Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Prove an interpretation?

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 5
 [ 98 posts ] 
Prove an interpretation?
Author Message
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 511Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Prove an interpretation?

From the comments section of my video, How Meteorology Disproves Noah's Flood:
Anthony Riley wrote:
Thomas Bardoux wrote:human share dna with bananas, proving there is a far common ancestor, a species, which descendant by numerous speciations would led to humans and bananas, you believe speciation hapen only within one species, then do you consider banana and humans the same species?

No of courqe, that's the basic of speciation, two groups cease to be one species.

our common ancestor wasn't human or banana, it's descendant changed over time, the definition of evolution.

Then you have the intermediary species, homo abilis, homo erectus, australopiteque, they are proved our ancestor, yet they changed over time before the modern humans

Evolution is proved, it's been a long time n
and thousands of concordants elements, yet you consider that a "creation" is more probable when no creator has ever been proven...

you are dellusional if you honestly believe your last post. Evolution has to jump. It does not do it. The banana point does indeed point to a common "ancestor". Our maker, whoever that is.

Evolution don't have to jump, it have to move, slowly or swiftly, it don't change anything.
Evolution mean only one thing: change, no other promises.

Dna transmit only one way, reproduction and descendance.

That's how dna testing can verify your related to someone.
Having even a gene common mean ancestry, you didn't learnt how dna form and transmit don't you?

Or do you consider that dna testing of family isn't valid?

You're very delusional if you deny the evidences, but seeing your "sources" it seem your more open to testimonies of extraordinary than actual scientific evidence.

To become a scientific fact, especially a on a so touchy subject, an idea must have hard evidence and must survive new discoveries.

Why scientists, skeptic of the idea had to accept it and now basing all of biology on it if it is baseless?

Yes, it has to cross species boundaries. Or, two animals of the same phenotype create a new animal of a different phenotype. It has NEVER happened. Case closed.

AronRa wrote:That's not evolution. It's not about breeding. It's about mutations arising in an individual and then spreading throughout the population. It's not evolution until it's a population-level change. If the population divides, genetic drift continues, generating unique mutations in each group. A subspecies is when every member of one group shares traits that do not appear on any member of the sister or ancestral group. As this divergence continues, the chances of the two groups interbreeding with viable offspring diminishes. When the two increasingly distinct phenotypes cannot or will not interbreed in the wild, then they are two different species. The rules are a bit different for asexual reproducers of course. But speciation has been directly observed and documented dozens of times, both in the lab and in naturally controlled conditions in the field.
AronRa so would I be right to think that you support speciation events as proof of evolution? if this is true, I'd like to invite you into a debate. I agree they happen but how they are interpreted by you seems to suggest that mutation within a species is accepted to prove evolution. This is wrong.

You're on.
Before we begin, I have often made the challenge that I will effectively prove that biological evolution is the truest, best explanation there is for the origin of our species, and that it is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support or scientific validity. I can prove this even to your satisfaction over the course of a couple dozen mutual exchanges. The only trick to that is that you must properly address every point or query, ignoring none. If you repeatedly ignore direct questions, you will default this discussion, and I will be under no obligation to continue.

Logical fallacies like special pleading will not count for anything. You will be under the same rules of science and logic as I am.

To begin, we must first define our terms. For the purpose of this discussion, we should use the legal definition of proof: wherein proof is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence. Evidence is a body of facts which are positively indicative of, or exclusively concordant with, only one of the available options over any other. And a fact is a point of data which is objectively verifiable. We'll also need to define what evolution is. The way I choose to phrase that is to say that evolution is an explanation of biodiversity via population mechanics; summarily defined as ‘descent with inherent [genetic] modification’: Paraphrased for clarity, it is a process of varying allele frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of descendant subsets. When compiled over successive generations, these can expand biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins. If you want to contest my definition, you'll have to cite multiple mainstream academic sources.

