RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

BVZ -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/6/2008 7:48:50 AM)

The only argument worth mentioning was from Juhd, where he said that the only reason a creature will stay static is because the niche it is adapted to remains static.

He continued to say that no niche can remain static for THAT long.

Why do you think that a niche cannot remain static?



Jhud -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/6/2008 9:15:10 AM)

quote:

The only argument worth mentioning was from Juhd, where he said that the only reason a creature will stay static is because the niche it is adapted to remains static.

He continued to say that no niche can remain static for THAT long.

Why do you think that a niche cannot remain static?


Well it either did or didn't - evolutionists can't have it both ways, arguing that life evolved in extremely dramatic ways because of the extreme selective pressure of a changing environments worldwide, while the environments (which incidentally aren't particularly unique) for jellyfish, horsehoe crabs, army ants, beetles, flowers, and platypuses existed in a protective bubbles for hundreds of millions of years.



Jhud -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/7/2008 11:19:51 AM)

More evolutionary stasis in evidence:

Oldest Australian Crayfish Fossils Provide Missing Evolutionary Link(?!)

Crayfish body fossils and burrows discovered in Victoria, Australia, have provided the first physical evidence that crayfish existed on the continent as far back as the Mesozoic Era, says Emory University paleontologist Anthony Martin, who headed up a study on the finds.

"Studying the fossil burrows gives us a glimpse into the ecology of southern Australia about 115 million years ago, when the continent was still attached to Antarctica," says Martin, a senior lecturer in environmental studies at Emory and an honorary research associate at Monash University in Melbourne.

During that era, diverse plants grew in what is today Antarctica and dinosaurs roamed in prolonged polar darkness along southern Australia river plains. The period is of particular interest to scientists since it is believed to be the last time the Earth experienced pronounced global warming, with an average temperature of 68 degrees Fahrenheit – just 10 degrees warmer than today.

The crayfish body fossils consist of an abdomen and two claws, and the fossil burrows are nearly identical to those made by modern crayfish in southeastern Australia. "Comparing these fossil burrows to those made by modern crayfish in Australia shows us that their behavior hasn't changed that much," says Martin, who specializes in trace fossils.



Real_Solitude -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/7/2008 7:37:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well it either did or didn't - evolutionists can't have it both ways, arguing that life evolved in extremely dramatic ways because of the extreme selective pressure of a changing environments worldwide, while the environments (which incidentally aren't particularly unique) for jellyfish, horsehoe crabs, army ants, beetles, flowers, and platypuses existed in a protective bubbles for hundreds of millions of years.


Again, I don't know much about specific evolutionary branches, or about oceanography, but shouldn't we, with trillions of species of animals having have existed, expect to see a very few of them resilient enough to not change when their environment does. That they're well-suited enough to any changes that occur to simply continue?



drmark -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/7/2008 8:59:51 PM)

quote:

with trillions of species of animals having have existed
Do you have scientific support for this hypothesis, R_S?



futuredocter37 -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/7/2008 9:02:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

with trillions of species of animals having have existed
Do you have scientific support for this hypothesis, R_S?


I'm not sure they need proof, becuase remember science is working on it.



Real_Solitude -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/7/2008 11:39:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

with trillions of species of animals having have existed
Do you have scientific support for this hypothesis, R_S?


No, actually, I just pulled a very large number out of thin air. It was more of a "random big number" than anything science has said. More for flourish than anything.
Upon review, I find an estimate of 2 billion to 100 billion to be withing accepted values. These values, however, are based entirely on Wikipedia, and therefore may be fictional.
Sorry about that.



Aristocrat -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/8/2008 2:19:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

The only argument worth mentioning was from Juhd, where he said that the only reason a creature will stay static is because the niche it is adapted to remains static.

He continued to say that no niche can remain static for THAT long.

Why do you think that a niche cannot remain static?


Well it either did or didn't - evolutionists can't have it both ways, arguing that life evolved in extremely dramatic ways because of the extreme selective pressure of a changing environments worldwide, while the environments (which incidentally aren't particularly unique) for jellyfish, horsehoe crabs, army ants, beetles, flowers, and platypuses existed in a protective bubbles for hundreds of millions of years.


Such a simplistic approach. As life evolved, species branched off...the DNA followed them which is why all living things share DNA. If the lizard is related to the snake, it doesn't mean that there should be no lizards because they all turned into snakes. Due to environmental pressures and generational mutations the tree of life branched into many different kinds.

Jhud...you know this...what kind of scam you trying to pull here. LOL



Jhud -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/8/2008 8:28:41 AM)

quote:

Such a simplistic approach. As life evolved, species branched off...the DNA followed them which is why all living things share DNA. If the lizard is related to the snake, it doesn't mean that there should be no lizards because they all turned into snakes. Due to environmental pressures and generational mutations the tree of life branched into many different kinds.


