Author
|
Topic: Evolution of plant-insect symbiosis (Read 30567 times)
|
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
 Offline
Posts: 491
|
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
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 13, 2007, 03:38:42 pm by RTyp06 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Baltar
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 109
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
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".
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
xenoclone
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 104
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Baltar
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 109
|
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?
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.
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'.
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.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 14, 2007, 12:16:09 am by Baltar »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
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.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 14, 2007, 05:06:55 pm by RTyp06 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Novus
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1938
Fot or not?
|
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.
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.
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?
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.
Ever notice the creationist fish and the Darwin fish with legs on the back of cars around your town?
No.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