My first question is in multiple parts. Explain what you would accept as proof of evolution, and also of the theory of gravity or relativity, atomic theory, cell theory, and the germ theory of disease,
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Fri Jan 20, 2017 2:03 am
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

AronRa wrote:
My first question is in multiple parts. Explain what you would accept as proof of evolution, and also of the theory of gravity or relativity, atomic theory, cell theory, and the germ theory of disease,


I don't know if I am allowed to answer here. If not I hope a mod will move my post elsewhere instead of deleting it.

An overwhelming preponderance of evidence.

Because of the advent of modern technology we can readily test evidences for the theory of gravity, atomic theory, cell theory and germ theory and know we have an overwhelming preponderance of evidence for them.

There is no readily testable evidence you can present to show that higher functions, such as consciousness, reproduction, or the eyesight and the workings of the human eye can arise from a single cell organism. If there were such evidence, it would be proof of evolution.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:07 pm
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 511Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

thenexttodie wrote:I don't know if I am allowed to answer here.
As it seems that the one who originally challenged me is not up to the challenge, then I guess you'd like to stand in?

Because of the advent of modern technology we can readily test evidences for the theory of gravity, atomic theory, cell theory and germ theory and know we have an overwhelming preponderance of evidence for them.

There is no readily testable evidence you can present to show that higher functions, such as consciousness, reproduction, or the eyesight and the workings of the human eye can arise from a single cell organism.
Sure there is. Consciousness is an emergent property that can occur multiple ways in an interactive cellular construct--or even without one. It can also occur in the form of a hive mind or can even be synthesized. As for reproduction, that begins/began even before life did, at the chemical level. And there are even single-celled organisms that have eyes.

If there were such evidence, it would be proof of evolution.
No it wouldn't, because evolution isn't even required for any of these. Even the eyespot of the protist, euglena could have been derived by other known biological processes. Now if you want to talk about the evolution of the eye as an organ, then we definitely have that one well documented even in Darwin's day. It's funny that creationists so often misquote Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree", yet they never read the rest of that paragraph where he says, "but reason tells me...". He then dedicated whole pages to explaining the evolution of the eye. Remember that he had already done that in his original book 150 years ago, and creationists have to know that, because we know they've poured through his work looking for anything they could take out of context to give a deliberately deceptive impression. Since then of course, that one mined quote made the evolution of the eye the penultimate example, which numerous other biologists have done to death. Seriously, type "evolution of..." into Google, and it will immediately auto-fill "the eye". If you don't want to read any of the popular science, university, or magazine articles, nor peer-reviewed journal entries, or even the easy-to-understand illustrations that immediately come up showing the overwhelming evidence for that, then you could also watch the NOVA documentary or videos where PBS, David Attenborough, and Richard Dawkins explain this repeatedly. I gave a summary explanation twice in the first half of one of my videos too.

So remember what we're talking about. My goal is to prove to your satisfaction that biological evolution is the truest, best explanation there is for the origin of our species, and that it is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support or scientific validity. Now, since you're under the same rules and conditions as I am, then you can either concede that I have already done this with regard to the evolution of the eye, or it will be your turn to present scientific documentation which overwhelms and refutes mine and presents support for a different explanation that is even more parsimonious.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Sun Jan 22, 2017 4:44 am
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

thenexttodie wrote:
AronRa wrote:
My first question is in multiple parts. Explain what you would accept as proof of evolution, and also of the theory of gravity or relativity, atomic theory, cell theory, and the germ theory of disease,


I don't know if I am allowed to answer here. If not I hope a mod will move my post elsewhere instead of deleting it.

An overwhelming preponderance of evidence.

Because of the advent of modern technology we can readily test evidences for the theory of gravity, atomic theory, cell theory and germ theory and know we have an overwhelming preponderance of evidence for them.

There is no readily testable evidence you can present to show that higher functions, such as consciousness, reproduction, or the eyesight and the workings of the human eye can arise from a single cell organism. If there were such evidence, it would be proof of evolution.


I can answer you question, though it wil be a long post. But first some clarification.

We know that evolution happens, just like we know that we and nearly everything that we can see are made of atoms (atomic theory) and that germs cause disease (germ theory) and that objects with mass attract each other (theory of gravity).
So to prove evolution, you just have to show that evolution is directly observed just like all these other things are observed (well accept for atoms, because we can't see them directly).

