<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 30 2003, 12:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 30 2003, 12:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Removing even a single one of those proteins would cause the whole system to collapse - it wouldn't work at all. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> sorta like in the settlers game series where if you dont have a saw mill the raw logs sitting infront of the wood cutter's hut the wood wont get turned into planks and are absolutly useless; which means that you have no wood to construct buildings with, even though you may have stone.
also, in Genesavers i noticed that neural nets can varry greatly between two of the same type (green for instance) ... for example one of them could feed almost entirely on grey blobs alone, while others are supurb hunters, while yet more just sit and wait for something delectable to come along... <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> they could be considered divergent species, where one "race" feeds on food A while the other "race" feeds on food B; even though they are the same color (some greens eat only blue, while others eat only grey (could be considered "bread and water" food) ... i have yet to see a canable green though <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo--> ).
Cronos I do believe your theory does deserve a roasting, but Im going to restrain myself <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
By its own definition, your theory is unprovable logically. Therefore it cannot be a scientific theory or explaination but rather a philosophical belief or faith.
It really isnt much better than "somewhere, sometime, everything suddenly decided to evolve for reasons unknown, triggered by something we can only guess at" - otherwise known as neo darwinism.
Marine, I did say it wasn't mine, that it was half remembered, and in all likelihood completely wrong, so I've taken all the necessary steps to protect myself from flames <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Cronos+Aug 30 2003, 07:14 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cronos @ Aug 30 2003, 07:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Marine, I did say it wasn't mine, that it was half remembered, and in all likelihood completely wrong, so I've taken all the necessary steps to protect myself from flames <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes you did say all that - and thus I resisted the urge to flame <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 30 2003, 02:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 30 2003, 02:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And I of course encourage you to read Michael Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box". It raises very very serious issues about macro-evolution, which I can summarize as basically along the lines that evolutionary processes have always been treated as black boxes, with little regard to the actual systems which are alleged to be their products. Macro-evolution as I said, sounds reasonable and may actually happen, but it's so incredibly unlikely as to be nigh impossible. Consider, for example, the process of blood clotting(one of the examples he uses in the book). In many mammals, this process is enormously complex - involving the interactions of scores of proteins and hormones. It turns out that each of the proteins involved in the process is highly specialized in the way it checks and balances the other elements in the chain reaction that happens when one gets a cut and starts bleeding. Removing even a single one of those proteins would cause the whole system to collapse - it wouldn't work at all. This leads to the situation that the system could not have evolved naturally, because the system is irreduceably complex - you cannot backtrack from an irreduceably complex system into a simpler, similarly functional system, because the leap is too big. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I've heard the irreducibly complex argument before, and every so often I'm tempted to lend some creedence to it, but stating that something is irreducibly complex just means that you cant figure out how it would have evolved, not that there could be no process through which it evolved. It's equivalent to saying, "I'm not creative enough to figure out how it could happen, therefore it couldn't have happened."
<a href='http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid2.htm' target='_blank'>Natural selection (the evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order". </a>
<a href='http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid8.htm' target='_blank'>Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies</a>
<a href='http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid7.htm' target='_blank'>Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies</a>
<a href='http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid1.htm' target='_blank'>There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present</a>
<a href='http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid4.htm' target='_blank'>The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were. </a>
<a href='http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/bias.htm' target='_blank'>Bias Towards Evolution</a>
^^ Nothing on that site comes from journal articles and from what I read it is all completely worthless. Just someones opinion who hasn't actually 'educated' themselves about what they are talking about, as is sadly the norm. The references section is equally hillarious, and the usual tactic I see of taking some quotes completely out of context reigns supreme. Using a bunch of quotes, with poorly thought out arguments isn't really an overly effective way of presenting an argument. The killing blow for anyone taking that site seriously is the fact over 90% of the references are ancient. In other words, it is so far behind the current scientific literature it is archaic. We've sequenced genomes, gained massive amounts of more advanced knowledge about molecular biology than we ever have before and muh more. Really Sirus, you should be far more careful to make sure what you link to is at least valid :/
Anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I've heard the irreducibly complex argument before, and every so often I'm tempted to lend some creedence to it, but stating that something is irreducibly complex just means that you cant figure out how it would have evolved, not that there could be no process through which it evolved. It's equivalent to saying, "I'm not creative enough to figure out how it could happen, therefore it couldn't have happened." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Considering that the example is actually wrong to begin with, it comes as no surprise to find the 'irreducibly complex' argument is fairly weak. Normally it is applied to the flaggellum of bacteria, but they've given up on that one as deletion analysis has found it still works with a fair chunk of bits removed. It doesn't work as well obviously.
Blood clotting is also a complex system, but not all parts actually function all of the time or need too. In fact, what is stated in that book is grossly wrong to begin with! The main parts of blood clotting can still function without other factors but not without SOME blood clotting factors such as, factor VIII which a certain famous person lacked. Saying the entire system falls apart without one of those is a gross exaggeration.
Main thread.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1) It's possible for one species to diverge into two, over a long period of time, through mutation and natural selection.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, depending on what sort of selection pressures that are applied at the current time. If you have some form of selection pressure that would favour creatures with a longer arm size, then those with small mutations for a longer arm size would be selected. Gradually over time you might end up with a population with longer arms than the source population. If longer arms bears a cost (there is rarely a free lunch in biology) then it could serve to make two different species.
It is hard to talk generally about this in evolution however, because there is just so many different attributes that can be applied at any one particular time.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2) Mutation can introduce novel traits into a species.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Forget mutation, horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is where it's at. It has been clearly demonstrated that bacteria and other microbes can take massive evolutionary leaps in a matter of hours. Their clever ability to shift DNA from eachother, the environment and even us allows them to rapidly adapt to any particular surrounding. Many of our pathogens have massive pathogenicity islands (Antibiotic resistance, type III secretion systems and many other things) all on short stretches of DNA. When examined it turns out that the DNA is definitely different than the rest of the organisms genome, and that they have picked them up. Many microbial species have diverged massive amounts by the aquisition of genes.
Sure mutation is important, but the shuffing of unique genes between entirely different organisms is probably more important.
<span style='color:white'>***Nuked.***</span> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Considering that the example is actually wrong to begin with, it comes as no surprise to find the 'irreducibly complex' argument is fairly weak. Normally it is applied to the flaggellum of bacteria, but they've given up on that one as deletion analysis has found it still works with a fair chunk of bits removed. It doesn't work as well obviously.
Blood clotting is also a complex system, but not all parts actually function all of the time or need too. In fact, what is stated in that book is grossly wrong to begin with! The main parts of blood clotting can still function without other factors but not without SOME blood clotting factors such as, factor VIII which a certain famous person lacked. Saying the entire system falls apart without one of those is a gross exaggeration.
Main thread. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Would you not agree that certain portions of the blood clotting process are essential to the whole system working? Would you deny that the probabilities of random mutation, gene sharing, and natural selection (which I don't think would provide any source of genetic mutation actually) creating all such elements of such a system at the same time would be horribly unlikely? Are you willing to bet that the various organs and chemical feedback systems developed in such a complete way within the time period allotted, given the marginal chances of success?
Reference is Campbell: Biology 5th Edition and Totora and Grabowski: The human body in Health and Disease 3rd Edition.
Go have fun looking them up, you know, actual biology textbooks written and reviewd by actual scientists.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Would you not agree that <i><b>certain</b></i> portions of the blood clotting process are essential to the whole system working?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I just did. Factor VIII for example.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Would you deny that the probabilities of random mutation, gene sharing, and natural selection (which I don't think would provide any source of genetic mutation actually) creating all such elements of such a system at the same time would be horribly unlikely?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, because none of it had to evolve all at once. This is an argument that just shows a lack of knowledge really. The immune system of mammals for example did not evolve all at once, but has done so throughout evolutionary time. The start was sponges that can recognise self/non self molecules and cells. Insects display a humoral immune system and possess phagocytes. Chordates (us) are the only creatures to have a complex memory based immune system. None of it evolved together, it evolved independantly over time.