Again, while I appreciate this assertion, it does nothing to answer the failure of evolution to explain prolonged stasis in other populations. Why would mutation and selection have such dramatic though unproven effects on lazards, the presumed "environmental pressures" dramatically altering morphology, while the same environmental pressures have no effect whatsoever on horshoecrabs, crawfish, and platypuses?



Jhud -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/8/2008 8:32:42 AM)

quote:

Again, I don't know much about specific evolutionary branches, or about oceanography, but shouldn't we, with trillions of species of animals having have existed, expect to see a very few of them resilient enough to not change when their environment does. That they're well-suited enough to any changes that occur to simply continue?


Two reasons I suppose. The first would be that they would have to somehow be impervious to what are considered ordinary biological processes - mutation and natural selection, making them somehow outside the pervue of evolutionary modification. That would be a fairly radical contention.

Secondly, many of these forms, as they exist today, actually aren't all that robust as populations - they seem to be threatened as their environments are changed by human activities.



drmark -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/8/2008 8:33:51 AM)

quote:

Jhud...you know this...what kind of scam you trying to pull here. LOL
Jack, I notice you did not appreciate this assertion. [;)]

quote:

they seem to be threatened as there environements are changed by human activities.
Careful, Jack, R_S is a stickler for "there, their, and they're".



Jhud -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/8/2008 8:41:29 AM)

quote:

Jack, I notice you did not appreciate this assertion.


I am learning to ignore the digs and get down to nitty gritty.



Real_Solitude -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/9/2008 2:51:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
Careful, Jack, R_S is a stickler for "there, their, and they're".


Everyone needs a little bit of grammar Nazi in them. :)



Veritas -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/9/2008 10:28:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
Careful, Jack, R_S is a stickler for "there, their, and they're".


Everyone needs a little bit of grammar Nazi in them. :)

The word everyone is singular, but the word them is plural. Your sentence should read "Everyone needs a little bit of grammar Nazi in him."



EcclesFruitcake -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/9/2008 1:59:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veritas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
Careful, Jack, R_S is a stickler for "there, their, and they're".


Everyone needs a little bit of grammar Nazi in them. :)

The word everyone is singular, but the word them is plural. Your sentence should read "Everyone needs a little bit of grammar Nazi in him."


The word 'everyone' is not singular; 'them' can refer to a group of people or be used instead of 'him' or 'her'.

If a grammar Nazi comes looking for me, tell them everyone else is to blame.



ianz -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/11/2008 4:45:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EcclesFruitcake
The word 'everyone' is not singular; 'them' can refer to a group of people or be used instead of 'him' or 'her'.

If a grammar Nazi comes looking for me, tell them everyone else is to blame.

Veritas is right. Them is a plural term. It has only entered common speech because English doesn't have a suitable generic form for "his or her".

Regards, Ian



Jhud -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/11/2008 9:19:28 AM)

Time to return to the topic...



Mountaineer -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/11/2008 10:30:29 PM)

I'm not sure how someone can think this is evidence against evolution. First of all, there are several species of horseshoe crabs. Second, what is meant by "it's a good plan" is referring to the body 'plan'. The shape of the crab has remained largely unchanged for a half billion years. No change to the phenotype does not necessitate no change to the genotype. Think of how we look similar to our ancestors from 10,000 years ago yet there are some fundamental changes. Lactose tolerance comes to mind first, but there are plenty of other examples (for instance, the fossil of an American Indian would be indistinguishable from that of a European a few hundred years back, yet the European had a higher resistance to small pox).

The idea that this presents a problem for evolution because mutations occur at regular intervals and rates is boggling. First, many mutations are either neutral or deleterious. The neutral ones are a non-factor for obvious reasons. The deleterious ones are weeded out by natural selection. Second, beneficial mutations are quite evidently extremely rare for the horseshoe crab. In other words, what leads to more adaptability would need to be extremely specific at this point due to the fact that the crab is already so highly adapted to its environment. But again, it's important to remember that a beneficial mutation need not necessarily have a result in the phenotype.

It is a true stretch to claim stasis presents any issues for evolution. It would be surprising to discover a majority or even a relatively large number (1%, say) of species that remained unchanged for such long periods of time, but to find a few is not so surprising. All that is needed is a relatively stable environment. This means that when the Earth faces large scale changes to most of its species that not every species will be forced to go through a period of great change. This is because a horseshoe crab doesn't necessarily need to change its shape if it can eat various species of clams and worms that are going through great changes. In other words, its environment hasn't actually changed. It is still obtaining a food source and the method it currently uses is the best available.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/11/2008 10:42:57 PM)

This demonstrates the unfalsifiable nature of UCD. If organisms are diverse, they attribute it to natural selection acting on random mutation. If organisms remain static over time, they attribute it to a well adapted organism ("a good plan"). Evolution predicts nothing and is hence unfalsifiable and unscientific.



futuredocter37 -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/11/2008 10:48:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

This demonstrates the unfalsifiable nature of UCD. If organisms are diverse, they attribute it to natural selection acting on random mutation. If organisms remain static over time, they attribute it to a well adapted organism ("a good plan"). Evolution predicts nothing and is hence unfalsifiable and unscientific.