Reproductive populations vary their genetic frequency over many generations (FACT)
and this causes subtle changes in the morphology/physiology of the descendants (FACT)
These subtle changes can compile over many generations, (FACT)
that drives two or more genetically isolated groups more distinct from each other and their ancestors (FACT)
Thus increasing the diversity within the population, (FACT)
leading to new variants, and then new subspecies and (if the process continues) eventually new species. (FACT)

These facts above are all directly observed both in the lab and in nature, it also includes macro evolution (the evolution of new species).
And there is the theory that explains how evolution happens. Natural selection, drift, draft and more mechanisms that drive the process.
This would be enough to prove evolution, but not to creationist. They demand to see how complex organs they deem irreducible can evolve just like that, new information out of random mutations. They often don't consider how evolution works to build complex structure over time. They often say that duplications and such doesn't count as new information, but many components a complex biological system are coopted from a older system or the older system was modified for a new or an additional purpose. A sort of blind tinkering with no foresight nor any capability to start from scratch, but it is still directional in a sense that any random change in the system that is beneficial is preserved well any detrimental is not. And also, evolution doesn't mean that all organisms have to change in the same way or in the same direction. For example, you have at first three species very closely related that all share an identical system X. The descendants of one species may modify that X into Y and then the species splits resulting in two species having Y, but one species modify the Y into Z while the other retains Y. In the mean time, the descendants of the other species modified X into A and another just retained X in largely the same form as it did in the common ancestor of all of them.

So the same structure can be retained in one closely related species while the other species modifies it for another purpose.

With this principles we can make specific predictions about how a system evolved. Does the system contain components that are used in other systems that may not even have the same function? Can we also identify some key genes that are part of the system, if so we should be able to trace their phylogenetic history, see if they are present in other organisms that don't have the system such that they are used for something else. Are similar systems in other species that are modified in other ways or are in a simpler form that still performs a selectable function in the organisms? If we do all these, there is a very plausible scenario for how this system evolved.

For each of the explanations for how these systems evolved, I will briefly summarize. The complete explanations are far to complex to be put here in a post (you can write a PhD thesis for any of these systems to pick as the subject, which they have).

Let's start with Consciousness although I think that is the problem of neuroscientists, because how the brain produces consciousness is a question for that particular field, not evolution. How consciousness arises from neurons, I suspect that it is a matter of simple emergence of many interacting neurons, which on their own don't exhibit this property. A similar thing happens with this. A single bee relatively stupid, but the collective beehive can make complex decisions based on how the bees interact with each other, making the beehive behave (haha see what I did there) as if it had a single intelligence. Swarm intellicence


Part of the documentary "What are animal thinking?"

How the brain evolved, that is a question for evolution.
So first we need to have a good representation of how the system works and is composed. The brain has three main components,
the neurons (cells that transmit signals)
the synapsis (the connections between the neurons)
and the circuitry (allowing for the brain to send out specific signals in response to input stimuli).
Well to first state the obvious, the brain is not an irreducible complex structure. These components are known to exists without forming a brain. Like Jelly fish have no brain, but they do have a simple nervous system with neurons. But how did we have neurons evolve? From what?
First explain in basics the neuron. Neurons are basically cells that use action potentials, modulated by ion channels within the membranes of the cells, that sends an electrical signal. This may seem irreducible at first, but each part of this system is found on its own associated with a function that are often not related to the function of the nervous system.

First you have many ion channels, some are voltage gated that allow ions to flow between the membranes in response to a passing wave of action potential in order to continue the action potential even further.
Ion channels have been found in single celled organisms that use these channels for many different purposes, mainly to maintain ion homeostasis, but a surprising function in them is to communicate with electrical impulses. Even though these single cellular organisms don't have any neurons, they do have ion channels that are homologous the ones in our neurons and they serve a very similar function to module action potential to send electrical impulses to neighboring cells. Even specialized voltage-gated ion channels have been found in prokaryotes. Even in single cellular protists, these electrical signals generated by ion channels can be used in very sophisticated ways. When the single cellular paramecium bumps onto an obstacle, that bump opens the ion channels generate a wave of ion flow across the cell. The resulting voltage wave reverses the beating of the cilia making the protist travel in the opposite direction.
So these key components already existed and performed many functions, before any neurons and thus a complete nervous system (including brains) already existed.

What more can we find? what about the synapses? It turns out that many of the components of the synapses are also found in animals that don't even have a nervous system like sponges. For example, the critical synaptic scaffold gene, dlg has homologs present in sponges serving another purpose. And the glutamate receptor (that bind to secreted neuro transmitters) also show a phylogenetic history that precedes synapses.

From this we can construct the phylogenetic history of the synapses.
Image
Phylogenetic tree depicting taxons of current relevance to synapse evolution. An extant model organism of each clade is displayed at the top of the phylogeny (see Supplementary information S2 (Box) for additional details on the phylogenetic placing of Porifera relative to Cnidaria). Nodes on the phylogeny represent the divergence points of various clades and are presented by coloured circles. The red node represents Urbilateria (the last common ancestor of all bilaterians). The small grey circle represents the ursynapse (last common ancestor of all synapses). Beside each node the range of published estimations of the given divergence time are given in mya (millions of years ago), as well as the average (av) estimated divergence time based on published studies (available through the public resource for knowledge on the timescale and evolutionary history of life, Timetree43, 104). Superimposed on the phylogeny are notable proteins that are involved in synapse formation and/or function, showing at what intervals in evolutionary history various synaptic components arose. See Supplementary information S3(Box) for additional details on the possible origins of GABA and metabotropic glutamate receptors. AMPA, α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid; CaMKII, calcium/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II; CASK, calcium/calmodulin dependent serine protein kinase; CRIPT, cysteine-rich PDZ-binding protein; Dlg, discs, large homolog; GABA, g-aminobutyric acid; GKAP, guanylate kinase associated protein; GRIP, glutamate receptor interacting protein; KIR channel, inwardly rectifying potassium channel; LIMK, LIM domain kinase; MAGUK, membrane-associated guanylate kinase; MASC, MAGUK associated signalling complex; MuSK, muscle specific kinase; NCAM, neural cell adhesion molecule; NF1, neurofibromin 1; NMDA, N-methylase-D-aspartate; NOS, nitric oxide synthase; PKC, protein kinase C; PMCA, plasma membrane calcium transporting ATPase; Shank, SH3 and multiple ankyrin repeat domains; S-SCAM, membrane associated guanylate kinase, WW and PDZ domain containing 2; SynGAP, synaptic Ras GTPase activating protein.

Now we have a rough understanding of the evolution of neurons and the synaptic connections between them, but how can neural networks evolve. Well that is relatively simply. Any connection has a benefit or not and the ones that do are preserved, while others are not. This can be shown with simulations of evolving neural networks or in real life robots with neural networks evolving based on the rules of population genetics.


From this we have functional nervous system and later we can develop a more complex system with a brain and so on. From the simple brain of the lancelet, which is barely a larger area of the central nerve chord, to the brains of fishes, then amphibians, reptiles and mammals.
Image
Molecular evolution of the synapse. The postsynaptic proteins comprising the receptor and signalling machinery of vertebrate synapses arose in prokaryotes and eukaryotes and were coopted into the earliest metazoan synapses. The red arrow indicates the two genome duplications that expanded the numbers of proteins to produce the highly complex vertebrate synapse proteome around approximately 550 Ma. The subsequent radiation of vertebrate species is illustrated.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/42 ... Evolution1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3606080/

In summary:


Second system is reproduction but this is a bit redundant, because one of the key traits of what counts as "life" is that it reproduces. So when life existed, reproduction was already a thing. Reproduction even happens with non-living systems. like self-replicating organic molecules like self-replicating RNA or ribozymes which also can function as catalytic molecules similar to enzymes (proteins)

Researchers at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital used X-ray crystallography to see how RNA was matching up with its nucleotides. They found that in addition to the pairing up that would allow faithful replication of the strands, there were some rogue matches that might have halted replication. The findings mean that when investigating whether RNA really could self-replicate in a way that could kick off the chain reaction leading to life, the researchers will have to take into account the unconventional ways that the nucleotides are lining up along the strand. This could be the reason that RNA replication is so full of errors, Szostak says. "On the other hand, it points to a simple way that a ribozyme polymerase could improve accuracy: by enforcing the correct Watson Crick geometry of base-pairing," he says.