Not all chordates have a complex blood clotting system, and only a few mammals and the like do. We've inherited and improved upon simpler systems that already existed.
Quite frankly, read a book that actually has science in it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are you willing to bet that the various organs and chemical feedback systems developed in such a complete way within the time period allotted, given the marginal chances of success?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your argument was that all of it together is needed for the entire system to work. This is wrong, and seeing as you want to be a jerk (sheep?), you lose and I cease arguing with you until you gain an education. Good day.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Congrats, you just made an ad hominem attack and I bet that makes you feel so much better. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry, I've only took introductory college biology, so I don't quite have your credentials; however, as you'll find I regularly do on the discussion forum, I reject people whose sole argument is...a non-argument. There is no rational way to refute what ElectricSheep said, because there's no reasoning behind it. If he had provided proof, logic, etc, but no, all he said was "False." And that wasn't even ad hominem, I did not attack his character in order to discredit him, I just said that his argument was bad in a sarcastic way.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No, because none of it had to evolve all at once. This is an argument that just shows a lack of knowledge really. The immune system of mammals for example did not evolve all at once, but has done so throughout evolutionary time. The start was sponges that can recognise self/non self molecules and cells. Insects display a humoral immune system and possess phagocytes. Chordates (us) are the only creatures to have a complex memory based immune system. None of it evolved together, it evolved independantly over time.
Not all chordates have a complex blood clotting system, and only a few mammals and the like do. We've inherited and improved upon simpler systems that already existed. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*sigh* The fact that only a few mammals have it should mean something to you, yes? I want to see proof that the blood clotting system did not have to evolve certain parts "all at once". I'm ready to read through long posts. Enlighten me, please.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Quite frankly, read a book that actually has science in it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Quite frankly, there's no need for this.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Your argument was that all of it together is needed for the entire system to work. This is wrong, and seeing as you want to be a jerk (sheep?), you lose and I cease arguing with you until you gain an education. Good day. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know the arguements supported by that link (all same website really) are false and I don't want to go into detail explaining it (quite a large page).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><i>Natural selection has these and many other logical inconsistencies: (a.) Although evolutionists say that organisms are suited for their environment because they evolved into it, being suited for the environment is much better explained by the fact that they were created for the environment rather than that they evolved into it. (b.) The fact that living things have similar patterns and design points to a common designer better than to a common ancestor. In fact, such variety in the world could not have been produced if we all come from the same ancestor. (c.) If we all come from the same ancestor, we would all be murderers and cannibals by the simple act of killing a cow. (d.) While small and undeveloped things do become grown and developed (a baby to an adult, a seed to a tree) it is also true that the small and undeveloped first come from the developed (a baby from its parents, a seed from a tree). The pattern of growth is circular not simply from the crude to the developed as natural selection proposes. (e.) Our needs exceed those of survival. Needs for love and friendship, for example, cannot be explained if all that we do is for survival. (f.) Order and interdependence in the world argues for a designer and against chance</i><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
a) That's no proof. b) How absurd. Why would God make foetii waste their mother's valuable energy by growing palmed hands ? Theses have to be re-shaped by newer genes later on the gestation , because we have stopped living in oceans 300 millions years ago.
The observed diversity is not enough to assume a God had to intervene , what would have been a proof is a completely alien specie , with 100% of its genes not linked to any other known lifeform. c) Ridiculous. Humans were always agressive and mercyless towards parents lifeforms , the excuse of "inferior race" was enough for enslavers to not treat their victims like human beings. It is unlikely that people would suddently refrain from eating meat just because the butchered creatures share genes with them... d) That's either irrelevant , or erroneous. Our children <i>are</i> more evolved than us , they may have genes we don't have , and the combination of existing genes is newer. The offspring is crude and undevelopped <i>at the beginning</i> , then it follows the evolution of its parents. Life started as a multiplying cell , that spread and had mutations , eventually creating highly evolved animals such as humans. We start as a multiplying cell that directly follows the evolution's path leading to us , but fortunately gestation doesn't take a billion years. Evolution is completely different from maturation. e) Cro-Magnon's actions were widely oriented towards his own survival. As human groups grew more complex , the society created new needs. Besides , animals do show attachment towards each other sometimes , it can even be an instinctive behavior. f) This statement has no scientific value.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I know the arguements supported by that link (all same website really) are false and I don't want to go into detail explaining it (quite a large page).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did my share , now stop being lazy and start dismissing irrational stuff <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm sorry, I've only took introductory college biology, so I don't quite have your credentials; however, as you'll find I regularly do on the discussion forum, I reject people whose sole argument is...a non-argument. There is no rational way to refute what ElectricSheep said, because there's no reasoning behind it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was actually agreeing with him and referencing back onto what you had already said. Seems there was some confusion there...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If he had provided proof, logic, etc, but no, all he said was "False." And that wasn't even ad hominem, I did not attack his character in order to discredit him, I just said that his argument was bad in a sarcastic way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well considering that was actually my argument, I'd at least appreciate if you attacked the right people.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->*sigh* The fact that only a few mammals have it should mean something to you, yes? I want to see proof that the blood clotting system did not have to evolve certain parts "all at once". I'm ready to read through long posts. Enlighten me, please.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I could give you a decent sized post on the immune system, but blood clotting isn't what I work with every day. I only take an interest in it because of haemolytic bacteria (you'll notice this sort of trend with me, immune systems or microbes make my nipples hard). I can give you a general overview, then later if you're still very interested I can look it up in more detail.
Blood clotting does rely on numerous factors though and as you can guess from Factor VIII deficiency, which of course is more commonly known as haemophilia, some are very important. Other proteins play a role such as fibrinogen, and a specialised cell type called a platelet produced from the bone marrow. Tissue damage sends generic signals that something is up and an immune responce occurs. Immune responces stimulate phagocytes and other cells to start releasing cytokines that caused localised inflammation (hence why things get puffy and red). Some of these cytokines, as best as I understand, also signal that damage has occured and molecules like fibronogen and of course platelets, come and start to clot the bloodflow. Many proteins are involved in forming complexes that essentially allow the formation of a net that blocks off the hole (simplified version). Not all of these are 100% required to do this process, but some are very critical and must be there like Factor VIII. It is worth noting as well you don't always have to have an immune responce to stimulate this process (I'm not sure how that works, out of my field).
Now obviously that is simplified according to what I can type at 5am in the morning. However the second bit is actually easier to explain. Blood clotting in insects is a far less complex process that accomplishes the same function. Insects have specialised proteins that on a puncture and, I believe it is due to exposure to oxygen, aggregate together to block off the hole *pulls out entomology textbook*. Hemolymph clotting is essentially the same process on a simpler scale (no cells involved, whereas in the mammalian clotting there are). Reasons for this are probably many. Insects are a lot smaller and have an open circulatory system with blood and stuff mixing together. In mammals blood doesn't mix with stuff and needs to be kept seperate (or you'd bleed to death). As mammals are a lot bigger and also a lot more complex, over evolutionary time ancestral animals probably had selection pressures for a more efficient clotting system (which explains why some bits aren't overly imporant anymore, you do have to wonder why you only hear about Factor VIII deficiency). Better regulation probably came with it as well (regulation is something the body is really into and is what the immune system is all about!).
The simple thing here is that earlier animals lower down on the evolutionary trail have features or 'the basics' which higher animals then elaborated on. From certain points at each step you can see common features arising from animals that share common ancestory. Just because it can't evolve all at once in us doesn't mean it can't evolve stepwise.