The null hypothesis that I've heard in my Biology class is to use the Hardy-Weinbery Eqiulibrium equation, which I'm not really sure about becuase if you count all the alleles in a population, well all the alleles in a individual, even for bacteria, it would be several thousand. I'm not sure how it can account for gene expression or how other genes are silenced.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/11/2008 11:01:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: futuredocter37
The null hypothesis that I've heard in my Biology class is to use the Hardy-Weinbery Eqiulibrium equation, which I'm not really sure about becuase if you count all the alleles in a population, well all the alleles in a individual, even for bacteria, it would be several thousand. I'm not sure how it can account for gene expression or how other genes are silenced.


They would probably have to mess with the start and stop codons to turn the exons into introns. Though if they have the ability to manipulate genetic material at that level, I would presume they can cure a lot of things (ie: manipulate the genes of your bone marrow to produce antibodies that mimic those who can't get AIDS). I'm not sure at what level they can manipulate genetic information. Then again, they probably have very little incentive to (they would rather keep you on drugs for the rest of your life than to cure you of something so that they can charge you money for drugs for the rest of your life. I do remember reading in my biology book something about them being able to manipulate the genes of bone marrow that produces blood for a broken enzyme to produce the correct enzyme in babies. I forget the exact details but from what I remember, they take out a piece of the bone marrow, infect it with a retrovirus that manipulates the genes the way they want, and insert the bone marrow back in or something like that. Then, the person is able to break down sugar or something).



Mountaineer -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/11/2008 11:04:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
This demonstrates the unfalsifiable nature of UCD. If organisms are diverse, they attribute it to natural selection acting on random mutation. If organisms remain static over time, they attribute it to a well adapted organism ("a good plan"). Evolution predicts nothing and is hence unfalsifiable and unscientific.


One can demonstrate a cat did not descend from the same ancestor as a lion by showing anatomic changes (and since these are living creatures, by showing greatly unrelated genomes) which are fundamentally different or that one species comes from a different ancestor.

It isn't clear why you claim evolution does not predict anything.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/11/2008 11:10:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mountaineer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
This demonstrates the unfalsifiable nature of UCD. If organisms are diverse, they attribute it to natural selection acting on random mutation. If organisms remain static over time, they attribute it to a well adapted organism ("a good plan"). Evolution predicts nothing and is hence unfalsifiable and unscientific.


One can demonstrate a cat did not descend from the same ancestor as a lion by showing anatomic changes (and since these are living creatures, by showing greatly unrelated genomes) which are fundamentally different or that one species comes from a different ancestor.


How different and why that different? Evolution has never been demonstrated to produce the differences between humans and chimps or humans and bacteria and humans and bacteria have huge anatomical differences. Since evolution has never been shown to produce those differences and this hasn't falsified UCD, how would adding another difference (ie: a specific genetic difference) be any different?

quote:


It isn't clear why you claim evolution does not predict anything.


It isn't clear why you claim UCD predicts something. The hypothesis is so bad that it steals tax dollars to brainwash students with it and criticisms (like my own) and opposing views are censored from tax funded domains (ie: schools). Why should I believe in a hypothesis that can't even stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny and that must resort to dishonestly brainwashing students with it at taxpayer expense while censoring opposing views in order to propagate?



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/11/2008 11:27:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Two nearly complete fossil specimens discovered in Canada reveal a new genus of horseshoe crab, pushing their origins back at least 100 million years earlier than previously thought.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primitive looks
Analysis of the recent finds also indicates the ocean creatures haven’t changed much over the eons.

"We wouldn't necessarily have expected horseshoe crabs to look very much like the modern ones, but that's exactly what they look like," Rudkin said.
...
Well, up until recently horshoe crabs were thought to have originated later than the earliest spider or scorpion, so until this fossil was discovered it wouldn't have been a consideration.
...
Sure, but that common ancestor doesn’t appear to be a horseshoe crab. In fact, according to the fossil record, the only common ancestor for a horseshoe crab appears to be a horseshoe crab.


Looks like the evidence is starting to support biblical creation more and more. ie: Everything was created in a short period of time and organisms with huge anatomical differences do not share a common ancestor.



Aristocrat -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/11/2008 11:34:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

Looks like the evidence is starting to support biblical creation more and more. ie: Everything was created in a short period of time and organisms with huge anatomical differences do not share a common ancestor.


Betta you say there is evidence that everything was created in a short period of time. I have not seen that evidence. Could you be more specific?

You also say that organisms with 'huge' anatomical differences do not share a common ancestor. Scientifically speaking, what is the measurement of 'huge'?



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI