Author
|
Topic: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis (Read 30588 times)
|
jucce
Frungy champion
 Offline
Posts: 95
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baltar
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 109
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 06, 2007, 05:46:40 pm by RTyp06 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Baltar
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 109
|
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
I'm going to drop out of these discussions because all it seems to do is enrage people. Much respect to everyone who participated..
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Baltar
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 109
|
Who is enraged here?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jucce
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 95
|
What kind of mechanism would stop the genetic change at a certain point?
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.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 08, 2007, 06:11:28 am by jucce »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