As for everything else, I think you got mixed up somewhere so I retract my general meanness.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I would like an intelligent design proponent to try to explain why we have an appendix. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v3n1_appendix.asp' target='_blank'>A surgeon's view</a>
Anyway, isn't this a two-way street? Whenever Creationists have to explain why something exists in the first place, Evolutionists have to explain why it's still there although nature had enough time to get rid of it.
And now, Round 2: The hymen <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Twex+Aug 30 2003, 12:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Twex @ Aug 30 2003, 12:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I would like an intelligent design proponent to try to explain why we have an appendix. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v3n1_appendix.asp' target='_blank'>A surgeon's view</a>
Anyway, isn't this a two-way street? Whenever Creationists have to explain why something exists in the first place, Evolutionists have to explain why it's still there although nature had enough time to get rid of it.
And now, Round 2: The hymen <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually both have a role in the immune system and preventing infection. The difference is the appendix does have no point and is vestigial because other aspects of human physiology take over for it. Essentially it is an old immune organ gone a bit queer (at least from my perspective).
Through the cells within and overlying the lymphoid follicles and their production of secretory and humoral antibodies the appendix would be involved in the control of which essential bacteria come to reside in the caecum and colon in neonatal life. As well it would be involved in the development of systemic tolerance to certain antigenic agents within the alimentary tract whether they are derived from bacteria, foodstuffs or even the body's own proteolytic enzymes<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I loved that. The bacteria that settle in us do so anyway through things like food, colostrum and presence from the mother. We're colonised rather rapidly and it has nothing to do with the appendix. Preyers patches are the stomach, intestines and general alimentary 'immune organ' and again, the appendix serves no significant purpose in any of this. The final statement though takes the cake for golden. Self/non self differentiation has NOTHING at all to do with the appendix, hell if it needed to go that far you'd have an autoimmune disease and be dead already. B-Cells (Antibodies) are 'eduated' in the bone marrow and T-Cells are 'educated' in the thymus. The appendix has no role in either.
Once again, a brilliant reason not to go to websites, particularly answersingenesis which is full of more rubbish than normal.
BTW, I love how they quoted a medical book from 1900, that just tickled me.
Oh there's another golden one, number 26! That one is even more classic as the bone marrow performs the same function as the bursa, not the appendix as they are undoubtably alluding to.
HA! Just when I thought I couldn't find another golden quote, this takes the cake:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The appendix appears to be strategically placed and structurally composed of tissues which are vital in establishing and maintaining the various types of body defences or immunity necessary in recognition of such assaults and having a part to play in their repulsion. The appendix is thus one of the guardians of the internal environment of the body from the hostile external environment.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> That just tickles me. The most important structures in immunity are lymph nodes, dendritic cells, phagocyes, bone marrow and thymus. Peyers patches are the stomachs lot. As I've not seen any journals saying that people who have had their appendix removed are in any way immunocompromised (and Janeways Immunobiology seems to think similarly) I think they are full of it. Admittingly, they are all using sources that are before major discoveries in many key aspects of immunology, but the fact they haven't bothered updating tells you something right there.
<!--QuoteBegin--Twex+Aug 30 2003, 07:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Twex @ Aug 30 2003, 07:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I would like an intelligent design proponent to try to explain why we have an appendix. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v3n1_appendix.asp' target='_blank'>A surgeon's view</a>
Anyway, isn't this a two-way street? Whenever Creationists have to explain why something exists in the first place, Evolutionists have to explain why it's still there although nature had enough time to get rid of it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
EDIT : thanks to Aegeri for pointing out how a noob comm would have "strategically placed" the appendix better <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Even if the appendix might not be totally useless... it's nowhere near a vital organ. If it has <i>some</i> use , then this may partly explain why we still have it , though its mass/usefullness ratio is not good. Having it removed doesn't radically increase your odds of survival , so further genome changes weren't necessary.
And don't think Nature is optimizing living beings that well , adding "coherent" genetic patterns is somewhat "costly" (creature with theses have low odds of appearing) , so Nature chooses the "shortest" path (with less genes modified) and makes compromises. When the oldest genes are changed , odds are the creature won't be viable , as they coded for various features at once , they are linked to other genes. Compensating the effects of older genes by adding newer genes is better , as no other gene is linked to them yet.
That's why you have "destructive" genes that halt the development of a now useless organ , or even cause cell death to undo the work of older genes. Since theses genes are few , the change in shape is not always complete. For exemple , a foetus has palmed hands like our fish ancestors , and loses the flesh between the phalanges. However , the metacarpi are still burried into flesh , which isn't necessarily a good thing... The Lynx also has a vestigial tail , which has no use at all as far as we know.
If we're arguing about how one species can separate into two, it's really quite simple. It's just the environment! Think of apes, living in forests. At first apes are everywhere in the forest, from the edges to the center. But those living at the edge of the forest are really living halfway in the forest and halfway in... the outside (lets say its a meadow).
Now I dont know specifics but let's pretend there is some trait that is Meadow Food Gathering +1. Some apes have this, some don't. The apes with MFG+1 who are living on the edge of the forest might get adventurous and go catch ... a rabbit, or something. While MFG+1 apes have double the food-gathering skills (they can get food from the forest OR the meadow), it doesn't necessarily put the non-MFG apes at a disadvantage.
Since MFG+1 apes have better food gathering skills, they will reproduce better than apes, thus increasing the chance of slight mutation; soon they will have MFG+2, and +3. Eventually their MFG skills will be better than their Forest Food Gathering skills, and they'll hunt exclusively in the meadows (whereupon their FFG may be entirely discarded). Now that the can exist in the meadows, they'll expand their horizons 50 km east; as they go along their happy way, they experience more and more mutations and slight differences. Eventually their breeding or feeding habits may become SO much different from the forest apes that they'll qualify as a different species. (Someone fill me in on what exactly distinguishes species, though, I forgot.)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->5.: Respect other peoples newssources. It is so tempting. Tell someone that you don't believe the newspaper they cited articles from, and the uncomfortably consistent argumentation they built up falls together, leaving you and your notion secure again. Don't ever try that. Discrediting a newssource requires more than that one article from three years ago that wasn't entirely correct, or an obvious political bias - you'll find few newssites without one. Accept that Leftys will often quote facts found on Salon.org, while Conservatives will cite FOX. Unless you can find contradicting factual data, you will have to accept the newssources validity and instead go the hard way, argumentatively tackling the points based upon those articles. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. I bring up information against a certain idea, and it's dismissed immeadiately. I might as well not participate in this conversation. Obviously we must not be here to share, but to prove that evolution is right ? Neh ?
I don't agree with the rule totally; somebody (like the guy who made all those pages you linked to) can just make a webpage, even though the stuff he puts on the webpage is purely opinion anyway; if anything it's not really a news source, just an opinion bank.
Just as much as you can just purely make an opinion about it also. You haven't used any sources to refute me, you've only said otherwise. In fact, with the exception of the link about the appendix I have been the only one to use any source at all.
And funny enough, when I do, it's slammed down and labeled wrong without any sources.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You haven't used any sources to refute me, you've only said otherwise. In fact, with the exception of the link about the appendix I have been the only one to use any source at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have actually listed a source, two in fact earlier in the thread. In many ways, scientific textbooks are infinitely more valid than either website (Which I've already refuted).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><a href='http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter15.php' target='_blank'>Another source, use the arrows at the bottom to scroll through the chapters</a>
If you do not care for reading their evidence for creationism that is your perogative. But do not think that it disenfranchises any information. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, how about you go, pick up a copy of the likes of the Journal of Macroevolution, and have a read. I don't think you've even remotely looked at a Journal article before.
Secondly lets have a quote now from that delightfully crazy website:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and the dark liaisons between Darwinism and such bloody ideologies as fascism and communism. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I can immediately say the author of that website is a complete and utter bigot, really. Again, check your sources to make sure they haven't had a good dose of the 'stupid' please. You would find it equally offensive if I bought up the Crusades and made a claim that it was Christianities fault (when when actually looked at it wasn't at all). This just lends weight to why I immediately dismiss rubbish from these websites.
