have fewer phyla of animal species today than preserved in the cambrian strata? And notice how there are hunders of thousands of frog , ant , bird, dog, cat, cattle  etc. varients? And don't most similar local ecosystems approximate eachother? Deserts tend to have scorpions lizards and snakes for example.

This is exactly what I meant. If some phyla die out because they are less fit, then that's a case for evolution. If something can just jump phyla because the adaptive system deems it adavantegous, then that would be ID.


Quote
As for bovine, american buffalo, oxen, water buffalo, domestic cows can all interbreed. Aren't they all just different looking and esentailly the same species?

Water Buffalo can't interbeed with cows. Several of the other species listed can only produce sterile male offspring, which is quite good evidence that they used to be, but are no longer the same. Which makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint where they have some common ancestors. However, if they used to be the same species, but their code has now beeen optimized, I'm hard pressed to understand why they aren't either

  • The same species and capable of full interbreeding despite cosmetic dfferences
  • A new species and no longer capable of interbreeding.

Quote
And it is possible that a species of animal can be seperated long enough that they cannot interbreed anymore. This could be a survival strategy to leave bad mutaions such as birth defects behind.

Just to be clear, this survival strategy is then pre-built into the program that every living cell carries, right?

Quote
All large cats can interbreed and I believe all the paciderms can interbreed.

Again, as in the case of bovines, ligers and tigons are sterile if male. No idea about paciderms, but since every other example you've used was not capable of full species interbreeding, I'll just go ahead and assume this is incorrect as well.

Quote
That may be the case but how did the first "light sensitive patch" come into existance? To me, somthing had to realize the importance of detecting light.

You're over-thinking it again. A random mutation that does not cause any harm is not culled The first light sensitive patch might not have had any use for eons, until a series of other mutations made it useful. As long as something doesn't kill the bearer, or stop it from having offspring, it doesn't need to immediately be fully functioning.

Quote
I don't think it happend by chance or co-opted from other existing systems. We are just going to have to disagree here.

Indeed. But I'd be more happy to disagree if I was sure you were aware that not every part of a complex system must just turn up at once, fulyl functional.

Quote
Very true, I shouldn't assume it's impossible, and really I don't.. I just find it very improbable. And if it was just one single organ that is one impobability, but nearly every aspect of biology contains this amount of improbabilty which only compounds the problem for me.

So basically, if it looks like too much random chance, it can't be random chance.

Quote
Good point, however I don't believe humans were nessicarily destined to become exactly the creatures we are. And as I said above, any evolutionary properties life has I believe were preprogrammed to make evolutionary decisions.

This raises an interesting question. Obviously, we are fairly successful creatures. We dominate the world. Large parts of this can be traced back to our intelligence. Why is it that no other creature has gone the same route. If this optimization took place in all creature, shouldn't we have several highly intelligent races by now? I mean, it's obviously a great edge.

Quote
I am agnostic. There may be a god, and an overall plan. This is an area that I ponder alot and am currently undecided.

As an aside, do you think you'll ever decide? I always thought faith was much like love, where logical thought helps very little.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Lukipela on May 01, 2007, 06:21:07 pm
...And knowing Dawkins is an athiest, he may not have any qualms about lying and backtracking...


Alright stop the press.  What the hell is this?

What? I fail to see the problem. Ivan Ivanov is an atheist as well, and I've always felt we was a lying sack of low life scum. RTyp06 himself is agnostic, which is halfway there, so while he might lie a bit, it probably won't be anything too bad. And then you have us religious types, who always tell the truth and never lie. Case in point, me :)


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Ivan Ivanov on May 01, 2007, 08:31:24 pm
What? I fail to see the problem. Ivan Ivanov is an atheist as well, and I've always felt we was a lying sack of low life scum.

Come on Baltar, there's no point denying it.
It should probably also be mentioned that we eat puppies for breakfast and make furcoats out of kittens.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Death 999 on May 01, 2007, 08:38:32 pm
I don't!

I eat kittens for lunch, and wear puppry-fur pants


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Lukipela on May 01, 2007, 08:49:11 pm
Silence, both of you vile liars. The both of you make me sick with your low morals, lying, and filthy cavorting around in the fields of virtue. I bet Ivan doesn't even know that religion gave us morals, and Death_999 is obviously incapable of empathic rapport due to his bright disposition and trivial understanding of our galaxy's foundation.

From now on, I shall believe the exact opposite of what you state. Always and forever.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Ivan Ivanov on May 01, 2007, 08:54:58 pm
Bah!
You'll be begging us to give you one of our fur coats and pants when winter comes.
I wonder where will your messiah be then.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on May 02, 2007, 01:29:41 am
...And knowing Dawkins is an athiest, he may not have any qualms about lying and backtracking...


Alright stop the press.  What the hell is this?

*Busted*  :-[

Apologies.. I wasn't really serious, and in hindsight should not have written that. There was supposed to be a winky in there. But you must admit Dawkins, possibly more than anyone, does have a reputation to uphold.

Jucce: One last comment about nylonase. It was most likely a small 1 or 2 point mutaion to an existing enzyme that "digested" another chemical. Probably a simple change to a single component in a complex cascade that virtually does the same thing it did beforehand. At some point, to realize what Sagan is portraying, novel new code that never existed before had to be added or replaced in the genotype which in turn added new phenotype features and thus could be selected by natural selection.

To me, It doesn't seem that a change such as this could add up over time to produce new anotomical features.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Baltar on May 02, 2007, 02:51:48 am
In other words, when challenged on the videos you posted, all you really had was a lame joke. 

The link to the Dawkins interview was a pointless digression--how can you not see that for the propaganda piece that it is?  He was clearly ambushed for an esoteric piece of information, and how can you respect the video when it was so obviously designed to ridicule.  A responsible documentary would not have been put together in this fashion.

This brings me right back to my point as you've seen fit to post videos in the hope of mocking the opposition.  I guess since this is in fashion I'll link the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYOYfG0QGG0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYOYfG0QGG0)

And lets also look at what your ID friends are up to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zwbhAXe5yk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zwbhAXe5yk)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504)

Honestly now...you claim you are agnostic....how can you not apply rigors to creation/ID arguments as you are to evolution arguments and see the creationist/ID movement for what it is.  No, this isn't me brow beating you to 'fall into line' and 'believe' in evolution.  Noone in any of these threads has done that, actually.  You have said before that you are just trying to expose people here to new ideas.  You seem to be operating under the impression that just because an alternative exists it must be at least equal.  Well let me tell you something, from one agnostic to another.  Not all alternatives are necessarily equal.  I can understand if you want to sound out the arguments for and against them, but you keep treading on the same territory over and over again, and in your frustration you appear to have resorted to ad hominem attacks, red herrings, mockery, and ridicule over and over again.



Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: jucce on May 02, 2007, 03:36:36 am
Jucce: One last comment about nylonase. It was most likely a small 1 or 2 point mutaion to an existing enzyme that "digested" another chemical. Probably a simple change to a single component in a complex cascade that virtually does the same thing it did beforehand. At some point, to realize what Sagan is portraying, novel new code that never existed before had to be added or replaced in the genotype which in turn added new phenotype features and thus could be selected by natural selection.

To me, It doesn't seem that a change such as this could add up over time to produce new anotomical features.

Wikipedia says that the mutation was a gene duplication plus a frame shift-mutation. And as I said, sure this wasn't a huge change but that's the idea with evolution. The change is gradual, in small increments, slow etc., everything I wrote before, and over large periods of time.

Like I said before, 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+... does eventually reach 1.000.000. And the mutation that enables the bacteria to utilize nylon by-products does add new information.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on May 02, 2007, 03:50:03 am
Quote
Ah, I understand what you mean. You are saying that because comparing and ranking each and every species in an ecosystem is a complicated and hard job, it is better to assume that none of these animals have an edge over any other.

Did I say I assumed that none of these animals had an edge over eachother? You said "better evolved", please, let's put Mr. Stawman away...

 
Quote
The thing is, when you have 500 fish competing over the exact same food source, then it is fairly easy to check which is better than the other Remove half of the food and see which species survive. Repeat until you have only one.

How can you say one is "better"? One is faster perhaps. One is bigger and can bully it's way to the food perhaps. One is smarter and knows where the food will appear before the others perhaps. One species is more prolific and thus has more offspring and more chances at the food. One may have a lower nutritional need. One may work in groups. One may poision the food that only they can eat etc. etc.  And you could most likely run the scenario a hundered times and achieve a hundred different results.

Most ecosystems work off of a hierarchy of predator prey relationships anyway. It doesn't matter which rung dies off it's just a matter of luck who will survive. Caertainly not the "better" or "better evolved".

Quote
In systems with plentiful nutrition, the need for extreme adapting will be smaller than in systems where resources are scarce.

So in contrast, in systems with little nutrition, the need for extreme adapting will be much greater? Have we ever witnessed this outside of a textbook?

Quote
Any animal that has come into contact from man, for instance buffalo. When the environment changes to include rifles, being huge is no longer the advantage it used to be. Another good example would be the Dodo.
Most animals in Australia, and on isolated islands after the introduction of european animals
Dinosaurs (assuming large scale enivormental changes were behind their mass extinction
Ice bears are now threatened by a warmer climate, where they are less well adapted

Every animal that ever existed was and is well adapted to it's enviornment. Every animal that ever existed could be hunted to extinction, introduction of non indiginous species could wipe out any native species, large scale enviornmental changes could wipe out any species as well. You're describing natural selection and human interference. In every case, just because some animals survived, doesn't mean they were better adapted to thier enviornment, or better evovled. It's luck of the draw and it's random. That is what natural selection is... Random. There is nothing conclusive about evolution in that list.


Quote
So basically, even micro evolution can never be dependent on any sort of random mutation. Rather, somewhere within the genome lies a optimization program that adapts to new circumstances. However, somewhere within this optimization program lies some sort of random seed, where the program in some individuals will vary in one way, whereas other individual of the same species will react differently under the same circumstances. Other than this slight allowance for randomness, the only random things are completely inconsequential, such as fingerprints. Did I understand your position correctly?

Not random, every species has a set of variables that can be expressed. Some more, some less. Whatever controls this, is a similar process in all genomes.
Quote
Quote
It may be possible but scientific expirimentaion has shown stability and longevity in genomes. The fossil record mirrors this as well, species stasis, usually into the millions of years.

Out of pure interest, could you link me to some info about this. Search as I may, I can't really find any articles about million year old genomes, are they extracted from fossilized remains?

I didn't say million year old genomes, I said fossils show species stasis into the millions of years. Modern animals of which scientists explore thier genomes show stasis as well. The E. Coli genome has always been E.Coli. Fruit Flys have always been Fruit Flys.  And isn't it safe to assume when we find a fossil of a modern animal dating back 250 million years such as a perch, it's genome was most likely very close to what it is today?


Quote
This would seem to indicate that I understood your thoughts on micro evolution correctly. Would it then, in your opinion, be fair to say, that every living being carries this program, which allows for optimization and evolution? So you could start with, say E.coli, and through calling a series of commands (Get Respiratory system, Get Optical system 3, and so forth) you could reproduce any animal from an E.Coli?

If macro evolution does occur, I think it's much simpler than that. I think it knows the whole system and makes evolutionary choices based on that information. It doesn't pick things that wouldn't work and changes the whole system to accomodate accordingly. We really don't see evolutionary "expirimentation" and complete randomness in biology.  Yes, I know NS is supposed to weed those things out.
I know how far out this may sound, but if the cell has the Data storage, the mechanisms to write, read, splice, error check and utilize this data, why not a way to write specific and new information as well?


Quote
Yes, if we ignore the crucial part then it is exactly the same. However, my point was that if there is a set blueprint that the cells work from, all those similar species should also be able to interbreed, i.e the same species with some extra bling. Seeing as I misunderstood your idea (you're thinking adaptive programming, not pre made blueprints), the argument changes. If, we start from simple life-forms, and move up to complex ones through adaptive programming, shouldn't there be more species rather than less? I mean, obviously they'd all have roughly the same parts (because they are calling object functions like "heart", "eye" and so forth which are stored somewhere), but shouldn't the program then allow them to take pretty much any path which is at all feasible, rather than just sticking to "Cow" shape, "cat" shape and so forth? In evolution it makes sense that the most succesful shapes stick around, and then evolve to fill differing niches. To me at least it seems that ID should have quite a few more classes of animals.

