- #1
DR_henegar
- 7
- 0
I can probably argue against evolution without biblical references? Anyone wish to hear my argument?
DR_henegar said:I can probably argue against evolution without biblical references? Anyone wish to hear my argument?
Very good. You should feel free to host or suggest a forum where anyone can post their personal speculation. PF is not that place.thE3nigma said:Still if the man says he has references that are not religious then let's here him out. I think that is a very important part of science, because without open discussion I do not think any field of science will ever advance.
Hide what? Evolution has been accurately presented in this forum. Do you know what a theory is? Do you understand what the theory of evolution is? A theory is never "complete and perfect" to use your own words.thE3nigma said:Well as far as my common sense tells me, that is what the OP had in mind. By the way, I have done some of my own research and discussed certain topics on this such issue with Professors, and I have to honestly say there are a lot of problems with this Theory still. PF should not hide this fact just because the media "thinks" Evolution is complete and perfect; it is far from anything like that.
Not only does no serious scientist think evolution is complete or perfect but I'm pretty sure this "media" you speak of does not think that either.thE3nigma said:...there are a lot of problems with this Theory still. PF should not hide this fact just because the media "thinks" Evolution is complete and perfect; it is far from anything like that.
Don't hold your breath for something new and exciting. I'd be willing to bet a rediculous amount of money that the idea the OP has is just one of the several typical/common misconceptions about evolution that we've all heard dozens of times.thE3nigma said:Still if the man says he has references that are not religious then let's here him out. I think that is a very important part of science, because without open discussion I do not think any field of science will ever advance.
In response to the OP, I wouldn't mind hearing your arguments.
thE3nigma said:Please do not get me wrong. I firstly did not try in any way to stir up a debate, or a pot? seriously? :). The only thing I was trying to say is I believe what the OP will talk about is clearly those areas in which we lack understanding. Obviously though, this is something we have to accept, and these areas which lack understanding aren't speculative hypothesis or anything, it is just a part of the working Theory.
thE3nigma said:...any concrete example of a perfect variation according to mutations. Most of the experiments I have seen and read about have produced no new useful traits.
Needs citations to the studies.thE3nigma said:That is all it is. As far as I know, most studies that have placed any form of stress or say change in the environment of a species have not produced a change in that species that was helpful to it in any way.
This too.cesiumfrog said:How about the experiment in which E.coli, by a sequence of random mutations, developed the new ability to digest a different abundant food source (and ceased to be E.coli)?
thE3nigma said:Well since I do prefer genetics myself mostly, I can only speak primarily about that area itself as related to evolution. One such question is how variation truly arises. I know the common mainstream answer: mutation. And although I agree with that answer to a certain aspect, as in primarily within single-celled organisms; I do not believe it is the only answer or even the main process of variation creation within higher-order species. The reason I ask this question, is because science has yet to provide any concrete example of a perfect variation according to mutations. Most of the experiments I have seen and read about have produced no new useful traits.
thE3nigma said:Well why don't I ask you Mr. Dave what a useful trait. According to the Theory, a useful trait would be anything that helps the species or individual at least, become adapted to his new environment. That is all it is. As far as I know, most studies that have placed any form of stress or say change in the environment of a species have not produced a change in that species that was helpful to it in any way. This is obviously not true for single celled organisms which have immediate phenotype changes upon mutation.
You know I would love to actually hear something smart from you once Mr. Dave. All you keep doing is replying with one liners that aren't really helping this conversation go anywhere. Feedback would be appreciated. I assume that is what the role and goal of PF is, correct?
Not all assertions need citation. Many are common knowledge and/or generally uncontroversial.Ken Natton said:If these forums really are only for contributions from well studied people with the capability to offer citations for every assertion, then clearly I should leave.
Gokul43201 said:This too.
Thank you, smarty-pants!cesiumfrog said:http://lmgtfy.com/?q=e+coli+mutation+experiment&l=1"
Your first hit (creationwiki) is actually relevent, it raises questions as to the validity of my example.Gokul43201 said:I tried before asking.
This shows a profound misunderstanding of how evolution works. This is what I was concerned about.thE3nigma said:As far as I know, most studies that have placed any form of stress or say change in the environment of a species have not produced a change in that species that was helpful to it in any way.
Feedback, sure. Education, no.thE3nigma said:You know I would love to actually hear something smart from you once Mr. Dave. All you keep doing is replying with one liners that aren't really helping this conversation go anywhere. Feedback would be appreciated.
DaveC426913 said:This shows a profound misunderstanding of how evolution works. This is what I was concerned about.
...
If, tomorrow, you saw mutated, malformed red blood cells in your new lab specimen that were adversely affecting its health - would you write in your report that you had isolated a 'perfect variation' or a 'useful trait'?
Do give us a reference to that work, please.When doing fly experiments with Drosophila melanogaster that were placed under pressure in a controlled environment, the population was never shown to exhibit any selective adaptation
thE3nigma said:Of course I wouldn't say that, who in their right mind would? It is a mutation that is causing a problem for that specimen not anything else. Obviously though you have brought up a good example of this with anemia, that is when it would be useful.
I do not think my understanding of how evolution works is flawed, maybe not full or complete, but then who's is really? What I said earlier still applies. When doing fly experiments with Drosophila melanogaster that were placed under pressure in a controlled environment, the population was never shown to exhibit any selective adaptation. The reason I believe this to be, may be because mutation in higher-ordered organisms like the above mentioned species plays a minute role in its adaptation and evolution - that is the variability in its genetic pool.
I understand your point that the mutation occurred before any selective pressure was introduced into the environment, and I obviously have nothing against this nor did my example.
@Kglocc,
Aren't most of those examples dealing with adaptation and evolution of single-celled species? You told me not to insult anyone, you seem to have insulted me quite clearly by not reading my second post that you quoted. I clearly said I accept and agree that mutation within the organisms is one of the most important forces to their variation; but i don't think so that the same is true for higher-order organisms.
thE3nigma said:Of course I wouldn't say that, who in their right mind would? It is a mutation that is causing a problem for that specimen not anything else.
cosmos 2.0 said:The sickle cell anemia is a classic example of how a group of individuals who had a particular trait where able to survive malaria (because the parasite cannot infect the sickle cell rbc's).
DaveC426913 said:Yes. The point being that we would never have labelled anemia as anything like what ThE3nigma calls a "useful trait".
But nature doesn't work on "useful". Nature simply let's poplutions do their thing, and creatures change over time. It is only the gift of hindsight that allows us to declare that something is a "useful trait".
And it's self-fulfilling. ("Of course reverse peristalsis is a useful trait. We're here aren't we?")
Two thousand human generations goes back (~25yrsX2000G=) about 50,000 years. I feel that is a reasonable timescale to observe for mutations to be effecting our or any complex multicellular population. Most research I found observed 20-200 generations.DaveC426913 said:... when the results are tallied, it may well result in a population that, a thousand generations from now, has incorporated that trait just like any other trait that helps us stay alive.
Kglocc said:reply@the3nigma - Yeah I apologize, that was not my intention. 3am after a long night was not a considerate time to post on my part. I have reread your posts, and the abstracts I linked.
Evidence that random mutations surviving in the genepool are rare even in single celled organisms and mostly deleterious to fitness.
And I agree that if a morphological/phisiological mutation occurs the possibility remains such that,
Two thousand human generations goes back (~25yrsX2000G=) about 50,000 years. I feel that is a reasonable timescale to observe for mutations to be effecting our or any complex multicellular population. Most research I found observed 20-200 generations.
However,
Now that I understand your position I am supportive. Sorry about that previous post, I misunderstood. Do you have evidence? What other mechanisms of evolution do you propose?
On viral infection - "HERVs [Human endogenous retro-virus] might have conferred antiviral resistance on early human ancestors, thus helping them to survive. ...HERVs could have changed the pattern of gene expression and therefore played a significant role in the evolution and divergence of Hominoidea superfamily." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.oca....00002)22:2<161::AID-BIES7>3.0.CO;2-X/abstract
By the way, I haven't heard from DrHenegar in a while... I'm doubting the existence of any bliblical referenceless anti-evolution argument.