Here, another golden quote, please read your sources!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One point should be kept in mind: The main reason for the continuing cruelty, conflict, and other ordeals endured by the vast majority of people is the ideological prevalence of disbelief.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
o_O Guess he hasn't looked at the 30 years way, Ireland, Israel, Crusades or any number of conflicts largely fueled by religious differences and the inherent greed in men. The Church was used as a weapon by Pope Urban the II, Spanish rulers used it as an instrument of terror, the English used religion to persecure Catholics and as an excuse to slaughter them (Were military reasons behind that too, but Cromwell had NO reason to just put 100,000's of Catholics to death in Ireland <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> ) etc. Reading through that I could quote so much inane rubbish it isn't funny. :/
But once again, website, old resources (does a little better, one from 1997, but it's a book, not a Journal article)blah blah blah. Not really a valid resource :/ JOUNRAL ARTICLES! If you can give me a modern Journal article from Nature, Science, the Journal of Microbiological Evolution, Microbiology, Journal of General Virology, Behavioural Evolution, Evolution (might have Journal of version too), Molecular Evolution and Dynamics, The Canadian/British/American/New Zealand Journal of Zoology etc. That is evidence, some website, which can frankly have any incorrect facts it likes (see Answers in Genesis and the sites you've linked) is not acceptable in a scientific debate. Sorry, but that is the way it is. BTW, all the above are MY sources as well as:
Brocks biology of Microorganisms (Maddigan <i>et al</i>.) 9th edition Biology (Campbell), 5th Edition Matthews and Van Holde Biochemistry (3rd Edition). Microbiology: Dynamics and Diversity (Perry and Staley 2nd edition) Immunobiology: The immune system in health and disease (Janeway) Voet and Voet: Biochemistry (2nd edition) Entomology (Stoffolano) Totora and Grabowski: Human Anatomy (Note, change the above reference, I confused myself last night <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->) Medical Biochemistry (Not on hand right now)
To give you a short list. Everything I say comes from these sources, my lectures or my own research (lab). All are peer reviewed by the scientific community, websites, like answersingenesis, are NOT peer reviewed and are grossly wrong in cases. As such, they are not valid. Sorry to tell you that but it is true.
The other thing is that creationism really doesn't have any 'evidence' that is in any way 'scientific'. I challenge you to name a pro creationist genetic or molecular biochemistry paper in the past 4 years. I'll accept anything from Nature or Science too.
If all your references are merely websites, I'm going to simply dismiss them immediately out of hand unless their references are journal articles or recognised textbooks. But tell me sirus, if this is such valid evidence, why doesn't it get published in Nature, science or other top journals? Why have creationist arguments been the area of public debate, scientific communities general laughter and books and websites. Think about that, I can give any number of JOURNAL references for evolution, can you give a single one for creationism (and yes I WILL look it up)? Funnily enough, I doubt it.
Next up, the scientific conspiracy against creationism (to explain why nothing pro creationist ends up in any top textbooks or Journal articles).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->5.: Respect other peoples newssources. It is so tempting. Tell someone that you don't believe the newspaper they cited articles from, and the uncomfortably consistent argumentation they built up falls together, leaving you and your notion secure again. Don't ever try that. Discrediting a newssource requires more than that one article from three years ago that wasn't entirely correct, or an obvious political bias - you'll find few newssites without one. Accept that Leftys will often quote facts found on Salon.org, while Conservatives will cite FOX. Unless you can find contradicting factual data, you will have to accept the newssources validity and instead go the hard way, argumentatively tackling the points based upon those articles.
<b>Yes. I bring up information against a certain idea, and it's dismissed immeadiately.</b> I might as well not participate in this conversation. Obviously we must not be here to share, but to prove that evolution is right ? Neh ? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In scientific debates I do not regard websites as valid information. It is funny actually, because I knew you would say that. Here is a PM I sent to Nemesis Zero about that exact thing. Read it and you'll know why I dismiss it straight away. That rule does brilliantly in more opinion based discussions, but in scientific ones it should be amended in a few ways.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is a problem with this in scientific arguments that should in fact be inherently obvious. The first one is that all 'new' information is published in scientific journals and a lot of this hasn't actually been done yet! Those of us who come from scientific backgrounds are already on the forefront of some of these sciences. I in particular do a lot of genetic and immune system work that nobody else does. Referencing some of what I do isn't actually possible because it has yet to be published!
The main thing however is that science is invalidating positions held yesterday today. What is true today might be truer tommorow, or it might be a load of ****, who knows. What this means is that the older a scientific reference is, the worse it is. If you are quoting from a paper on molecular genetics from 1972 and one from 2003, the 2003 paper is automatically more valid in 99% of cases. The reason for this is few old school papers have accurate information, or express the same understanding.
In the 1990's for example NOBODY believed that bacteria could survive in the stomach of human beings. Gastroenterologists were convinced that gastric ulsers were caused by smoking, drinking, that sort of thing. When it was proposed that a bacterium called Heliobacter pylori was causing it, they were laughed at in general. When they proved the bacterium did cause gastric ulsers they won a nobel prize in medicine
The point of the above is that papers before 1990 are UTTERLY convinced that you cannot have bacteria infecting the stomach. After that however there is a wealth of information on just how this bacterium achieves this exact trick (It's damn clever). Unfortunately on these forums, it would be too easy to use ancient out of date arguments to make a sound case. This shouldn't be applicable!
When discussing things that are still on the forefront of scientific knowledge and understanding, modern references, within 3 years are definitely only applicable. Discussions on evolution that are still quoting people from 1977, 1980's or whatever are as valid as saying a fairy told you it.
When this is ok are really ultra important papers that set things into stone or motion. Kochs "leetle animacules" or Einsteins theory of relativity are valid, because they have stood the test of time and scientific scrutiny. But Darwins origin of species is NOT acceptable to be quoted as evolutionary fact because simply put, we think things happened a lot differently. Antibiotic effectiveness papers from the 1940's are equally as silly, because we know now that bacteria don't work like that. Genetics papers from the 1960's aren't as valid as those released in the 1997-2003 period etc.
I know why this rule has been implemented and I do agree with it in so many cases (History for one!). However, this rule is not adequate to apply to a scientific argument for the stated reasons. When references are bought up in science, they must be:
a) Recent
b) Peer reviewed (Journal Articles, textbooks)
c) Written by an actual scientist/researched well.
Otherwise the resource is instantly invalid :/<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
getting just a weee bit off topic here... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 29 2003, 11:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 29 2003, 11:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Just a question, what algorithms do you use for your population tracking? Dips and bumps should exist, but spikes and valleys are not in accordance with observed natural cycles. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The population tracking? When a creature dies, I subtract one from the graph. When one is born, I add one. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
The spikes and valleys are a product of the simulation itself - they're more jagged than natural systems because this system is way smaller and things happen at a greatly accelerated rate. If you slow the simulation way down and/or stretch the graph out, you'll see something that looks more natural.
There is so much to answer here I cant honestly do it reasonably, but there are a few things I'd like to point out. First Aegeri - dont give me Journals. For unadulterated bias you just cant go past scientific journals. There is a reason no reasonable arguement for creation is ever put forward in journals - they arent allowed. If its completely unreasonable sure they will put you in for a bit of "strawman bashing" from the audience, but anything even slightly reasonable and the editors simply wont put you in.
Dont discredit things simply on the basis that they havent made it into journals. These journals are an evolutionairy backpatting club. You have a dissenting opinion you can sod of to the websites - which are of cause automatically classified bunk cause they didnt make it into the journals.
As for the claim bigot - bigot simply means to be unreasonably convinced of the rightness of your own ideals. And you, having probably never read a single decent artical in your much vaunted magazines that reasonably defended creationism feel that you are quite reasonably convinced of the rightness of your ideas.