That is logical. I don't think the designer only sent certain species of life to this planet. I think there were many, many, many more species and through natural selection, the best suited (and lucky) designs for *this world* survived. Other life sustaining planets would be completely different.



Quote
This is exactly what I meant. If some phyla die out because they are less fit, then that's a case for evolution. If something can just jump phyla because the adaptive system deems it adavantegous, then that would be ID.

Yes that can be seen as a case for evolution, but unfortunately we have no way of determining if they are "less" fit or not.

--- That's it for tonite ---




Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: meep-eep on May 02, 2007, 02:48:28 pm
Are you implying that because we can't determine which individuals are more fit than others, they all most be equally fit?


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Lukipela on May 02, 2007, 08:00:52 pm
Did I say I assumed that none of these animals had an edge over eachother? You said "better evolved", please, let's put Mr. Stawman away...

Oh I'm sorry, I must've forgotten to add a wink to that statement. On a more serious note, I'm paraphrasing you to try to illustrate what you're saying in a few simple sentences, and this certainly seems to be it. I mean you keep repeating that because we cannot exactly measure each and every variable in an ecosystem, we should completely discount that there might be anything but blind luck between natural selection. To me that implies that all animals are equally well adapted, and chance is the only thing that keeps some alive and kills others.

Quote
How can you say one is "better"?

The one that survives, that is the point of natural selection.

Quote
One is faster perhaps. One is bigger and can bully it's way to the food perhaps. One is smarter and knows where the food will appear before the others perhaps. One species is more prolific and thus has more offspring and more chances at the food. One may have a lower nutritional need. One may work in groups. One may poision the food that only they can eat etc. etc.  And you could most likely run the scenario a hundered times and achieve a hundred different results.

Let me put this is in more game-like terms for you. You are playing Starcraft, on a level with 8 other players. 3 players are playing Zerg, 3 are playing Protoss and 2 are playing human. Each player has one definite strategy that they always stick to. So you have a defensive Zerg, an offensive Zerg, and so forth. The levels that are being played have been designed to be fair and balanced to all, with equal amounts of starter minerals. After 50 games, one player is consistently winning most games. sure, he might lose one or two, but he wins most of his games. This means that his strategy is best (defensive Protoss or whatever).  See the similarity?

Quote
Most ecosystems work off of a hierarchy of predator prey relationships anyway. It doesn't matter which rung dies off it's just a matter of luck who will survive. Caertainly not the "better" or "better evolved".

So basically, based on your theory lions could die off tomorrow and just be replaced by hyenas or some such? It would have nothing to do with which is the better hunter, has the best hunting techniques, or any such thing?

Quote
So in contrast, in systems with little nutrition, the need for extreme adapting will be much greater? Have we ever witnessed this outside of a textbook?

How about thermal vents?

Quote
Every animal that ever existed was and is well adapted to it's enviornment. Every animal that ever existed could be hunted to extinction, introduction of non indiginous species could wipe out any native species, large scale enviornmental changes could wipe out any species as well.

And the reason they are well adapted to their environment is natural selection. Those animals that thrive best in their environment get to breed. Those that have a positive mutation get to breed even more. Thus animals get more and more adapted. Then, the environment changes to include new predators, different climates or some such, it all starts over. And new  species rise.

Quote
You're describing natural selection and human interference.

I'm describing natural selection? Such a shock and surprise.

Quote
In every case, just because some animals survived, doesn't mean they were better adapted to thier enviornment, or better evovled. It's luck of the draw and it's random. That is what natural selection is... Random. There is nothing conclusive about evolution in that list.

In every case, the animals that survived were better adapted to the new environment, and those who died were better adapted to the old. So the Dodo used to do well in it's environment, but after man came around smaller species that were harder to catch did much better, and eventually replaced the Dodo.

Quote
Not random, every species has a set of variables that can be expressed. Some more, some less. Whatever controls this, is a similar process in all genomes.

Right, so every species starts from some proto-species, which contains programming that will allow it to differentiate say, from a cow to a water-buffalo. But this only happens once, once you've become a water buffalo, you can't chnange your direction, and be a cow again. And this is why we only have one large bovine per continent. did i get that right? The program just terminates at some stage?

Quote
I didn't say million year old genomes, I said fossils show species stasis into the millions of years. Modern animals of which scientists explore thier genomes show stasis as well. The E. Coli genome has always been E.Coli. Fruit Flys have always been Fruit Flys.  And isn't it safe to assume when we find a fossil of a modern animal dating back 250 million years such as a perch, it's genome was most likely very close to what it is today?

Right, I forgot that entire species evolve as one, leaving nothing behind.

Quote
If macro evolution does occur, I think it's much simpler than that. I think it knows the whole system and makes evolutionary choices based on that information. It doesn't pick things that wouldn't work and changes the whole system to accomodate accordingly. We really don't see evolutionary "expirimentation" and complete randomness in biology.  Yes, I know NS is supposed to weed those things out.
I know how far out this may sound, but if the cell has the Data storage, the mechanisms to write, read, splice, error check and utilize this data, why not a way to write specific and new information as well?

Wait, so natural selection does nothing for a species, just luck of the draw. But at the same time, every creature in the world is evolving together, as one large Gaia type planet? How long til we regress then, surely we can't be good for the world. This brings up an interesting new question though. If every creature/species is in contact with each other, why do species go extinct by accident? Surely dinosaurs and dodos should have turned up again by now, if they were wiped out by blind chance and thus not less fit in any way.

Quote
That is logical. I don't think the designer only sent certain species of life to this planet. I think there were many, many, many more species and through natural selection, the best suited (and lucky) designs for *this world* survived. Other life sustaining planets would be completely different.

I thought that earlier on Natural selection was blind chance, not what narrows species down to the best fit ones. I must be misreading something, please explain.

Quote
Yes that can be seen as a case for evolution, but unfortunately we have no way of determining if they are "less" fit or not.

The fact that they are extinct would seem to indicate that.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on May 02, 2007, 11:46:46 pm
Are you implying that because we can't determine which individuals are more fit than others, they all most be equally fit?


No.. There are certainly fit animals. For example, In a gazelle population, the faster and stronger will survive while the young, sick and elderly are less fit. They are less likely to survive. That to me is fitness.

Natural selection is natural phenomena where certain species survive and others do not. In the fish and lack of food example that Luki and I were discussing, one species may continuely be the survivor in *that particular scenario*. If however say a volcano spewed it's lava into the water adding poisonous chemicals, a completely different species might survive.

So in one case, one species is the "best evolved", in another, a different species is "best evolved". Thus it is basicly a crap shoot. Luck. To me this makes natural selection powerless to drive evolution in a particular direction.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on May 02, 2007, 11:56:45 pm
Quote
Like I said before, 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+... does eventually reach 1.000.000.


This is one of those things that sounds awesome in the textbooks. It certainly sounds reasonable, almost intuitive in fact... but what real life examples from scientific testing do we have that this is indeed reality? If this could be empirically demonstrated, my doubts would diminish considerabily. If that scientific evidence is there, please show me and I will have to rethink my position.



Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: meep-eep on May 03, 2007, 12:23:33 am
As has been said many times before, you can only say that a species is fittest for its particular environment.
A species which has evolved in one environment might not be able to survive in another. And if the environment changes quickly enough, a species will die out.

Please explain to me how this his a "crap shoot".


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on May 03, 2007, 12:25:41 am
Quote
This brings me right back to my point as you've seen fit to post videos in the hope of mocking the opposition.  I guess since this is in fashion I'll link the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYOYfG0QGG0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYOYfG0QGG0)

Iv'e seen it and love that video.

Quote
And lets also look at what your ID friends are up to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zwbhAXe5yk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zwbhAXe5yk)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504)
Yes, those are pretty embarassing if creationists are indeed truely advocating such nonsense.
Also, I couldn't care less about the politics behind ID. I find their scientifc arguments compelling, that is it.

Quote
You have said before that you are just trying to expose people here to new ideas.  You seem to be operating under the impression that just because an alternative exists it must be at least equal.  Well let me tell you something, from one agnostic to another.  Not all alternatives are necessarily equal.  I can understand if you want to sound out the arguments for and against them, but you keep treading on the same territory over and over again, and in your frustration you appear to have resorted to ad hominem attacks, red herrings, mockery, and ridicule over and over again.

The repitition of arguments is for new people joining the conservation. And I have thrown out a few provocative posts. But I assure you it has never been outright malicious and didn't realize just how thin skinned some people might be about it.

AS far as being agnostic, I just don't get atheisim. No god, no designer, no purpose or plan, just random chemicals that happened. What is the point of even following scientific endeavors? What is the point of obeying any law? Why not kill my neighbor, rape his wife and steal his car, does it matter since we are all just evolved sacks of chemicals? What is the point of anything at all?

Creationists, They might have the right idea but I personally don't believe their theology. It's hard for me to accept a homocidal god that kills out of anger. That is why I'm agnostic.

How about you? And why does it seem you are very biggoted against creationists? These people are not stupid (at least not all of them) and do come up with some good scientifc arguments. And in fairness, most evolutionists are intelligent and do have good scientifc arguments for their case as well.



Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on May 03, 2007, 01:25:50 am
As has been said many times before, you can only say that a species is fittest for its particular environment.

But is it really the "fittest" for it's particular enviornment? I say all animals in a particualr ecosytem are fit for their particular enviornment. It is only when a chance change comes along that weeds out certian individuals. It depends solely on what that random change is.

Quote
A species which has evolved in one environment might not be able to survive in another. And if the environment changes quickly enough, a species will die out.

I understand this, and have said so many times. But how does that drive evolution in a particular direction?

Quote
Please explain to me how this his a "crap shoot".

It's a crap shoot because anything could happen, at any time and anywhere, that could wipe out a species no matter how "evolved" or not.

Also, for Jucce:

It is thought that the first multi-celled organisms appeared 600 million years ago. Around 2 - 3 billion for single celled animals.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: meep-eep on May 03, 2007, 01:58:02 am
As has been said many times before, you can only say that a species is fittest for its particular environment.
But is it really the "fittest" for it's particular enviornment? I say all animals in a particualr ecosytem are fit for their particular enviornment. It is only when a chance change comes along that weeds out certian individuals. It depends solely on what that random change is.
Could you please rephrase that question? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, and how it relates to the argument.
(quick note: "fittest" means "fittest of the variants". It does not mean that some end form has been reached and no further improvements can be made.)

Quote
Quote
A species which has evolved in one environment might not be able to survive in another. And if the environment changes quickly enough, a species will die out.
I understand this, and have said so many times. But how does that drive evolution in a particular direction?
A too quickly changing environment doesn't. Is this supposed to be an argument against evolution?

Quote
Quote
Please explain to me how this his a "crap shoot".
It's a crap shoot because anything could happen, at any time and anywhere, that could wipe out a species no matter how "evolved" or not.
Yes. And so it has. That will be a dead end in the family tree of species. But such events only happen to a small fraction of all species. The rest will live to continue evolving.


AS far as being agnostic, I just don't get atheisim. No god, no designer, no purpose or plan, just random chemicals that happened. What is the point of even following scientific endeavors? What is the point of obeying any law? Why not kill my neighbor, rape his wife and steal his car, does it matter since we are all just evolved sacks of chemicals? What is the point of anything at all?
FALLACY DETECTED: Wishful Thinking -- Just because there is no point, doesn't mean it isn't true.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Baltar on May 03, 2007, 06:08:45 am
Yes, those are pretty embarassing if creationists are indeed truely advocating such nonsense.
Also, I couldn't care less about the politics behind ID. I find their scientifc arguments compelling, that is it.

Well you clearly had no qualms posting a video mocking Dawkins and his position.

Quote
AS far as being agnostic, I just don't get atheisim. No god, no designer, no purpose or plan, just random chemicals that happened. What is the point of even following scientific endeavors? What is the point of obeying any law? Why not kill my neighbor, rape his wife and steal his car, does it matter since we are all just evolved sacks of chemicals? What is the point of anything at all?

Well hopefully the police would stop you from doing any of that crazy stuff :D

But seriously, you've already admitted you are agnostic....so.....you are saying their must be a 'purpose'...and I guess you can say as much as an agnostic....but you sure as hell don't know what it is.  You are ardently supporting ID....for what then?

Moreover what is the correlation, or lack of correlation, between evolution and the meaning of life as opposed to ID?  ie how do you conclude that if evolution were true, then there *must* not be a purpose to life, as that does seem to be a significant factor in your preference for ID.  As I see it evolution doesn't create any issues in the realm of spirituality except for those that, say, believe in the literal truth of the Old Testament.

Also, when you draw conclusions like this when you don't see a 'higher purpose', it places further doubt in my mind that your earlier comment about Dawkins' atheism was intended as a joke.

Quote
How about you? And why does it seem you are very biggoted against creationists? These people are not stupid (at least not all of them) and do come up with some good scientifc arguments. And in fairness, most evolutionists are intelligent and do have good scientifc arguments for their case as well.

I'm not 'bigoted' at all.  You came in here and said your piece...and I listened....but you stayed and got stuck on the same topic.  I'm not thin skinned either; you have a very long history in these threads of doing all the things I said you did.  And no, the burden of proof is not on me to go find examples.  It is obvious to everyone here.

Those people that you mention are at the center of all the politics you said you were avoiding.  That is a key difference distinguishing the ID folks from the evolutionists.  Key proponents of ID, even ones that I think you've referred to, are clearly hacks and frauds.  You have on more than one occasion already posted 'educational' or 'documetary' pro-ID works that are blatantly propagandistic.  Do your ID people even produce any research?  Or are they all busy campaigning directly to the electorate to get a wedge in our schools?


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Lukipela on May 03, 2007, 06:55:15 pm
This is one of those things that sounds awesome in the textbooks. It certainly sounds reasonable, almost intuitive in fact... but what real life examples from scientific testing do we have that this is indeed reality? If this could be empirically demonstrated, my doubts would diminish considerabily. If that scientific evidence is there, please show me and I will have to rethink my position.

Empirically testing random mutations for millions of years might be tricky. But on the positive side, i figured out a way to test your ID theory in a lab. Now granted, we won't be able to do it right away, but with some research it should be entirely possible.

Step 1: Identify the optimization program in the genome. We've mapped the entire human genome, have a good picture of the chimpanzees and a rough draft of the Macacas, plus the mapping of many simpler organisms. This is admittedly the hardest part, but once you stumble upon the first IF, OR or AND it should become considerably easier.

Step 2: Find the Input/output parameters of the code. This will enable us to figure out how every organism in the world stays in contact and figures out what kind of evolving is necessary. Might be some sort of quantum wavelength or maybe just an fourdimensional vibration.

Step 3: Isolate one organism (preferably something large and easily observable, a rabbit or rat perhaps?) From this input system, effectively rendering them blind.

Step 4: Broadcast false random commands to the organism, and if it suddenly spotaneously mutates we know that your theory is correct!

So off you go to prove yourself!

EDIT: As an example of survival of the fittest (or best equipped) within a race, how about this (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/science/01duck.html?ei=5088&en=8a3af3b12c59780d&ex=1335672000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print)? Or are those just freak accidents? Actual article (slightly NWS) (http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000418).


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: jucce on May 04, 2007, 03:08:35 am
Quote
Like I said before, 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+... does eventually reach 1.000.000.


This is one of those things that sounds awesome in the textbooks. It certainly sounds reasonable, almost intuitive in fact... but what real life examples from scientific testing do we have that this is indeed reality? If this could be empirically demonstrated, my doubts would diminish considerabily. If that scientific evidence is there, please show me and I will have to rethink my position.



There's simply no barrier that would halt the evolution at a specific point. There's no reason that should happen. I've already shown you the retrovirus evidence but this really ends in general evidence for evolution, fossils etc.:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution
Fossils, genetics, computer programs simulating evolution and so on.

What more evidence do you require? Why would there be an arbitrary barrier to change at a specific point?

Also, for Jucce:

It is thought that the first multi-celled organisms appeared 600 million years ago. Around 2 - 3 billion for single celled animals.

As far as I know the oldest know multi-cellular life form is 1.2 billion years old. But evolution started as far back as the first life.

AS far as being agnostic, I just don't get atheisim. No god, no designer, no purpose or plan, just random chemicals that happened. What is the point of even following scientific endeavors? What is the point of obeying any law? Why not kill my neighbor, rape his wife and steal his car, does it matter since we are all just evolved sacks of chemicals? What is the point of anything at all?

You can be moral and still atheist, there's no problem with that. Just because there may not be a point with our existance doesn't mean we should squander it or take other peoples existance from them. And being an agnostic isn't that far from an atheist really so I thought you'd understand. And one can hardly claim that theists behave morally as a rule. In fact there are more theists in prison in the US and very atheist countries like Sweden thrive.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on May 04, 2007, 09:40:18 pm
Quote
EDIT: As an example of survival of the fittest (or best equipped) within a race, how about this (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/science/01duck.html?ei=5088&en=8a3af3b12c59780d&ex=1335672000&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print)? Or are those just freak accidents? Actual article (slightly NWS) (http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000418).

Of course they're not freak accidents. How can a female duck evolve defenses against forced matings without some sort of intelligence into the matter? How can sex organs come about in the first place, let alone "co-evolve" withoutout an intimate "knowledge" of the opposite genetalia? How does random mutaion and natural selection fit into any co-evolution scenario? It defies logic.

Also how is this outside the realm of microevolution when you are altering an existing organ? Some people have curly hair and some have straight hair, is that an example of evolution? And what of the fact that a similar co-evolution of genitals are shown in insects as well? To me, this rules out random anything.

If evolution simply means "change over time" to you, then we are in full agreement. And as I've said before, my biggest gripe with the prospect of macroevolution is the mechanism that supposidly drives it.

Jucce: Because there IS a barrier there. We can breed all kinds of interesting variants and breed for specific characteristics. Take domestic dog, cow and pigeons as examples. But there are limits to this. We can only breed them so big, so small, limited colors and coat patterns, beak sizes etc. etc. What is also interesting is (especially pigeons) that when left to natural breeding they tend to revert back to a common breed. This is because some genes are dominant and some recessive. There honestly is no evidence whatsoever that you can breed changes indefinately. Until there is I will remain skeptical.

Quote
FALLACY DETECTED: Wishful Thinking -- Just because there is no point, doesn't mean it isn't true
You are correct and my position here is philosophical. but I also believe that it's counter intuitive that there isn't a point. When we look deep into the "simplest" cell, every part of every function has a "point" and a reason to be there. Every part behaves in a contrived way and is used to establish function. Those microcelluar functions are then parts of more complex functions so on and so forth. And just because you, as an athiest, think there is no point doesn't mean there isn't one either.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: jucce on May 04, 2007, 10:54:45 pm
Jucce: Because there IS a barrier there. We can breed all kinds of interesting variants and breed for specific characteristics. Take domestic dog, cow and pigeons as examples. But there are limits to this. We can only breed them so big, so small, limited colors and coat patterns, beak sizes etc. etc. What is also interesting is (especially pigeons) that when left to natural breeding they tend to revert back to a common breed. This is because some genes are dominant and some recessive. There honestly is no evidence whatsoever that you can breed changes indefinately. Until there is I will remain skeptical.

Yes there may be constraints on how big you can breed a pig for example. However I don't think breeding like that is the equivalent of evolution. That's basically doing only natural selection (or more like artificial selection) on a population. Genetic mutations and large amounts of time are also needed.

There's no barrier that stops mutation from changing an organism too much at a specific point. You can do simulations of this and clearly much other genetic and fossil evidence is there to support it. What kind of mechanism would stop the genetic change at a certain point?


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: meep-eep on May 04, 2007, 11:21:12 pm
Quote
FALLACY DETECTED: Wishful Thinking -- Just because there is no point, doesn't mean it isn't true
You are correct and my position here is philosophical.
It is also irrelevant to the discussion.

Quote
but I also believe that it's counter intuitive that there isn't a point. When we look deep into the "simplest" cell, every part of every function has a "point" and a reason to be there. Every part behaves in a contrived way and is used to establish function. Those microcelluar functions are then parts of more complex functions so on and so forth.
Just respond to my arguments for once. I had counter-arguments or requests for clarification for all the points you made, and you go off on a tangent again. It's always the same. Each time you find some new link, or some new reason to bring up something new, without actually going in a deeper discussion.
I quit. You're just trying to spread propaganda. You're not actually interested in this discussion, regardless of your claims of keeping an open mind.

Quote
And just because you, as an athiest, think there is no point doesn't mean there isn't one either.
I don't know whether there is any point. If there is, I'm not aware of it. But this is also irrelevant to the discussion.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Death 999 on May 05, 2007, 12:57:11 am
Natural selection is a phenomenon in which some individuals survive and others do not. This is important.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on May 05, 2007, 01:01:42 am
Quote
It is also irrelevant to the discussion.

Then why did you bring it up ?


Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote from: RTyp06 on May 03, 2007, 01:25:50 am
Quote from: meep-eep on May 03, 2007, 12:23:33 am
As has been said many times before, you can only say that a species is fittest for its particular environment.
But is it really the "fittest" for it's particular enviornment? I say all animals in a particualr ecosytem are fit for their particular enviornment. It is only when a chance change comes along that weeds out certian individuals. It depends solely on what that random change is.
Could you please rephrase that question? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, and how it relates to the argument.
(quick note: "fittest" means "fittest of the variants". It does not mean that some end form has been reached and no further improvements can be made.)

I don't know how to rephrase the question. What is the fittest of the variants? Nobody saying it's an end form and that no further improvements can be made.

Let me try this:

If you took all of today's marine animals and somehow transported them back in time, dumped them into the terrassic or cambrian ocean with all then living species, are you telling me todays animals would survive as the fittest? That may sound absurd but it seems that is what you are telling me. I'm saying the history of life has been shaped by random events and that the ancient animals are just as "fit" as anything living today. There isn't a steady progression of simple to complex that the evolutionary theory predicts.

just because one variant has an edge in one situation, doesn't mean it will have an edge in the next, or it may.

It's a crap shoot.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on May 05, 2007, 01:21:06 am
Quote
Quote
Quote
Please explain to me how this his a "crap shoot".

It's a crap shoot because anything could happen, at any time and anywhere, that could wipe out a species no matter how "evolved" or not.

Yes. And so it has. That will be a dead end in the family tree of species. But such events only happen to a small fraction of all species. The rest will live to continue evolving.

Evolution is supposed to go in ALL directions. I don't see how this is going to continually improve animals in a decidedly "better" direction. I don't see how an animal's ability to survive a food shortage is some sort of litmus test to find the best when there are unlimited variables that play into any survival scenario.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on May 05, 2007, 02:50:50 am
Jucce: Because there IS a barrier there. We can breed all kinds of interesting variants and breed for specific characteristics. Take domestic dog, cow and pigeons as examples. But there are limits to this. We can only breed them so big, so small, limited colors and coat patterns, beak sizes etc. etc. What is also interesting is (especially pigeons) that when left to natural breeding they tend to revert back to a common breed. This is because some genes are dominant and some recessive. There honestly is no evidence whatsoever that you can breed changes indefinately. Until there is I will remain skeptical.

Yes there may be constraints on how big you can breed a pig for example. However I don't think breeding like that is the equivalent of evolution. That's basically doing only natural selection (or more like artificial selection) on a population. Genetic mutations and large amounts of time are also needed.

There's no barrier that stops mutation from changing an organism too much at a specific point. You can do simulations of this and clearly much other genetic and fossil evidence is there to support it. What kind of mechanism would stop the genetic change at a certain point?