Classic evolutionary filtering. We get to decide whose valid and who isnt. If your not published in our magazine then you are not valid. We are not going to let you publish, therefore you arent valid.
Call it a conspiracy if you will, but if it was true - how the hell would you know?
And as for the crack about the appendix - the appendix is known to have several functions, one of which is in the immune system. Science has known this since 1970, but my biology teacher last year told me it was vestigal. Thats the great thing about evolutionairy theory, its always up to date. At the beginning of the century - there was over 100 vestigal organs. Have them all removed and you'd be dead.
Now there are only a few, and even those they are hesitant to just whip out. Time and time again it has been shown that if you dont know what purpose something serves, its probably not clever to assume it has none.
<!--QuoteBegin--Sirus+Aug 30 2003, 06:35 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Aug 30 2003, 06:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <a href='http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid2.htm' target='_blank'>Natural selection (the evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order". </a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Okay, I got this far and went "pssssch."
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Furthermore, mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the genetic code. This also makes evolution from mutations impossible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Small, random, yes. But not always harmful. Again, cf. Genesaver - mutations are always small and random, and usually harmful, but not always.
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Aug 31 2003, 12:33 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Aug 31 2003, 12:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Sirus+Aug 30 2003, 06:35 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Aug 30 2003, 06:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <a href='http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid2.htm' target='_blank'>Natural selection (the evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order". </a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Okay, I got this far and went "pssssch."
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Furthermore, mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the genetic code. This also makes evolution from mutations impossible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Small, random, yes. But not always harmful. Again, cf. Genesaver - mutations are always small and random, and usually harmful, but not always. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I know a lot of the time they make blanket statements, and they probably shouldnt, but its really hard to write a document and every time you make a quote to qualify it down to the ground. If you pushed the author on that point, I'm sure he'd agree with you Samwise - Mutations, gene swapping whatever is almost always harmful.
Hes not writing a thesis or a scientific article there - its an article designed to put his point of view across.
Comments
sorta like in the settlers game series where if you dont have a saw mill the raw logs sitting infront of the wood cutter's hut the wood wont get turned into planks and are absolutly useless; which means that you have no wood to construct buildings with, even though you may have stone.
also, in Genesavers i noticed that neural nets can varry greatly between two of the same type (green for instance) ... for example one of them could feed almost entirely on grey blobs alone, while others are supurb hunters, while yet more just sit and wait for something delectable to come along... <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> they could be considered divergent species, where one "race" feeds on food A while the other "race" feeds on food B; even though they are the same color (some greens eat only blue, while others eat only grey (could be considered "bread and water" food) ... i have yet to see a canable green though <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo--> ).
By its own definition, your theory is unprovable logically. Therefore it cannot be a scientific theory or explaination but rather a philosophical belief or faith.
It really isnt much better than "somewhere, sometime, everything suddenly decided to evolve for reasons unknown, triggered by something we can only guess at" - otherwise known as neo darwinism.
Yes you did say all that - and thus I resisted the urge to flame <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I've heard the irreducibly complex argument before, and every so often I'm tempted to lend some creedence to it, but stating that something is irreducibly complex just means that you cant figure out how it would have evolved, not that there could be no process through which it evolved. It's equivalent to saying, "I'm not creative enough to figure out how it could happen, therefore it couldn't have happened."
<a href='http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid8.htm' target='_blank'>Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies</a>
<a href='http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid7.htm' target='_blank'>Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies</a>
<a href='http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid1.htm' target='_blank'>There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present</a>
<a href='http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid4.htm' target='_blank'>The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were. </a>
<a href='http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/bias.htm' target='_blank'>Bias Towards Evolution</a>
Nothing on that site comes from journal articles and from what I read it is all completely worthless. Just someones opinion who hasn't actually 'educated' themselves about what they are talking about, as is sadly the norm. The references section is equally hillarious, and the usual tactic I see of taking some quotes completely out of context reigns supreme. Using a bunch of quotes, with poorly thought out arguments isn't really an overly effective way of presenting an argument. The killing blow for anyone taking that site seriously is the fact over 90% of the references are ancient. In other words, it is so far behind the current scientific literature it is archaic. We've sequenced genomes, gained massive amounts of more advanced knowledge about molecular biology than we ever have before and muh more. Really Sirus, you should be far more careful to make sure what you link to is at least valid :/
Anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I've heard the irreducibly complex argument before, and every so often I'm tempted to lend some creedence to it, but stating that something is irreducibly complex just means that you cant figure out how it would have evolved, not that there could be no process through which it evolved. It's equivalent to saying, "I'm not creative enough to figure out how it could happen, therefore it couldn't have happened." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Considering that the example is actually wrong to begin with, it comes as no surprise to find the 'irreducibly complex' argument is fairly weak. Normally it is applied to the flaggellum of bacteria, but they've given up on that one as deletion analysis has found it still works with a fair chunk of bits removed. It doesn't work as well obviously.
Blood clotting is also a complex system, but not all parts actually function all of the time or need too. In fact, what is stated in that book is grossly wrong to begin with! The main parts of blood clotting can still function without other factors but not without SOME blood clotting factors such as, factor VIII which a certain famous person lacked. Saying the entire system falls apart without one of those is a gross exaggeration.
Main thread.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1) It's possible for one species to diverge into two, over a long period of time, through mutation and natural selection.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, depending on what sort of selection pressures that are applied at the current time. If you have some form of selection pressure that would favour creatures with a longer arm size, then those with small mutations for a longer arm size would be selected. Gradually over time you might end up with a population with longer arms than the source population. If longer arms bears a cost (there is rarely a free lunch in biology) then it could serve to make two different species.
It is hard to talk generally about this in evolution however, because there is just so many different attributes that can be applied at any one particular time.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2) Mutation can introduce novel traits into a species.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Forget mutation, horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is where it's at. It has been clearly demonstrated that bacteria and other microbes can take massive evolutionary leaps in a matter of hours. Their clever ability to shift DNA from eachother, the environment and even us allows them to rapidly adapt to any particular surrounding. Many of our pathogens have massive pathogenicity islands (Antibiotic resistance, type III secretion systems and many other things) all on short stretches of DNA. When examined it turns out that the DNA is definitely different than the rest of the organisms genome, and that they have picked them up. Many microbial species have diverged massive amounts by the aquisition of genes.
Sure mutation is important, but the shuffing of unique genes between entirely different organisms is probably more important.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Considering that the example is actually wrong to begin with, it comes as no surprise to find the 'irreducibly complex' argument is fairly weak. Normally it is applied to the flaggellum of bacteria, but they've given up on that one as deletion analysis has found it still works with a fair chunk of bits removed. It doesn't work as well obviously.
Blood clotting is also a complex system, but not all parts actually function all of the time or need too. In fact, what is stated in that book is grossly wrong to begin with! The main parts of blood clotting can still function without other factors but not without SOME blood clotting factors such as, factor VIII which a certain famous person lacked. Saying the entire system falls apart without one of those is a gross exaggeration.
Main thread.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Would you not agree that certain portions of the blood clotting process are essential to the whole system working? Would you deny that the probabilities of random mutation, gene sharing, and natural selection (which I don't think would provide any source of genetic mutation actually) creating all such elements of such a system at the same time would be horribly unlikely? Are you willing to bet that the various organs and chemical feedback systems developed in such a complete way within the time period allotted, given the marginal chances of success?
Reference is Campbell: Biology 5th Edition
and
Totora and Grabowski: The human body in Health and Disease 3rd Edition.