But aren't you the one who said that microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing? Microevolution is variation that we witness in selective breeding.  And esentially, Darwin took his knowledge of domestic breeding, thought it happened in the wild (which it does) and thought that with enough time breeding variation and natural selection would produce all kinds of novel new phenotypic changes (ie pigs might have horns or flippers someday). Modern genetics, which Darwin knew virtually nothing about , refutes this idea spectacularly.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: jucce on May 05, 2007, 05:47:02 am
Jucce: Because there IS a barrier there. We can breed all kinds of interesting variants and breed for specific characteristics. Take domestic dog, cow and pigeons as examples. But there are limits to this. We can only breed them so big, so small, limited colors and coat patterns, beak sizes etc. etc. What is also interesting is (especially pigeons) that when left to natural breeding they tend to revert back to a common breed. This is because some genes are dominant and some recessive. There honestly is no evidence whatsoever that you can breed changes indefinately. Until there is I will remain skeptical.

Yes there may be constraints on how big you can breed a pig for example. However I don't think breeding like that is the equivalent of evolution. That's basically doing only natural selection (or more like artificial selection) on a population. Genetic mutations and large amounts of time are also needed.

There's no barrier that stops mutation from changing an organism too much at a specific point. You can do simulations of this and clearly much other genetic and fossil evidence is there to support it. What kind of mechanism would stop the genetic change at a certain point?

But aren't you the one who said that microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing? Microevolution is variation that we witness in selective breeding.  And esentially, Darwin took his knowledge of domestic breeding, thought it happened in the wild (which it does) and thought that with enough time breeding variation and natural selection would produce all kinds of novel new phenotypic changes (ie pigs might have horns or flippers someday). Modern genetics, which Darwin knew virtually nothing about , refutes this idea spectacularly.

There are some species we can look at that man has basically created with selective breeding. Wikipedia lists canary, pigeons, the Budgerigar, the peach-faced Lovebird, dogs, cats, sheep, cattle, chickens, llamas, guinea pigs and laboratory mice as examples.

However as I said, what is also needed is time and genetic mutations. Much time is needed to get large changes in a species. And if you're waiting for a specific genetic mutation it will take even longer. And breeding is mostly done for strictly pragmatic reasons.

Natural selection is cumulative, biologists don't see any barriers from micro- to macroevolution. What kind of biological or logical barriers would there be?


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on May 05, 2007, 07:18:46 pm
Baltar: Found the raw footage of the Dawkins interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&mode=related&search=

Creationist propoganda? I can certainly see how it was turned into creationist propoganda later and perhaps that was thier intention from the beginning.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Baltar on May 06, 2007, 02:37:44 am
Of course it was intended this way--unless the people who shot the interview are totally unrelated to the people that put together the finished product.  That seems unlikely.  You are digressing again.  You've just agreed that the end product was propaganda, and yet you posted it anyways.

And are you going to address my other points?


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on May 06, 2007, 03:00:40 pm
Quote
What kind of mechanism would stop the genetic change at a certain point?

Quote
Natural selection is cumulative, biologists don't see any barriers from micro- to macroevolution. What kind of biological or logical barriers would there be?

This mechanism does:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcTayxEblio&mode=related&search=


The genome of every species has mutational "hot spots" and a large number of jumping genes. We are finding that these jumps and alterations to genetic code happen in safe areas. Areas that it's ok to introduce changes. This is why cloned lab mice can have a different color coat, different immune system, different arrangements of neurons etc . than the parent they were cloned from.

Basicly this insures individualality. Genetic mutations to code that build organs for example, are spliced out and repaird.




Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on May 06, 2007, 05:34:17 pm
Quote
But seriously, you've already admitted you are agnostic....so.....you are saying their must be a 'purpose'...and I guess you can say as much as an agnostic....but you sure as hell don't know what it is.  You are ardently supporting ID....for what then?

ID simply states that some aspects of biology are better explained by design rather than a blind, naturalistic cause. Naturalistic gradualism precludes this concept entirely. ID doesn't nessescitate a supernatural force. The reason I support ID is because of things like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2kIatxYrws&mode=related&search=

It's difficult for me to reconcile these sort of designs with a blind, naturalistic force.

Quote
Moreover what is the correlation, or lack of correlation, between evolution and the meaning of life as opposed to ID? 

Modern evolutionary theory rejects design entirely and attributes all evolutionary development to blind naturalistic causes, including the first protolife. Thus it implies no meaning or purpose to anything.

 
Quote
ie how do you conclude that if evolution were true, then there *must* not be a purpose to life, as that does seem to be a significant factor in your preference for ID.  As I see it evolution doesn't create any issues in the realm of spirituality except for those that, say, believe in the literal truth of the Old Testament.

Evolution of life is fact in the strictest sense. Life has changed over time. The question is how and why.
And you are correct that evolution does not rule out purpose. But, from a naturalistic perspective, once you allow purpose in the door, you must consider it a contender in other aspects of life's evolution as well. So purpose is rejected automaticly.

Quote
Also, when you draw conclusions like this when you don't see a 'higher purpose', it places further doubt in my mind that your earlier comment about Dawkins' atheism was intended as a joke.

Dawkins is supposidly a spokesman for the understanding of evolutionary theory. Yet he is a complete dick toward creationists. I don't agree with creationist theology either but I can at least repect them and thier faith even though I do not share it.

Quote
I'm not 'bigoted' at all.  You came in here and said your piece...and I listened....but you stayed and got stuck on the same topic.  I'm not thin skinned either; you have a very long history in these threads of doing all the things I said you did.  And no, the burden of proof is not on me to go find examples.  It is obvious to everyone here.

It's funny that you do the exact same thing to me that you criticize me for. That's called hypocracy.

Quote
Those people that you mention are at the center of all the politics you said you were avoiding.  That is a key difference distinguishing the ID folks from the evolutionists.  Key proponents of ID, even ones that I think you've referred to, are clearly hacks and frauds.  You have on more than one occasion already posted 'educational' or 'documetary' pro-ID works that are blatantly propagandistic.  Do your ID people even produce any research?  Or are they all busy campaigning directly to the electorate to get a wedge in our schools?

Started in 1996, the Center for Science and Culture is a Discovery Institute program which:
supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory;
supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design;
supports research by scientists and scholars in the social sciences and humanities exploring the impact of scientific materialism on culture.
encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, including the theory's scientific weaknesses as well is its strengths.


You decide what they are up to...


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Baltar on May 06, 2007, 06:40:20 pm
ID simply states that some aspects of biology are better explained by design rather than a blind, naturalistic cause. Naturalistic gradualism precludes this concept entirely. ID doesn't nessescitate a supernatural force. The reason I support ID is because of things like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2kIatxYrws&mode=related&search=

It's difficult for me to reconcile these sort of designs with a blind, naturalistic force.

This is another digression.  You have plenty of guys here arguing the science...I was focusing on the philosophical aspects.  You didn't really answer my question.  You expressed interest in ID because it strongly implies some purpose to life.  I was questioning the sense in this since you've already conceded an inability to tell what that purpose may be.

Quote
Modern evolutionary theory rejects design entirely and attributes all evolutionary development to blind naturalistic causes, including the first protolife. Thus it implies no meaning or purpose to anything.

You haven't really explained this...you've just restated your original premise.  How does ascribing naturalistic causes to the formation of life imply lack of purpose?  Does 'the great watchmaker' mean anything to you?

Quote
Evolution of life is fact in the strictest sense. Life has changed over time. The question is how and why.
And you are correct that evolution does not rule out purpose. But, from a naturalistic perspective, once you allow purpose in the door, you must consider it a contender in other aspects of life's evolution as well. So purpose is rejected automaticly.

Huh?  I'm not quite sure what you were saying here.  You seem to be suggesting some kind of dichotomy between naturalistic & purpose.  Moreover you are attempting to link 'naturalistic' to evolution as though it were automatically the case...

Quote
Dawkins is supposidly a spokesman for the understanding of evolutionary theory. Yet he is a complete dick toward creationists. I don't agree with creationist theology either but I can at least repect them and thier faith even though I do not share it.

That is yet another digression that fails to address my point.  You draw the conclusion that being an atheist means no inhibitions.  I take very strong exception to that.

Quote
It's funny that you do the exact same thing to me that you criticize me for. That's called hypocracy.

Actually it is hypocrisy, and I don't recall failing to address any of your points.  I have attacked you, yes absolutely, but I've never used indirection.  You struck first and struck many times before I was even involved.  The point is you are engaged in a scientific debate in which you appear to be blatantly disingenuous.

Quote
Started in 1996, the Center for Science and Culture is a Discovery Institute program which:
supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory;
supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design;
supports research by scientists and scholars in the social sciences and humanities exploring the impact of scientific materialism on culture.
encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, including the theory's scientific weaknesses as well is its strengths.


You decide what they are up to...

I ask for what they've done and all you give me is a mission statement?  What research have these people produced?


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on May 06, 2007, 09:01:20 pm
I'm going to drop out of these discussions because all it seems to do is enrage people. Much respect to everyone who participated..


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Baltar on May 06, 2007, 11:48:16 pm
Who is enraged here?


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on May 07, 2007, 05:11:55 am
Ok, looks like meep isn't as pissed off as I thought he was.

Quote
This is another digression.  You have plenty of guys here arguing the science...I was focusing on the philosophical aspects.  You didn't really answer my question.  You expressed interest in ID because it strongly implies some purpose to life.  I was questioning the sense in this since you've already conceded an inability to tell what that purpose may be.


I believe that life is an alien technolgy because I do not believe the genetic code could arise by chance. (I'll spare you all the scientific arguments.) By indirect reasoning I conclude purpose since all technology that we build is for a purpose.

Quote
You haven't really explained this...you've just restated your original premise.  How does ascribing naturalistic causes to the formation of life imply lack of purpose?  Does 'the great watchmaker' mean anything to you?

Because naturalistic forces are simply characteristics or proporties of energy and matter.

Quote
Huh?  I'm not quite sure what you were saying here.  You seem to be suggesting some kind of dichotomy between naturalistic & purpose.  Moreover you are attempting to link 'naturalistic' to evolution as though it were automatically the case...

I'm saying that the current evolutionary paradigm only attributes naturalistic forces to evolution in biology. The fact that at the very basis of life is run by a chemical coded system negates this assumtion in my view.

Quote
I ask for what they've done and all you give me is a mission statement?  What research have these people produced?

Scott Minnich is deleting genes in flagella producing bacteria and exploring the hypothisis of irreducible complexity. Other than that I do not know. I assume they are granting research money to like minded scientists.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Baltar on May 08, 2007, 03:59:05 am
I believe that life is an alien technolgy because I do not believe the genetic code could arise by chance. (I'll spare you all the scientific arguments.) By indirect reasoning I conclude purpose since all technology that we build is for a purpose.

That still doesn't really address my point.  You don't know what the purpose is.  I just find it difficult to fathom why you would be so attracted to the idea of some kind of implied purpose in the makings of life when you can't claim to know what that is.

Quote
Because naturalistic forces are simply characteristics or proporties of energy and matter.

You could still argue that the 'designer' just set things up in the beginning.  I mean, you have to at least concede that your designer is perfectly ok with forcing all life everywhere in the world to live in unrelenting savagery with itself over scarce resources.  How's that for naturalistic forces?

Quote
Scott Minnich is deleting genes in flagella producing bacteria and exploring the hypothisis of irreducible complexity. Other than that I do not know. I assume they are granting research money to like minded scientists.

Minnich admitted in court that his research in that area was only minimally peer reviewed.  Also, it is quite clear from the Institute's website that it is not a genuine research institute.  It looks clearly like an activist/political website that makes value judgements and appears disingenuous.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: jucce on May 08, 2007, 05:16:10 am
Quote
What kind of mechanism would stop the genetic change at a certain point?

Quote
Natural selection is cumulative, biologists don't see any barriers from micro- to macroevolution. What kind of biological or logical barriers would there be?

This mechanism does:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcTayxEblio&mode=related&search=


The genome of every species has mutational "hot spots" and a large number of jumping genes. We are finding that these jumps and alterations to genetic code happen in safe areas. Areas that it's ok to introduce changes. This is why cloned lab mice can have a different color coat, different immune system, different arrangements of neurons etc . than the parent they were cloned from.

Basicly this insures individualality. Genetic mutations to code that build organs for example, are spliced out and repaird.




Yes, biologists are well aware of jumping genes (transposons). However transposons can cause all kinds of disease and aren't constrained to some safe areas, nor are mutational hot spots. And transposons are mostly a separate process from genetic mutations.

As I'm sure you know the DNA repair system is not perfect. Mutations will slip through sometimes. And I see no basis for the claim that the DNA repair system is partial and perfectly repairs mutations in some areas and ignores it in other.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Death 999 on May 09, 2007, 04:57:18 pm
It does have some areas it protects more than others, though. This is not intelligent design as RTyp has suggested, of course; it's evolution influenced by heuristic guidelines that themselves evolved.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on May 09, 2007, 11:21:55 pm
Here's an article from Scientific American, 2003

http://www.imb.uq.edu.au/download/large/TheUnseenGenome.pdf

Some more interesting paragraphs.

"The persistence of pseudogenes is in itself evidence for their activity.  This is a serious problem for evolution, as it is expected that natural selection would remove this type of DNA if it were useless, since DNA manufactured by the cell is energetically costly.  Because of the lack of selective pressure on this neutral DNA, one would expect that ‘old’ pseudogenes would be scrambled beyond recognition as a result of accumulated random mutations.  Moreover, a removal mechanism for neutral DNA is now known."


“I think this will come to be a classic story of orthodoxy derailing objective analysis of the facts, in this case for a quarter of a century,” Mattick says. “The failure to recognize the full implications of this particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information in the form of RNA molecules—may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology."

This article isn't from ID "hacks" either. The genetic revolution is under way and in my opinion the outcome doesn't look good for pure darwinian mechanisims.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Death 999 on May 10, 2007, 04:35:18 pm
Yes, they discovered that 'junk' DNA is kept around in case it's needed, and it can be turned on by small mutations. The practice of doing this itself evolved.

That is all. I remember the article.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Lukipela on May 10, 2007, 07:12:20 pm
The genetic revolution is under way and in my opinion the outcome doesn't look good for pure darwinian mechanisims.

When the genetic revolution comes, your kind will be the first to be put up against the wall. Well, unless you have proper genes of course, like me.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on May 10, 2007, 11:05:19 pm
The genetic revolution is under way and in my opinion the outcome doesn't look good for pure darwinian mechanisims.

When the genetic revolution comes, your kind will be the first to be put up against the wall. Well, unless you have proper genes of course, like me.

I'm cool with that, as long as I get a cigarette and a blindfold.. ;)


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: jucce on May 11, 2007, 06:29:38 am
Here's an article from Scientific American, 2003

http://www.imb.uq.edu.au/download/large/TheUnseenGenome.pdf

Some more interesting paragraphs.

"The persistence of pseudogenes is in itself evidence for their activity.  This is a serious problem for evolution, as it is expected that natural selection would remove this type of DNA if it were useless, since DNA manufactured by the cell is energetically costly.  Because of the lack of selective pressure on this neutral DNA, one would expect that ‘old’ pseudogenes would be scrambled beyond recognition as a result of accumulated random mutations.  Moreover, a removal mechanism for neutral DNA is now known."


“I think this will come to be a classic story of orthodoxy derailing objective analysis of the facts, in this case for a quarter of a century,” Mattick says. “The failure to recognize the full implications of this particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information in the form of RNA molecules—may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology."

This article isn't from ID "hacks" either. The genetic revolution is under way and in my opinion the outcome doesn't look good for pure darwinian mechanisims.

Yes, those are some interesting theories. However I don't see how they clash with evolution or resonate with ID. He himself says that his theories fit with the theory of evolution.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on May 13, 2007, 03:36:46 pm
Quote
Yes, those are some interesting theories. However I don't see how they clash with evolution or resonate with ID. He himself says that his theories fit with the theory of evolution.

...I’ve interacted with other pro-evolution individuals who grudgingly admit that some of what used to be considered junk “may not be”, but inevitably they will still argue that “the vast majority of non-coding DNA does not have any function”.    Why does this line of reasoning seem to be so important to evolutionists?    I can think of two reasons.    For one, if only 2% of human DNA is “functional”, then there is a lot less information that had to be produced by random mutations and natural selection.    If even 10% of the genome is functional, that would be 5 times more information.   If 50% of the genome is functional, that means 25 times more information.    Pretty soon the amount of information contained in the genomes of the various species proves to be enormous if it is attributed to evolution.    Another reason “junk” appeals to the evolutionists is because it would seem to run counter to the idea of an Intelligent Designer (or Creator).   We can see that in Dawkins’ statements above.   But, more importantly, pro-evolution websites have built major arguments in support of evolution based upon the idea of “shared errors” (shared junk), as proof of evolution.

The Talk Origins Archive, perhaps the number one pro-evolution website (along with “Pandas Thumb”), has two articles that rely on the “shared errors” argument in support of evolution.  The Talk Origins authors detail a number of different classes of “Junk DNA” that they claim prove common descent.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#transposons
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

Panda’s Thumb also finds it important to argue for “Junk DNA”:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/another_example.html

In the rest of this section I will show how those arguments are being obliterated by the evidence pouring in from molecular biology and genetics research....


Article from:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/images/Pseudogenes/Pseudogenes.doc


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Death 999 on May 13, 2007, 06:31:33 pm
Why was that post mostly itals?

Anyway, there's a big difference between 'not used at the moment' which is the kind of junk this stuff still is, and 'never could be useful'.

And how many of these junk genes are near duplicates of existing genes? Oh, right, quite a few. That 25 x information is illusory.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Baltar on May 13, 2007, 06:55:20 pm
RType, this article is shit.  It isn't remotely scientific with all of this colored language.  Alleging that 'pro-evolution' folks are just clinging to the notion of junk DNA to counter creationists...evidence 'annihilated' by genetic research....I can't believe the amount of allegations and colored language in this work.  Who is the author?

Interesting that this article calls the controversy a 'war' and seems to acknowledge that the position doesn't yet have evidence on its side--and that the primary battlegrounds seem to be in 'the courtrooms, classrooms and even at the polls', not...oh, say....within the scientific community.  It begs a few questions, like why push this so ardently to begin with, and who was this article really intended for?


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on May 13, 2007, 09:53:02 pm
So "junk Dna" *isn't* a strong argument for evolution presented at talk origins and panda's thumb? I notice how you don't argue against the claims made but just dismiss it all as shit. Psuedo genes are used to argue and establish genomic evolutionary relationships no matter how badly you may want to dismiss this.

Also , don't you see how Darwinism is becoming a dogmatic religion in it's own right and resembles the very thing you hate?

Watch these video's with an open mind and tell me what they are saying isn't true:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF9B6b2SVoI&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raW6BQscwh4&mode=related&search=

Darwinism *is* becoming the athiest religion. We don't celebrate Einstein, Galileo or Newton day. Darwin day has replaced Lincoln's birthday in the U.S. This is how evolution is indeed becoming "more than a theory".



Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Death 999 on May 13, 2007, 10:03:20 pm
So "junk Dna" *isn't* a strong argument for evolution presented at talk origins and panda's thumb?

So the first link to junk dna if you search the talk origins archive isn't about the uses of junk dna? OMG! look! It is!

THIS kind of purpose supports evolution even more strongly than the lack of purpose it was thought to have before! If you read the sciAm article completely, you'd know that.

I notice how you don't argue against the claims made but just dismiss it all as shit.

We did argue against it, successfully, and it is shit. Please stop handing us shit.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: xenoclone on May 13, 2007, 11:48:35 pm
Two quick points:

1- What scientific evidence is there for ID? Mind you, perceived flaws in evolution (often due to semantic misinterpretations) do not count.

2- I'm doing my thesis in evolvable hardware using genetic algorithms. It's not uncommon to see a macro-sized jump in fitness amongst a bunch of micro-sized improvements. And I do zero to give the GA "knowledge" about what its population members should look like. I just don't see how the mechanism is supposed to not work. It works for me!


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Baltar on May 14, 2007, 12:11:47 am
So "junk Dna" *isn't* a strong argument for evolution presented at talk origins and panda's thumb? I notice how you don't argue against the claims made but just dismiss it all as shit. Psuedo genes are used to argue and establish genomic evolutionary relationships no matter how badly you may want to dismiss this.

No, I didn't just dismiss it as shit.  I told you exactly why I thought it was after I said so.  Too bad I used harsh language so that you could focus on that and not address the real issue.  That article was unscientific and unprofessional.  I ask again, who in the hell is that author?

Quote
Also , don't you see how Darwinism is becoming a dogmatic religion in it's own right and resembles the very thing you hate?

mmmmm.....nope.

Quote
Watch these video's with an open mind and tell me what they are saying isn't true:

Ah, I see.  So if I don't come back with a changed mind then I must be 'closed minded'.

Quote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF9B6b2SVoI&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raW6BQscwh4&mode=related&search=

Darwinism *is* becoming the athiest religion. We don't celebrate Einstein, Galileo or Newton day. Darwin day has replaced Lincoln's birthday in the U.S. This is how evolution is indeed becoming "more than a theory".


Again, shit.  This is such an obvious creationist diatribe how can you not see this?  Moreover, you quickly dismiss clearly uneducated creationists/ID folks yet are *very* quick to accuse the evolutionist camp of being dogmatic.

What a ludicrious argument....I didn't even know that their *was* a Darwin Day.  He just rattles off a list of groups and activities seen as promoting atheism & evolution.  How does this advance his case in any way?  None of this has to do with 1) scientific venues or 2) our classrooms.  Oh no!  'Scientific Gospel Productions' is giving a concert!  Surely darwin's dogma is getting rammed down our childrens' throats!  I could go anywhere on the web and find similar activities on both sides of the aisle.  In fact I could go find a wackjob for just about any cause.  Does it mean anything? 

Funnier still, this guy paints a picture wildly differing from my own experience.  In all of my years of public schooling, I've *never* had a teacher that was actually supportive of evolution.  They've all pretty much said outright that they don't support it and put on a whole act about how they begrudgingly have no choice but to teach it.   Consequently they don't even try that hard to teach it and just dance around it.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Cedric6014 on May 14, 2007, 08:46:54 am

In all of my years of public schooling, I've *never* had a teacher that was actually supportive of evolution.  They've all pretty much said outright that they don't support it and put on a whole act about how they begrudgingly have no choice but to teach it.   Consequently they don't even try that hard to teach it and just dance around it.

Wow, only in America.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on May 14, 2007, 04:57:29 pm
Two quick points:

1- What scientific evidence is there for ID? Mind you, perceived flaws in evolution (often due to semantic misinterpretations) do not count.

2- I'm doing my thesis in evolvable hardware using genetic algorithms. It's not uncommon to see a macro-sized jump in fitness amongst a bunch of micro-sized improvements. And I do zero to give the GA "knowledge" about what its population members should look like. I just don't see how the mechanism is supposed to not work. It works for me!

If this is such a wonderful development tool as you claim, why can't scientists reproduce these micro sized improvements to macro scale jumps in the lab with artificial random mutaion on living specimins? There is no reason why they shouldn't be able to do this if evolution proceeds as predicted.

Death and Baltar.. Whoa, cool your jets for a moment and hear me out please.

1st, Death you are correct, Talk origins has updated their argument to now include functional junk DNA. Funny how useless  junk worked in their favor but now, wow, functional "junk" is suddenly working in their favor as well. Ever notice how all scientifc discovery just goes to show how unfalsifyable random mutaion and natural selection is? There is absolutely nothing to discover that can change this mindset.

Baltar about the dogma I spoke of. An honest question: Why do sites like Panda's Thumb, Skeptics Dictionary, Talk Orgins etc. etc. pour so much time and resource into countering the arguments of "religious rubes"? I can understand the creationist side as they are trying to square data with a literal interpretation of the bible. But what of the evolution side? Why does it seem that Darwinists are doing the same with scientific data into evolutionary theory? Why is this such a hot button topic and if evolutionary theory is on such firm scientific underpinnings, why even bother?

Doesn't this all seem to be a battle between atheism and creationism? Two religious viewpoints. Neither side is about objective science it seems. Ever notice the creationist fish and the Darwin fish with legs on the back of cars around your town? This is pure, world view, creationist vs. atheism and I assert that Darwin IS being lifted to sainthood, perhaps even prophet status by many even if you, yourself don't.

I wish I was completely objective, I admit I have bias. But it honestly doesn't matter to me if we evolved from single celled organisms 4 billion years ago. It doesn't matter if life formed from the prebiotic oceans. But I have a right to be skptical of such claims without solid scientific proof. And furthermore, you are all equally right to hold your opinions.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Novus on May 14, 2007, 05:56:21 pm
If this is such a wonderful development tool as you claim, why can't scientists reproduce these micro sized improvements to macro scale jumps in the lab with artificial random mutaion on living specimins? There is no reason why they shouldn't be able to do this if evolution proceeds as predicted.
... Apart from the time and population size required to generate enough changes to satisfy the "macroevolution" criterion.

Quote
1st, Death you are correct, Talk origins has updated their argument to now include functional junk DNA. Funny how useless  junk worked in their favor but now, wow, functional "junk" is suddenly working in their favor as well. Ever notice how all scientifc discovery just goes to show how unfalsifyable random mutaion and natural selection is? There is absolutely nothing to discover that can change this mindset.
Unfalsifiable? If there were no junk DNA at all, that would be a severe blow to evolution (and a good argument for irreducible complexity, and thus ID). Even large amounts of junk DNA, on the other hand, make sense in an evolutionary framework if they allow some other advantage (such as becoming useful after a mutation!).

I fail to see why a small amount of DNA previously identified as "junk" being found to have a function matters one way or the other.

Quote
Why do sites like Panda's Thumb, Skeptics Dictionary, Talk Orgins etc. etc. pour so much time and resource into countering the arguments of "religious rubes"?
Because they're afraid the "religious rubes" are going to start dictating what they're allowed or required to teach and/or research?

Quote
Doesn't this all seem to be a battle between atheism and creationism? Two religious viewpoints. Neither side is about objective science it seems.
To some extent the issue of the existence of God is independent of the mechanism through which life as we know it has developed; God may choose to allow evolution to occur. Conversely, life on Earth may have been designed by a designer less than God.

Quote
Ever notice the creationist fish and the Darwin fish with legs on the back of cars around your town?
No.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Lukipela on May 14, 2007, 06:12:33 pm
Quote
Ever notice the creationist fish and the Darwin fish with legs on the back of cars around your town?
No.

This is one of the things that annoys me with this. RT seems to assume that all the world is exactly the same as wherever he is.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Death 999 on May 14, 2007, 08:41:28 pm
1st, Death you are correct, Talk origins has updated their argument to now include functional junk DNA. Funny how useless  junk worked in their favor but now, wow, functional "junk" is suddenly working in their favor as well.

The hierarchy of  the way things could be in terms of DNA supporting or going against evolution, sorted with best for evolution on top, has always been:
1 self-editing, with undelete capability, capable of bringing back scraps.
2 some limited self-editing capability, sometimes leaving scraps behind, which are not expressed
3 like 2, but only for things that are actually expressed in the animal (vestigial organs)
4 creature is locally optimized, but not globally
5 creature is globally optimized

Darwin only had the evidence to get 3. With the discovery of DNA and protected regions and accelerated mutation while under stress pushed us up to 2. Big evidence for 2 was the junk DNA. Discovery that junk DNA could be reincorporated usefully brought us to 1.

Do you now understand how this fits together?



Why is this such a hot button topic and if evolutionary theory is on such firm scientific underpinnings, why even bother?

Because discovering the truth doesn't do the populace any good if they are not taught it?

Ever notice the creationist fish and the Darwin fish with legs on the back of cars around your town? This is pure, world view, creationist vs. atheism and I assert that Darwin IS being lifted to sainthood, perhaps even prophet status by many even if you, yourself don't.

The difference is the darwin fish is a joke. It was, I believe, initially a play off of the 'jesus' fish that have been around a lot longer. Have you seen the variant with the leggy fish humping each other? It is a joke with serious content behind it, and it is not an attempt to bypass that serious content. Much as the daily show is not an attempt to bypass people actually getting the news.

Darwin is an important figure, sure, but not for personal reverence (sainthood my ass); and what he knew is not the end of what we know.

Let me draw an analogy to this reasoning:
Have you noticed the bumper stickers like "Bush Cheney '04" and "Kerry Edwards '04" on cars? That just proves that all politics is pure worldview with no substance behind it at all.

And for some reason the worldview of the populace has shifted against Bush by around 85% over the past few years, due to entirely emotional and worldview grounds, utterly nothing at all to do with this thing we call 'reality'.

You might notice that the above two paragraphs are kind of ridiculous. That is what your argument amounted to.

And furthermore, you are all equally right to hold your opinions.

What here is opinion? That it doesn't matter to you if we evolved from prebiotic soup 4 billion years ago... that's the only opinion I've seen here. The rest is factual claims trying to survive under the aegis of being opinion.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: xenoclone on May 14, 2007, 10:47:45 pm
Quote
If this is such a wonderful development tool as you claim, why can't scientists reproduce these micro sized improvements to macro scale jumps in the lab with artificial random mutaion on living specimins? There is no reason why they shouldn't be able to do this if evolution proceeds as predicted.

In a way we do. Ever heard of a wild poodle? It doesn't exist. Poodles were evolved by humans using breeding. It was a totally natural process. I'd call it a macro-sized jump. Certainly a poodle can't go back to the wild or breed with wolves.

Plus, I think it's a big misnomer on both sides of the debate that animals are "perfectly" adapted to their environment. There are useless remnants of evolution everywhere. Why do humans have an appendix? If we remove it, we live just fine... but if it goes bad, it can kill us. What kind of intelligent design went into that?


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Death 999 on May 14, 2007, 11:03:49 pm
When an evolutionist says something is perfectly adapted, it's unnecessary hyperbole. Such a claim is not a part of the actual argument.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Baltar on May 15, 2007, 04:46:04 am
Baltar about the dogma I spoke of. An honest question: Why do sites like Panda's Thumb, Skeptics Dictionary, Talk Orgins etc. etc. pour so much time and resource into countering the arguments of "religious rubes"? I can understand the creationist side as they are trying to square data with a literal interpretation of the bible. But what of the evolution side? Why does it seem that Darwinists are doing the same with scientific data into evolutionary theory? Why is this such a hot button topic and if evolutionary theory is on such firm scientific underpinnings, why even bother?

I wouldn't say that what those organizations do is the 'same' as what creationist organizations do at all.  I dunno what comparisons you can make in terms of effort either.  But to get to your point I can think of two good reasons:

*Out of intellectual honesty.  If someone raises an argument, even a deeply flawed one, it *should* get addressed on its own terms to show exactly where it is flawed. 

*The creationist movement is far too large to ignore.  It has short circuited scientific discussion by appealing directly to the populace and to the legal system without abiding by the rigors of the scientific method.  This state of affairs require social/political advocacy to educate the general public to act as a counterweight to creationist skullfuckery.

Quote
Doesn't this all seem to be a battle between atheism and creationism?

No.

Quote
Two religious viewpoints. Neither side is about objective science it seems. Ever notice the creationist fish and the Darwin fish with legs on the back of cars around your town? This is pure, world view, creationist vs. atheism and I assert that Darwin IS being lifted to sainthood, perhaps even prophet status by many even if you, yourself don't.

This is just stupid.  You are aware, as others have just pointed out, that this sort of thing is done in jest?  The fish with legs thing is about *mocking* creationists, it isn't about adopting 'revered' symbols or some such.  Do you honestly thing the band 'Scientific Gospel Productions' was so named to proselytize in the name of Darwin rather than an *obvious* tongue-in-cheek rip on Creationism?  I do see that the morons in your video didn't grasp that either.  Or simply didn't want to, more likely.

Quote
I wish I was completely objective, I admit I have bias. But it honestly doesn't matter to me if we evolved from single celled organisms 4 billion years ago. It doesn't matter if life formed from the prebiotic oceans. But I have a right to be skptical of such claims without solid scientific proof. And furthermore, you are all equally right to hold your opinions.

Was there *anyone* who was actually trying to take away that right?


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Lukipela on May 15, 2007, 06:51:23 pm
Was there *anyone* who was actually trying to take away that right?

Yes, evil evilutionist dogma-spreading haters. Try and keep up, will you?

EDIT: Apparently this is also why "all the animals communicate and evolve together man, they're all tied into the program" is a valid scientific theory.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on May 16, 2007, 03:31:43 am

Quote
This is one of the things that annoys me with this. RT seems to assume that all the world is exactly the same as wherever he is.

Yes, I'm familiar with this myth. What a concept; that there's a whole world outside the borders of the Untied States, and a pretty important one at that.. Will you children hating, lie telling, atheistic, agenda spreading Darwinists stop at nothing? ;)

I'm convinced on the inside that there is somthing wrong with me... I'm beaten down again, I failed you...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSzq2m_HgJA

...(continued later)



Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on May 16, 2007, 09:47:52 pm
Quote
I wouldn't say that what those organizations do is the 'same' as what creationist organizations do at all.  I dunno what comparisons you can make in terms of effort either.  But to get to your point I can think of two good reasons:

They are doing the same thing, the exact same thing in fact. Many Creationists are shoe-horning the data to fit their religious texts. Talk origins is shoe- horning the data into their evolution philosophy. Those sites cherry pick data so badly you'd think it was harvest time at the orchard. you cannot seriously be this blind. Intellectual honesty? They virtually never admit weaknesses to thier claims. They are incapable of scientific honesty when they are drumming up support for an unfalsifiable paradigm. Want honesty? How about this: We don't know yet.  Wow, is that so hard?

Look at talk orgin's downplay of the genetic code as an example.. it's not really a code, or language but a cypher instead.. Notice they don't mention the cypher problem of only coding for 20 amino acids? once again, how about "We don't currently know." Or how about their explanation of the evolution of sex organs from asexual species? At least wikipedia got it right and said it is a mystery, but not our honest friends over at talk origins..

Talk origins is a propoganda tool, so please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting any sort of honesty.

These people have a theistic viewpoint to uphold, naturalistic darwinism. There is no other valid reasoning behind it.

Quote
*The creationist movement is far too large to ignore.  It has short circuited scientific discussion by appealing directly to the populace and to the legal system without abiding by the rigors of the scientific method.  This state of affairs require social/political advocacy to educate the general public to act as a counterweight to creationist skullfuckery.

Where? How have they short circuited scientifc discussion? By single cases in Kansas? Have they ever advocated carrying a bible to school? The ID founders want to teach evolution and teach MORE about it. Teach that it IS a theory and that it DOES have some legitimate scientific problems. Not teach it dogmatically straight towards a naturalistic theology as it is being taught now.

Quote
Quote
Doesn't this all seem to be a battle between atheism and creationism?

No.

It is man. That's exactly what it is.

Quote
This is just stupid.  You are aware, as others have just pointed out, that this sort of thing is done in jest?  The fish with legs thing is about *mocking* creationists, it isn't about adopting 'revered' symbols or some such.  Do you honestly thing the band 'Scientific Gospel Productions' was so named to proselytize in the name of Darwin rather than an *obvious* tongue-in-cheek rip on Creationism?  I do see that the morons in your video didn't grasp that either.  Or simply didn't want to, more likely.