Go have fun looking them up, you know, actual biology textbooks written and reviewd by actual scientists.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Would you not agree that <i><b>certain</b></i> portions of the blood clotting process are essential to the whole system working?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I just did. Factor VIII for example.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Would you deny that the probabilities of random mutation, gene sharing, and natural selection (which I don't think would provide any source of genetic mutation actually) creating all such elements of such a system at the same time would be horribly unlikely?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, because none of it had to evolve all at once. This is an argument that just shows a lack of knowledge really. The immune system of mammals for example did not evolve all at once, but has done so throughout evolutionary time. The start was sponges that can recognise self/non self molecules and cells. Insects display a humoral immune system and possess phagocytes. Chordates (us) are the only creatures to have a complex memory based immune system. None of it evolved together, it evolved independantly over time.
Not all chordates have a complex blood clotting system, and only a few mammals and the like do. We've inherited and improved upon simpler systems that already existed.
Quite frankly, read a book that actually has science in it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Are you willing to bet that the various organs and chemical feedback systems developed in such a complete way within the time period allotted, given the marginal chances of success?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your argument was that all of it together is needed for the entire system to work. This is wrong, and seeing as you want to be a jerk (sheep?), you lose and I cease arguing with you until you gain an education. Good day.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry, I've only took introductory college biology, so I don't quite have your credentials; however, as you'll find I regularly do on the discussion forum, I reject people whose sole argument is...a non-argument. There is no rational way to refute what ElectricSheep said, because there's no reasoning behind it. If he had provided proof, logic, etc, but no, all he said was "False." And that wasn't even ad hominem, I did not attack his character in order to discredit him, I just said that his argument was bad in a sarcastic way.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No, because none of it had to evolve all at once. This is an argument that just shows a lack of knowledge really. The immune system of mammals for example did not evolve all at once, but has done so throughout evolutionary time. The start was sponges that can recognise self/non self molecules and cells. Insects display a humoral immune system and possess phagocytes. Chordates (us) are the only creatures to have a complex memory based immune system. None of it evolved together, it evolved independantly over time.
Not all chordates have a complex blood clotting system, and only a few mammals and the like do. We've inherited and improved upon simpler systems that already existed.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*sigh* The fact that only a few mammals have it should mean something to you, yes? I want to see proof that the blood clotting system did not have to evolve certain parts "all at once". I'm ready to read through long posts. Enlighten me, please.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Quite frankly, read a book that actually has science in it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quite frankly, there's no need for this.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Your argument was that all of it together is needed for the entire system to work. This is wrong, and seeing as you want to be a jerk (sheep?), you lose and I cease arguing with you until you gain an education. Good day. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
o_O
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><i>Natural selection has these and many other logical inconsistencies: (a.) Although evolutionists say that organisms are suited for their environment because they evolved into it, being suited for the environment is much better explained by the fact that they were created for the environment rather than that they evolved into it. (b.) The fact that living things have similar patterns and design points to a common designer better than to a common ancestor. In fact, such variety in the world could not have been produced if we all come from the same ancestor. (c.) If we all come from the same ancestor, we would all be murderers and cannibals by the simple act of killing a cow. (d.) While small and undeveloped things do become grown and developed (a baby to an adult, a seed to a tree) it is also true that the small and undeveloped first come from the developed (a baby from its parents, a seed from a tree). The pattern of growth is circular not simply from the crude to the developed as natural selection proposes. (e.) Our needs exceed those of survival. Needs for love and friendship, for example, cannot be explained if all that we do is for survival. (f.) Order and interdependence in the world argues for a designer and against chance</i><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
a) That's no proof.
b) How absurd. Why would God make foetii waste their mother's valuable energy by growing palmed hands ? Theses have to be re-shaped by newer genes later on the gestation , because we have stopped living in oceans 300 millions years ago.
The observed diversity is not enough to assume a God had to intervene , what would have been a proof is a completely alien specie , with 100% of its genes not linked to any other known lifeform.
c) Ridiculous. Humans were always agressive and mercyless towards parents lifeforms , the excuse of "inferior race" was enough for enslavers to not treat their victims like human beings. It is unlikely that people would suddently refrain from eating meat just because the butchered creatures share genes with them...
d) That's either irrelevant , or erroneous. Our children <i>are</i> more evolved than us , they may have genes we don't have , and the combination of existing genes is newer.
The offspring is crude and undevelopped <i>at the beginning</i> , then it follows the evolution of its parents.
Life started as a multiplying cell , that spread and had mutations , eventually creating highly evolved animals such as humans.
We start as a multiplying cell that directly follows the evolution's path leading to us , but fortunately gestation doesn't take a billion years. Evolution is completely different from maturation.
e) Cro-Magnon's actions were widely oriented towards his own survival. As human groups grew more complex , the society created new needs.
Besides , animals do show attachment towards each other sometimes , it can even be an instinctive behavior.
f) This statement has no scientific value.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I know the arguements supported by that link (all same website really) are false and I don't want to go into detail explaining it (quite a large page).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did my share , now stop being lazy and start dismissing irrational stuff <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I was actually agreeing with him and referencing back onto what you had already said. Seems there was some confusion there...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If he had provided proof, logic, etc, but no, all he said was "False." And that wasn't even ad hominem, I did not attack his character in order to discredit him, I just said that his argument was bad in a sarcastic way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well considering that was actually my argument, I'd at least appreciate if you attacked the right people.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->*sigh* The fact that only a few mammals have it should mean something to you, yes? I want to see proof that the blood clotting system did not have to evolve certain parts "all at once". I'm ready to read through long posts. Enlighten me, please.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I could give you a decent sized post on the immune system, but blood clotting isn't what I work with every day. I only take an interest in it because of haemolytic bacteria (you'll notice this sort of trend with me, immune systems or microbes make my nipples hard). I can give you a general overview, then later if you're still very interested I can look it up in more detail.
Blood clotting does rely on numerous factors though and as you can guess from Factor VIII deficiency, which of course is more commonly known as haemophilia, some are very important. Other proteins play a role such as fibrinogen, and a specialised cell type called a platelet produced from the bone marrow. Tissue damage sends generic signals that something is up and an immune responce occurs. Immune responces stimulate phagocytes and other cells to start releasing cytokines that caused localised inflammation (hence why things get puffy and red). Some of these cytokines, as best as I understand, also signal that damage has occured and molecules like fibronogen and of course platelets, come and start to clot the bloodflow. Many proteins are involved in forming complexes that essentially allow the formation of a net that blocks off the hole (simplified version). Not all of these are 100% required to do this process, but some are very critical and must be there like Factor VIII. It is worth noting as well you don't always have to have an immune responce to stimulate this process (I'm not sure how that works, out of my field).
Now obviously that is simplified according to what I can type at 5am in the morning. However the second bit is actually easier to explain. Blood clotting in insects is a far less complex process that accomplishes the same function. Insects have specialised proteins that on a puncture and, I believe it is due to exposure to oxygen, aggregate together to block off the hole *pulls out entomology textbook*. Hemolymph clotting is essentially the same process on a simpler scale (no cells involved, whereas in the mammalian clotting there are). Reasons for this are probably many. Insects are a lot smaller and have an open circulatory system with blood and stuff mixing together. In mammals blood doesn't mix with stuff and needs to be kept seperate (or you'd bleed to death). As mammals are a lot bigger and also a lot more complex, over evolutionary time ancestral animals probably had selection pressures for a more efficient clotting system (which explains why some bits aren't overly imporant anymore, you do have to wonder why you only hear about Factor VIII deficiency). Better regulation probably came with it as well (regulation is something the body is really into and is what the immune system is all about!).
The simple thing here is that earlier animals lower down on the evolutionary trail have features or 'the basics' which higher animals then elaborated on. From certain points at each step you can see common features arising from animals that share common ancestory. Just because it can't evolve all at once in us doesn't mean it can't evolve stepwise.
As for everything else, I think you got mixed up somewhere so I retract my general meanness.
<a href='http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v3n1_appendix.asp' target='_blank'>A surgeon's view</a>
Anyway, isn't this a two-way street? Whenever Creationists have to explain why something exists in the first place, Evolutionists have to explain why it's still there although nature had enough time to get rid of it.