Origin
In 1983, two friends involved in the southern California atheist and freethought movements, Al Seckel and John Edwards, co-created the Darwin fish design, which was first used on a freethought leaflet for Atheists United in 1984. It was then sold by Atheists United and other freethought groups, which got free permission from Seckel and Edwards throughout the 80s, to be used on bumper stickers and t-shirts.[1] Chris Gilman, a Hollywood prop maker, manufactured the first plastic car ornaments in 1990[


it is indeed a parody but atheisim IS a theistic viewpoint. Atheism has been around far longer than Darwin's time. Atheisim itself  is not founded on science but popularizes anything that supports it's theistic view. Also Google any athiest website and you'll find them selling the Darwin Fish there. It is being popularized as the icon for atheism.

Quote
Was there *anyone* who was actually trying to take away that right?

Of course not, I'm pointing out that I have good scientifc reason to doubt the theory. Your reason for advocating it seems to be based on nothing but hate.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on May 16, 2007, 10:04:40 pm


Quote
In a way we do. Ever heard of a wild poodle? It doesn't exist. Poodles were evolved by humans using breeding. It was a totally natural process. I'd call it a macro-sized jump. Certainly a poodle can't go back to the wild or breed with wolves.

Call me when those poodles start growing wings or horns. Macro evolution is above the species level. "Wild poodles" are not a new species.

Quote
Plus, I think it's a big misnomer on both sides of the debate that animals are "perfectly" adapted to their environment. There are useless remnants of evolution everywhere. Why do humans have an appendix? If we remove it, we live just fine... but if it goes bad, it can kill us. What kind of intelligent design went into that?

If I remove my tonsils I can live just fine. It they go bad they can harm me. Are my tonsils useless remnants? I can live without one of my kidneys as well...


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on May 16, 2007, 10:34:16 pm

Quote
No, I didn't just dismiss it as shit.  I told you exactly why I thought it was after I said so.  Too bad I used harsh language so that you could focus on that and not address the real issue.  That article was unscientific and unprofessional.  I ask again, who in the hell is that author?

You focused on the metaphoric words used in the article and provided zero substance, then simply dismissed it as shit. It's an opinion piece.Who gives a fuck who it is? Who are you? Who am I? What is wrong with opinion?
you have this recurring theme that if somthing isn't peer reviewed it is of no value whatsoever. Well what happens when the dogmatic establishment won't ALLOW you to publish? WTF  are these "outside of the box" thinkers supposed to do? Yes, you go public.

Quote
Quote
Watch these video's with an open mind and tell me what they are saying isn't true:

Quote
Ah, I see.  So if I don't come back with a changed mind then I must be 'closed minded'.

Of course not, just asking if you saw any truth at all in them. It's ok, I already knew your hateful position.

Quote
Again, shit.  This is such an obvious creationist diatribe how can you not see this?  Moreover, you quickly dismiss clearly uneducated creationists/ID folks yet are *very* quick to accuse the evolutionist camp of being dogmatic.

Who are the uneducated creationists?

Quote
What a ludicrious argument....I didn't even know that their *was* a Darwin Day.  He just rattles off a list of groups and activities seen as promoting atheism & evolution.  How does this advance his case in any way?  None of this has to do with 1) scientific venues or 2) our classrooms.  Oh no!  'Scientific Gospel Productions' is giving a concert!  Surely darwin's dogma is getting rammed down our childrens' throats!  I could go anywhere on the web and find similar activities on both sides of the aisle.  In fact I could go find a wackjob for just about any cause.  Does it mean anything? 


They were speaking specificly about Darwin Day and it's rise in recent years. The point wasn't to "advance his case" but to point out obvious double standards.

Quote
Funnier still, this guy paints a picture wildly differing from my own experience.  In all of my years of public schooling, I've *never* had a teacher that was actually supportive of evolution.  They've all pretty much said outright that they don't support it and put on a whole act about how they begrudgingly have no choice but to teach it.   Consequently they don't even try that hard to teach it and just dance around it.

I went to different schools than you and saw pretty much the opposite.  I was taught that human embryo's had gill slits.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: xenoclone on May 16, 2007, 11:42:16 pm

Call me when those poodles start growing wings or horns. Macro evolution is above the species level. "Wild poodles" are not a new species.

If I remove my tonsils I can live just fine. It they go bad they can harm me. Are my tonsils useless remnants? I can live without one of my kidneys as well...

Well first of all, evolution doesn't mean a wolf grows wings. I don't know where you'd expect that kind of change. Evolution means somewhere early in the evolutionary lineage there's a split that ultimately would lead to one branch of species developing distinct traits. You can't go from dog to bird and it's stupid to try that as a point. This is one of those classic ID arguments that is BS. I could very well just say to you "Well show me where a new species poofs out of nowhere into existence, then I'll believe ID."

As for kidney's... there's probably a higher probability of survival given a redundant kidney. So I wouldn't call that useless. Tonsils and appendix: yes.. again, what kind of intelligent design puts in parts that can kill the creature, but don't harm it when they're removed? ID would be Idiotic Design in that case. As an engineer, I don't put useless parts into a circuit that can cause it to break.

RType I think you're stretching a bit here. ;)



Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Baltar on May 17, 2007, 06:40:37 am
They are doing the same thing, the exact same thing in fact. Many Creationists are shoe-horning the data to fit their religious texts. Talk origins is shoe- horning the data into their evolution philosophy. Those sites cherry pick data so badly you'd think it was harvest time at the orchard. you cannot seriously be this blind. Intellectual honesty? They virtually never admit weaknesses to thier claims. They are incapable of scientific honesty when they are drumming up support for an unfalsifiable paradigm. Want honesty? How about this: We don't know yet.  Wow, is that so hard?

Look at talk orgin's downplay of the genetic code as an example.. it's not really a code, or language but a cypher instead.. Notice they don't mention the cypher problem of only coding for 20 amino acids? once again, how about "We don't currently know." Or how about their explanation of the evolution of sex organs from asexual species? At least wikipedia got it right and said it is a mystery, but not our honest friends over at talk origins..

Talk origins is a propoganda tool, so please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting any sort of honesty.

These people have a theistic viewpoint to uphold, naturalistic darwinism. There is no other valid reasoning behind it.

Well I have insulted your intelligence before and I will likely continue to do so in the future.  If you want to compare the guys advancing your pet 'theory' and writing your bullshit textbooks to a freaking usenet group then by all means please do.

I thought you were making a fairly general point about responses to creationist claims.  All I'm saying is that claims should get responded to in some context.



Quote
Where? How have they short circuited scientifc discussion? By single cases in Kansas?

So SOME short circuiting of the scientific method is ok then??

Quote
Have they ever advocated carrying a bible to school?

They aren't advocating anything overtly religious, but this whole movement is *clearly* designed to get a wedge in the door.  Whether the idea is to later manifest this with more direct influence I don't know, but at the very least they are clouding the general public's understanding of science in the hopes of attracting people to 'the flock'.  That much is obvious.

Quote
The ID founders want to teach evolution and teach MORE about it. Teach that it IS a theory and that it DOES have some legitimate scientific problems. Not teach it dogmatically straight towards a naturalistic theology as it is being taught now.

Ouch!  Two doozies here:

1) There you go reciting the mantra of 'evolution is just a theory'.  That relies on some bullshit colloquial definition of a theory that makes it sound iffy.  That way fundy pinheads can casually discard it.  It is actually very well established with a mountain of evidence from multiple disciplines.

2) Teaching it dogmatically?  Give me a break.  You are making this grand, sweeping statement already shot to shit by my own personal experience.  You are sounding a bit over dramatic with all this 'dogmatic' nonsense.  Look, it is like this: The whole point of a public education is to give a student a very broad understanding of the world.  In a science class they need to have a basic understanding of what is going on in the world of science.  Right now evolution is science.  Creationism is not.  I'm all for teaching criticism if it is the same level of criticism you would be directing at any other theories in any other lesson.  Given that at a public school level that would only be at a very general level (we aren't training kids to be molecular biologists when they earn their high school diploma after all).  I'm not ok with singling out evolution for additional criticism that wouldn't be afforded to other concepts; that would just be an indirect method of sabotaging science education.

Quote
It is man. That's exactly what it is.

No.  It isn't.  It is the scientific method versus a medieval mindfuck.  You are basically saying that the entire scientific establishment is a cabal of atheists trying to proselytize the general public in the ways of their theistic non-belief.

What makes this even more absolutely fucking insane in my mind is the fact that you, as an agnostic, are siding with a bunch of fundamentalists who *are* trying to proselytize the general public.  Moreover you've blatantly stereotyped your own ideological cousins earlier in this thread, and really do so again now with all these bullshit claims of an atheist conspiracy to 'raise Darwin to sainthood'.  What is so damned insane about this is that the people you side with will ultimately reduce you to second class citizenship if they get their way.  It is enough for me to question your authenticity when you claim to be an agnostic.  I realize you are just looking for the truth or whatnot but really, and at some level I can respect that, but this conspiracy shit needs to fucking go.

Quote
Origin
In 1983, two friends involved in the southern California atheist and freethought movements, Al Seckel and John Edwards, co-created the Darwin fish design, which was first used on a freethought leaflet for Atheists United in 1984. It was then sold by Atheists United and other freethought groups, which got free permission from Seckel and Edwards throughout the 80s, to be used on bumper stickers and t-shirts.[1] Chris Gilman, a Hollywood prop maker, manufactured the first plastic car ornaments in 1990[

OH GOOD LAWD!!!!1  NEXT THEY WILL BE BUILDING A PLACE OF UNWORSHIP!!!!!111   SWEET WEEBUS SAVE US!!!!11

Quote
it is indeed a parody but atheisim IS a theistic viewpoint. Atheism has been around far longer than Darwin's time. Atheisim itself  is not founded on science but popularizes anything that supports it's theistic view. Also Google any athiest website and you'll find them selling the Darwin Fish there. It is being popularized as the icon for atheism.

FFS it doesn't *mean* the same thing to atheists (or agnostics, for that matter, since they can use them as well....pretty fucking weird for you to typify the symbol in this way).  Still don't see anything about deifying Darwin or some shit like that.  Last I checked people don't wear crosses on their neck as a joke (hey!  There's an idea!) so the point is different symbols *mean* different things--one is mockery and one is revery--two completely different sets of emotions.  I've yet to see anyone deify the troops with a yellow ribbon.

Quote
Of course not, I'm pointing out that I have good scientifc reason to doubt the theory. Your reason for advocating it seems to be based on nothing but hate.

Mwahahahahhaa.  Which one here was stereotyping a whole group of people as being untrustworthy and has been railing on and on about how they are under attack by the dogmatic followers of Darwin?


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Baltar on May 17, 2007, 07:19:46 am
You focused on the metaphoric words used in the article and provided zero substance, then simply dismissed it as shit. It's an opinion piece.Who gives a fuck who it is? Who are you? Who am I? What is wrong with opinion?

Well I'll give you that.  I didn't attack it directly.  Let me state things more clearly.  It just repeats your same fucking mantra of your conspiratorial shit.

Quote
you have this recurring theme that if somthing isn't peer reviewed it is of no value whatsoever. Well what happens when the dogmatic establishment won't ALLOW you to publish? WTF  are these "outside of the box" thinkers supposed to do? Yes, you go public.

There you go again.  Short circuit the scientific method just because you think you are on to something that EVERY MAJOR ESTABLISHMENT OF SCIENCE IN THE WORLD is against.

Quote
Of course not, just asking if you saw any truth at all in them. It's ok, I already knew your hateful position.

The hateful position of not typifying the entire scientific establishment as being a cabal of evil atheists?

Quote
Who are the uneducated creationists?

You know, the mindless fuckwits talking about the perfect 'design' of the banana for the human hand?  The jar of peanut butter that 'depends' on evolution not being real?  Those guys whose statements you casually dismissed while you paraded around maliciously edited videos of Dawkins?

Quote
They were speaking specificly about Darwin Day and it's rise in recent years. The point wasn't to "advance his case" but to point out obvious double standards.

Wouldn't the double standards then be his case?  Point is those videos were just a build up of irrelevant shit that was intended to leave the viewer connecting the dots that there was some horrible conspiracy of atheists, oh, and moreover common culture is somehow dominated by them.  Also some utterly irrelevant bullshit about how some science disciplines predated darwin!  Apparently since there were discoveries before 1800 everything since must be a lie!!!