And now, Round 2: The hymen <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<a href='http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v3n1_appendix.asp' target='_blank'>A surgeon's view</a>
Anyway, isn't this a two-way street? Whenever Creationists have to explain why something exists in the first place, Evolutionists have to explain why it's still there although nature had enough time to get rid of it.
And now, Round 2: The hymen <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually both have a role in the immune system and preventing infection. The difference is the appendix does have no point and is vestigial because other aspects of human physiology take over for it. Essentially it is an old immune organ gone a bit queer (at least from my perspective).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3. Bacteriological2,23,24,25
Through the cells within and overlying the lymphoid follicles and their production of secretory and humoral antibodies the appendix would be involved in the control of which essential bacteria come to reside in the caecum and colon in neonatal life. As well it would be involved in the development of systemic tolerance to certain antigenic agents within the alimentary tract whether they are derived from bacteria, foodstuffs or even the body's own proteolytic enzymes<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I loved that. The bacteria that settle in us do so anyway through things like food, colostrum and presence from the mother. We're colonised rather rapidly and it has nothing to do with the appendix. Preyers patches are the stomach, intestines and general alimentary 'immune organ' and again, the appendix serves no significant purpose in any of this. The final statement though takes the cake for golden. Self/non self differentiation has NOTHING at all to do with the appendix, hell if it needed to go that far you'd have an autoimmune disease and be dead already. B-Cells (Antibodies) are 'eduated' in the bone marrow and T-Cells are 'educated' in the thymus. The appendix has no role in either.
Once again, a brilliant reason not to go to websites, particularly answersingenesis which is full of more rubbish than normal.
BTW, I love how they quoted a medical book from 1900, that just tickled me.
Oh there's another golden one, number 26! That one is even more classic as the bone marrow performs the same function as the bursa, not the appendix as they are undoubtably alluding to.
HA! Just when I thought I couldn't find another golden quote, this takes the cake:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The appendix appears to be strategically placed and structurally composed of tissues which are vital in establishing and maintaining the various types of body defences or immunity necessary in recognition of such assaults and having a part to play in their repulsion. The appendix is thus one of the guardians of the internal environment of the body from the hostile external environment.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> That just tickles me. The most important structures in immunity are lymph nodes, dendritic cells, phagocyes, bone marrow and thymus. Peyers patches are the stomachs lot. As I've not seen any journals saying that people who have had their appendix removed are in any way immunocompromised (and Janeways Immunobiology seems to think similarly) I think they are full of it. Admittingly, they are all using sources that are before major discoveries in many key aspects of immunology, but the fact they haven't bothered updating tells you something right there.
<a href='http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v3n1_appendix.asp' target='_blank'>A surgeon's view</a>
Anyway, isn't this a two-way street? Whenever Creationists have to explain why something exists in the first place, Evolutionists have to explain why it's still there although nature had enough time to get rid of it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
EDIT : thanks to Aegeri for pointing out how a noob comm would have "strategically placed" the appendix better <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Even if the appendix might not be totally useless... it's nowhere near a vital organ. If it has <i>some</i> use , then this may partly explain why we still have it , though its mass/usefullness ratio is not good. Having it removed doesn't radically increase your odds of survival , so further genome changes weren't necessary.
And don't think Nature is optimizing living beings that well , adding "coherent" genetic patterns is somewhat "costly" (creature with theses have low odds of appearing) , so Nature chooses the "shortest" path (with less genes modified) and makes compromises. When the oldest genes are changed , odds are the creature won't be viable , as they coded for various features at once , they are linked to other genes. Compensating the effects of older genes by adding newer genes is better , as no other gene is linked to them yet.
That's why you have "destructive" genes that halt the development of a now useless organ , or even cause cell death to undo the work of older genes.
Since theses genes are few , the change in shape is not always complete.
For exemple , a foetus has palmed hands like our fish ancestors , and loses the flesh between the phalanges. However , the metacarpi are still burried into flesh , which isn't necessarily a good thing...
The Lynx also has a vestigial tail , which has no use at all as far as we know.
Now I dont know specifics but let's pretend there is some trait that is Meadow Food Gathering +1. Some apes have this, some don't. The apes with MFG+1 who are living on the edge of the forest might get adventurous and go catch ... a rabbit, or something. While MFG+1 apes have double the food-gathering skills (they can get food from the forest OR the meadow), it doesn't necessarily put the non-MFG apes at a disadvantage.
Since MFG+1 apes have better food gathering skills, they will reproduce better than apes, thus increasing the chance of slight mutation; soon they will have MFG+2, and +3. Eventually their MFG skills will be better than their Forest Food Gathering skills, and they'll hunt exclusively in the meadows (whereupon their FFG may be entirely discarded). Now that the can exist in the meadows, they'll expand their horizons 50 km east; as they go along their happy way, they experience more and more mutations and slight differences. Eventually their breeding or feeding habits may become SO much different from the forest apes that they'll qualify as a different species. (Someone fill me in on what exactly distinguishes species, though, I forgot.)
It is so tempting. Tell someone that you don't believe the newspaper they cited articles from, and the uncomfortably consistent argumentation they built up falls together, leaving you and your notion secure again.
Don't ever try that.
Discrediting a newssource requires more than that one article from three years ago that wasn't entirely correct, or an obvious political bias - you'll find few newssites without one. Accept that Leftys will often quote facts found on Salon.org, while Conservatives will cite FOX. Unless you can find contradicting factual data, you will have to accept the newssources validity and instead go the hard way, argumentatively tackling the points based upon those articles.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. I bring up information against a certain idea, and it's dismissed immeadiately. I might as well not participate in this conversation. Obviously we must not be here to share, but to prove that evolution is right ? Neh ?
And funny enough, when I do, it's slammed down and labeled wrong without any sources.
If you do not care for reading their evidence for creationism that is your perogative. But do not think that it disenfranchises any information.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You haven't used any sources to refute me, you've only said otherwise. In fact, with the exception of the link about the appendix I have been the only one to use any source at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have actually listed a source, two in fact earlier in the thread. In many ways, scientific textbooks are infinitely more valid than either website (Which I've already refuted).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><a href='http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter15.php' target='_blank'>Another source, use the arrows at the bottom to scroll through the chapters</a>
If you do not care for reading their evidence for creationism that is your perogative. But do not think that it disenfranchises any information. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, how about you go, pick up a copy of the likes of the Journal of Macroevolution, and have a read. I don't think you've even remotely looked at a Journal article before.
Secondly lets have a quote now from that delightfully crazy website:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and the dark liaisons between Darwinism and such bloody ideologies as fascism and communism. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I can immediately say the author of that website is a complete and utter bigot, really. Again, check your sources to make sure they haven't had a good dose of the 'stupid' please. You would find it equally offensive if I bought up the Crusades and made a claim that it was Christianities fault (when when actually looked at it wasn't at all). This just lends weight to why I immediately dismiss rubbish from these websites.
Here, another golden quote, please read your sources!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One point should be kept in mind: The main reason for the continuing cruelty, conflict, and other ordeals endured by the vast majority of people is the ideological prevalence of disbelief.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
o_O Guess he hasn't looked at the 30 years way, Ireland, Israel, Crusades or any number of conflicts largely fueled by religious differences and the inherent greed in men. The Church was used as a weapon by Pope Urban the II, Spanish rulers used it as an instrument of terror, the English used religion to persecure Catholics and as an excuse to slaughter them (Were military reasons behind that too, but Cromwell had NO reason to just put 100,000's of Catholics to death in Ireland <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> ) etc. Reading through that I could quote so much inane rubbish it isn't funny. :/
But once again, website, old resources (does a little better, one from 1997, but it's a book, not a Journal article)blah blah blah. Not really a valid resource :/ JOUNRAL ARTICLES! If you can give me a modern Journal article from Nature, Science, the Journal of Microbiological Evolution, Microbiology, Journal of General Virology, Behavioural Evolution, Evolution (might have Journal of version too), Molecular Evolution and Dynamics, The Canadian/British/American/New Zealand Journal of Zoology etc. That is evidence, some website, which can frankly have any incorrect facts it likes (see Answers in Genesis and the sites you've linked) is not acceptable in a scientific debate. Sorry, but that is the way it is. BTW, all the above are MY sources as well as:
Brocks biology of Microorganisms (Maddigan <i>et al</i>.) 9th edition
Biology (Campbell), 5th Edition
Matthews and Van Holde Biochemistry (3rd Edition).