The upshot is that you keep bringing up all this stuff trying to intimate some grand conspiracy of atheists to run our schools, culture, and science.  I question your authenticity because you claim to be agnostic yet that is so monstrously insensitive to both the atheist and agnostic communities.  You are talking about a very small percentage of the population.  I'm pretty sure atheists aren't taking over anything.  In fact, according to recent polls they are even less trusted in the US than gays.

Quote
I went to different schools than you and saw pretty much the opposite.  I was taught that human embryo's had gill slits.

Ok.  Fuck you.  Maybe a teacher just doesn't know what they are doing or are just teaching ancient material.  I'm not going to defend that.  That doesn't mean trump the scientific method and cram a bunch of deceitful shit into the curriculum.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Lukipela on May 17, 2007, 05:08:38 pm

Quote
This is one of the things that annoys me with this. RT seems to assume that all the world is exactly the same as wherever he is.

Yes, I'm familiar with this myth. What a concept; that there's a whole world outside the borders of the Untied States, and a pretty important one at that.. Will you children hating, lie telling, atheistic, agenda spreading Darwinists stop at nothing? ;)

I'm convinced on the inside that there is somthing wrong with me... I'm beaten down again, I failed you...

I'm confused. How is this in any way adressign the issue. You have (in this and previous threads) repeatedyl made the claim that evolution is taught as pure truth and beauty, and that evolution is a dogma that requires that everyone just believe it. You have been challenged on this numerous times in every thread you've spouted this. I might add that not only non-americans have challenged you, but a lot of people from your country does not recognize the picture of evolutionary dogma you so eagerly paint. You have yet to provide any sort of credible source for this statement. Could you please link me to material that give overviews of how evolution is taught within the American school system, and how it is taught in the rest of the world. It's be nice to get some actual facts, rather than all this undefinable hogwash about "evolutionists are claiming ultimate truth status in our school, won't anyone think of the children!"

Also, since you are suddenly replying to my posts again, feel free to go back through the topic and handle the earlier ones as well. I have no idea why you just suddenly stopped responding to my posts even though you managed to keep posting a lot more.

Quote from: Baltar
There you go again.  Short circuit the scientific method just because you think you are on to something that EVERY MAJOR ESTABLISHMENT OF SCIENCE IN THE WORLD is against.

To be fair, when your argument goes along the lines that he has described so far (genetic code comunicates interspecially and decides when to evolve based on a optimization program), it might be hard to get published in any credible magazine. Of course, the question is wether you don't get published because of the dogmatic establishment, or because you have a unscientific theory.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: meep-eep on May 18, 2007, 11:48:17 pm
This thread was deleted. Because moderator actions get logged, I assume this was done by RTyp06, who, as the person who created the first message in the thread, was the only other person able to delete it (that has been fixed though).
It took quite a bit of time, but I've managed to merge the thread from yesterday's backup of the forum database into the current database. All messages in this thread in between the time of the backup and the time of deletion are gone forever though.

I don't know what the reason for the deletion was, but I find destroying the work of others highly contemptible.
The fact that the forum configuration didn't disallow it can be no justification.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Baltar on May 19, 2007, 12:35:41 am
Let's just say that I....(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y284/cybercoolie/Victory.jpg)


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Ivan Ivanov on May 19, 2007, 09:00:18 am
This thread was deleted. Because moderator actions get logged, I assume this was done by RTyp06, who, as the person who created the first message in the thread, was the only other person able to delete it (that has been fixed though).
It took quite a bit of time, but I've managed to merge the thread from yesterday's backup of the forum database into the current database. All messages in this thread in between the time of the backup and the time of deletion are gone forever though.

I don't know what the reason for the deletion was, but I find destroying the work of others highly contemptible.
The fact that the forum configuration didn't disallow it can be no justification.


To be fair there was some nasty name calling done by Baltar, which I don't think is allowed.
But since RTyp decided to destroy the evidence of it instead of notifying the mods, I guess he was fine with that.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Baltar on May 19, 2007, 03:42:22 pm
I will be the first to admit that my posts prior to the deletion were *not* my finest hour (well ok, second to admit).  I think RType has been quite undignified for some time now, and I was not impressed with some of the accusations he leveled at me, hence the outburst.  Not that it makes my harsh language ok.  My apologies to anyone offended.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Lukipela on May 20, 2007, 05:16:08 pm
I will be the first to admit that my posts prior to the deletion were *not* my finest hour (well ok, second to admit).  I think RType has been quite undignified for some time now, and I was not impressed with some of the accusations he leveled at me, hence the outburst.  Not that it makes my harsh language ok.  My apologies to anyone offended.

Thriding this. I actually intended to report your post when I got back home, as I felt you and RTyp both had managed to get way off topic and far too personal. But when I got home the thread was gone.

I guess the right have your opinions respected rather than erased doesn't apply to everyone.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on May 20, 2007, 09:17:35 pm
I'm done.  Any unfinished business should be handled privately. Thanx.



Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: meep-eep on May 21, 2007, 02:20:21 pm
Util you find some new video with something evolution-related you don't understand, and it starts all over again.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on May 21, 2007, 10:59:46 pm
I didn't know it was against the rules to delete a topic. Now I do, so it would never happen again. That said, it seemed appropriate at the time since the thread was veering way off course and filling up with vulgarities at an alarming rate. Three similar topics now and I am done, it's not worth it.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: meep-eep on May 21, 2007, 11:28:59 pm
It's not so much the rules, it's decency. Despite some less-than-friendly language in the end, people have put time and thought into this thread. There shouldn't have to be a rule to not to delete that.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Baltar on May 22, 2007, 12:28:51 am
Meep, just so that everyone knows....have you removed the ability for members to delete threads they started?


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on May 22, 2007, 12:58:32 am
Util you find some new video with something evolution-related you don't understand, and it starts all over again.

It seems I've been a bit misleading for you to hold such a thought. The truth is that I understand these evolution related links just fine. but in my area of the world it is dusk and there is nothing like a good, Just-So story  before bed time to send me straight to sleepy land... ;)

p.s. Words can only hurt if you let them - Carlos Mancia




Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on May 22, 2007, 01:27:49 am
Hey baltar.. At first I thought you were just trying to be intimidating so I played along, then you really seemed to be upset, that is when I (wrongly) cleared the topic. I really meant it when I said the last thing I wanted to do is enrage people. nobody had ever acted like that in any previous realted thread and I was actually puzzled. Im really not as intense as I may appear to be.

Personally, I have skin of kevlar and virtually nothing phases me. I apologize if I offended you. Accept if you like, or not.. It's up to you.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: meep-eep on May 22, 2007, 02:21:30 am
Baltar: yes, it should no longer be possible for non-moderators to remove threads.
Next time if someone has a problem with a posting, just report it to the moderators (there's a link at the bottom right of each posting to do just that), and we'll decide whether it's bad enough to be removed.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: jucce on May 22, 2007, 03:56:39 am
Quote
Yes, those are some interesting theories. However I don't see how they clash with evolution or resonate with ID. He himself says that his theories fit with the theory of evolution.

...I’ve interacted with other pro-evolution individuals who grudgingly admit that some of what used to be considered junk “may not be”, but inevitably they will still argue that “the vast majority of non-coding DNA does not have any function”.    Why does this line of reasoning seem to be so important to evolutionists?    I can think of two reasons.    For one, if only 2% of human DNA is “functional”, then there is a lot less information that had to be produced by random mutations and natural selection.    If even 10% of the genome is functional, that would be 5 times more information.   If 50% of the genome is functional, that means 25 times more information.    Pretty soon the amount of information contained in the genomes of the various species proves to be enormous if it is attributed to evolution.    Another reason “junk” appeals to the evolutionists is because it would seem to run counter to the idea of an Intelligent Designer (or Creator).   We can see that in Dawkins’ statements above.   But, more importantly, pro-evolution websites have built major arguments in support of evolution based upon the idea of “shared errors” (shared junk), as proof of evolution.

The Talk Origins Archive, perhaps the number one pro-evolution website (along with “Pandas Thumb”), has two articles that rely on the “shared errors” argument in support of evolution.  The Talk Origins authors detail a number of different classes of “Junk DNA” that they claim prove common descent.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#transposons
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

Panda’s Thumb also finds it important to argue for “Junk DNA”:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/another_example.html

In the rest of this section I will show how those arguments are being obliterated by the evidence pouring in from molecular biology and genetics research....


Article from:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/images/Pseudogenes/Pseudogenes.doc


I actually sent him an e-mail and asked him. And he says that it doesn't clash with the theory of evolution. In fact in his papers he gives hypothesis dealing with how this system could have evolved.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Lukipela on May 22, 2007, 07:59:28 pm
It seems I've been a bit misleading for you to hold such a thought. The truth is that I understand these evolution related links just fine.

This is quite untrue, unless the purpose of all your threads so far has simply been trolling. You've demonstrated a lack of knowledge in many areas of the evolutionary theory (ranging from basic aspects such as whether a mutation has to be advantageous or not to be carried forward, to esoteric ones as your incomprehension regarding the cosmos which D_99 pointed out).

So either you do not know a lot of basic evolutionary theory as you claim, or you are simply trolling. Which one is it? Or perhaps both? Your follow up:

Quote
but in my area of the world it is dusk and there is nothing like a good, Just-So story  before bed time to send me straight to sleepy land... ;)

Seems to at least indicate the later.

Quote
p.s. Words can only hurt if you let them - Carlos Mancia

Interesting. Is he in any way related to Carlos Mencia, the thieving comedian?


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on May 23, 2007, 12:07:44 am
Good point EP. Rectified.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Elvish Pillager on May 23, 2007, 12:14:34 am
Umm, RTyp06...?

I'm done.  Any unfinished business should be handled privately. Thanx.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Death 999 on May 23, 2007, 05:35:29 pm
You've demonstrated a lack of knowledge in many areas ... to esoteric ones as your incomprehension regarding the cosmos which D_99 pointed out).

Man, I completely forgot about that. Good memory! And I got to close the thread, too.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Baltar on June 14, 2007, 06:19:37 am
Hey!  Look at the great stuff RTyp06's friends are up to!

http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/ars-takes-a-field-trip-the-creation-museum.ars (http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/ars-takes-a-field-trip-the-creation-museum.ars)

God Bless America!


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on June 18, 2007, 11:45:20 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaU4moNEBU

Just for you "buddy" ... ;)


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: meep-eep on June 19, 2007, 01:09:06 am
When I saw the new posting icon indicating a new post in "Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis" by RTyp06, my first thought was "Not another hit-and-run video attack...".
It was also my second thought, after opening the posting.

Didn't I read here just a few postings ago that you were done with this kind of thing? Or was that just a happy dream?


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Elvish Pillager on June 19, 2007, 01:20:51 am
Lucky me, my browser isn't set up to display videos. ;D


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: RTyp06 on June 19, 2007, 01:43:50 am
When I saw the new posting icon indicating a new post in "Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis" by RTyp06, my first thought was "Not another hit-and-run video attack...".
It was also my second thought, after opening the posting.

Riiigggghhhttt...  Hit and Run video attack? *Laff* Nice flair for the dramatic.  ;)

I figure Baltar can at least criticize me on somthing I do represent (scientific observation) rather than a complete fabrication of somthing I do not. Doubtful he'll ever be able to seperate the two. but I am done discussing this topic nonetheless..



Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Baltar on June 21, 2007, 05:29:46 am
That I mentioned you or called them 'friends' is merely incidental.  I was just pointing out the creationist museum to change topic, albeit slightly.

It is certainly interesting that you can casually dismiss the religious underpinnings of the creationist movement while vilifying evolutionary biology as some sort of atheist conspiracy.


Title: Re: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis
Post by: Death 999 on June 22, 2007, 04:58:27 pm
Didn't I read here just a few postings ago that you were done with this kind of thing? Or was that just a happy dream?

Both?