Microbiology: Dynamics and Diversity (Perry and Staley 2nd edition)
Immunobiology: The immune system in health and disease (Janeway)
Voet and Voet: Biochemistry (2nd edition)
Entomology (Stoffolano)
Totora and Grabowski: Human Anatomy (Note, change the above reference, I confused myself last night <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->)
Medical Biochemistry (Not on hand right now)
To give you a short list. Everything I say comes from these sources, my lectures or my own research (lab). All are peer reviewed by the scientific community, websites, like answersingenesis, are NOT peer reviewed and are grossly wrong in cases. As such, they are not valid. Sorry to tell you that but it is true.
The other thing is that creationism really doesn't have any 'evidence' that is in any way 'scientific'. I challenge you to name a pro creationist genetic or molecular biochemistry paper in the past 4 years. I'll accept anything from Nature or Science too.
If all your references are merely websites, I'm going to simply dismiss them immediately out of hand unless their references are journal articles or recognised textbooks. But tell me sirus, if this is such valid evidence, why doesn't it get published in Nature, science or other top journals? Why have creationist arguments been the area of public debate, scientific communities general laughter and books and websites. Think about that, I can give any number of JOURNAL references for evolution, can you give a single one for creationism (and yes I WILL look it up)? Funnily enough, I doubt it.
Next up, the scientific conspiracy against creationism (to explain why nothing pro creationist ends up in any top textbooks or Journal articles).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->5.: Respect other peoples newssources.
It is so tempting. Tell someone that you don't believe the newspaper they cited articles from, and the uncomfortably consistent argumentation they built up falls together, leaving you and your notion secure again.
Don't ever try that.
Discrediting a newssource requires more than that one article from three years ago that wasn't entirely correct, or an obvious political bias - you'll find few newssites without one. Accept that Leftys will often quote facts found on Salon.org, while Conservatives will cite FOX. Unless you can find contradicting factual data, you will have to accept the newssources validity and instead go the hard way, argumentatively tackling the points based upon those articles.
<b>Yes. I bring up information against a certain idea, and it's dismissed immeadiately.</b> I might as well not participate in this conversation. Obviously we must not be here to share, but to prove that evolution is right ? Neh ? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In scientific debates I do not regard websites as valid information. It is funny actually, because I knew you would say that. Here is a PM I sent to Nemesis Zero about that exact thing. Read it and you'll know why I dismiss it straight away. That rule does brilliantly in more opinion based discussions, but in scientific ones it should be amended in a few ways.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is a problem with this in scientific arguments that should in fact be inherently obvious. The first one is that all 'new' information is published in scientific journals and a lot of this hasn't actually been done yet! Those of us who come from scientific backgrounds are already on the forefront of some of these sciences. I in particular do a lot of genetic and immune system work that nobody else does. Referencing some of what I do isn't actually possible because it has yet to be published!
The main thing however is that science is invalidating positions held yesterday today. What is true today might be truer tommorow, or it might be a load of ****, who knows. What this means is that the older a scientific reference is, the worse it is. If you are quoting from a paper on molecular genetics from 1972 and one from 2003, the 2003 paper is automatically more valid in 99% of cases. The reason for this is few old school papers have accurate information, or express the same understanding.
In the 1990's for example NOBODY believed that bacteria could survive in the stomach of human beings. Gastroenterologists were convinced that gastric ulsers were caused by smoking, drinking, that sort of thing. When it was proposed that a bacterium called Heliobacter pylori was causing it, they were laughed at in general. When they proved the bacterium did cause gastric ulsers they won a nobel prize in medicine
The point of the above is that papers before 1990 are UTTERLY convinced that you cannot have bacteria infecting the stomach. After that however there is a wealth of information on just how this bacterium achieves this exact trick (It's damn clever). Unfortunately on these forums, it would be too easy to use ancient out of date arguments to make a sound case. This shouldn't be applicable!
When discussing things that are still on the forefront of scientific knowledge and understanding, modern references, within 3 years are definitely only applicable. Discussions on evolution that are still quoting people from 1977, 1980's or whatever are as valid as saying a fairy told you it.
When this is ok are really ultra important papers that set things into stone or motion. Kochs "leetle animacules" or Einsteins theory of relativity are valid, because they have stood the test of time and scientific scrutiny. But Darwins origin of species is NOT acceptable to be quoted as evolutionary fact because simply put, we think things happened a lot differently. Antibiotic effectiveness papers from the 1940's are equally as silly, because we know now that bacteria don't work like that. Genetics papers from the 1960's aren't as valid as those released in the 1997-2003 period etc.
I know why this rule has been implemented and I do agree with it in so many cases (History for one!). However, this rule is not adequate to apply to a scientific argument for the stated reasons. When references are bought up in science, they must be:
a) Recent
b) Peer reviewed (Journal Articles, textbooks)
c) Written by an actual scientist/researched well.
Otherwise the resource is instantly invalid :/<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aegeri: "Can macroevolution sometimes be so fast as to pass us by?"
The population tracking? When a creature dies, I subtract one from the graph. When one is born, I add one. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
The spikes and valleys are a product of the simulation itself - they're more jagged than natural systems because this system is way smaller and things happen at a greatly accelerated rate. If you slow the simulation way down and/or stretch the graph out, you'll see something that looks more natural.
Dont discredit things simply on the basis that they havent made it into journals. These journals are an evolutionairy backpatting club. You have a dissenting opinion you can sod of to the websites - which are of cause automatically classified bunk cause they didnt make it into the journals.
As for the claim bigot - bigot simply means to be unreasonably convinced of the rightness of your own ideals. And you, having probably never read a single decent artical in your much vaunted magazines that reasonably defended creationism feel that you are quite reasonably convinced of the rightness of your ideas.
Classic evolutionary filtering. We get to decide whose valid and who isnt. If your not published in our magazine then you are not valid. We are not going to let you publish, therefore you arent valid.
Call it a conspiracy if you will, but if it was true - how the hell would you know?
And as for the crack about the appendix - the appendix is known to have several functions, one of which is in the immune system. Science has known this since 1970, but my biology teacher last year told me it was vestigal. Thats the great thing about evolutionairy theory, its always up to date. At the beginning of the century - there was over 100 vestigal organs. Have them all removed and you'd be dead.
Now there are only a few, and even those they are hesitant to just whip out. Time and time again it has been shown that if you dont know what purpose something serves, its probably not clever to assume it has none.
Okay, I got this far and went "pssssch."
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Furthermore, mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the genetic code. This also makes evolution from mutations impossible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Small, random, yes. But not always harmful. Again, cf. Genesaver - mutations are always small and random, and usually harmful, but not always.
Okay, I got this far and went "pssssch."
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Furthermore, mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the genetic code. This also makes evolution from mutations impossible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Small, random, yes. But not always harmful. Again, cf. Genesaver - mutations are always small and random, and usually harmful, but not always. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know a lot of the time they make blanket statements, and they probably shouldnt, but its really hard to write a document and every time you make a quote to qualify it down to the ground. If you pushed the author on that point, I'm sure he'd agree with you Samwise - Mutations, gene swapping whatever is almost always harmful.
Hes not writing a thesis or a scientific article there - its an article designed to put his point of view across.