Maybe you meant to say "the evolution sexual reproduction" which is also very interesting.


One interesting observation is the fact that the vertebrate reproductive system is closely associated with the sewage system. The reason for this is that the system for secreting waste existed before sexual reproduction. When sexual reproduction evolved, the problem to secrete sperm was solved by using the largely complete secretion system and use it for a secondary purpose (however unhygienic and unintelligent it may seem from a designers perspective). Another example of evolutionary thinking resulting in incidental rather than intelligent design.

And the eye evolution is so many times explained that I don't have to explain it by myself.


Again, any of these explanations are super short and can be written in greater detail in peer reviewed articles and whole books (which they have). Of course none of these are 100% complete, because we don't know everything about any subject. I suspect that we will make new discoveries that show how these systems evolved greater detail, but the creationist will readily jump on this and say something similar like this:

"Because you don't know everything, that means you don't know anything!"

Which is absurd. We already know this much detail of how these system evolves that pretty much answers the question that was asked. If this objection should arise, I would ask them to show the explanations, from their side about how these systems were created, that are at least as detailed and evidential as the explanations that are provided by the scientists, who are spending their whole careers studying the data and discovering more about the real world in order to answer these questions.

If the creationist explanation boils down to the all time favorite magical panacea "Goddidit", which always does, then the evolutionary explanation are far more superior then theirs and their objection

"you don't know the complete evolutionary history of these system, thus you cannot prove that they evolved!"

just shows the hypocrisy of the creationists and how willful ignorant they really are.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Sun Jan 22, 2017 3:06 pm
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 511Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

That was an educational post, Nesslig20. I learned a few things I was unfamiliar with before. Thank you for that.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Mon Jan 23, 2017 6:13 am
RumraketUser avatar
Online
Posts: 1170Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

thenexttodie wrote:Because of the advent of modern technology we can readily test evidences for the theory of gravity, atomic theory, cell theory and germ theory and know we have an overwhelming preponderance of evidence for them.

There is no readily testable evidence you can present to show that higher functions, such as consciousness, reproduction, or the eyesight and the workings of the human eye can arise from a single cell organism. If there were such evidence, it would be proof of evolution.

I don't understand why you would say there is no testable evidence. But I guess that depends on what you think counts as "testable evidence". What is a test, and what is evidence?

Quick question: Do you accept the method of observationally (rather than directly experimentally) testing predictions?

Let's leave aside the subject of evolution for a moment and bring up an example from astronomy.

For example, if an astrophysicist and a nuclear physicist comes up with a mathematical model of stellar evolution (how stars develop and change over time due to nuclear processes in their core), and if that mathematical model makes predictions, would seeing and/or not seeing the predictions, count as an observational test of the model?

Such as, if stars of a specific class develop by converting the hydrogen isotopes of deuterium and tritium into helium isotopes, we should expect to find [X type of radiation at N level of intensity] in their spectrum. Would you consider observationally looking for this radiation to be a "test" of the mathematical model of stellar evolution?

If we found the predicted type and intensity of radiation, would you accept that this was observational evidence (evidence that was observed) for the mathematical model? And if we did not find this predicted type of radiation at the correct intensity, would you accept that this was an observational falsification of the model? Would you agree that, in both cases, the model was tested using observational science?
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Mon Jan 23, 2017 9:54 am
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

AronRa wrote:That was an educational post, Nesslig20. I learned a few things I was unfamiliar with before. Thank you for that.


You're welcome. You are teaching me new things every time you make a video, I am glad that I have taught you something new. If you are interested check out my video's
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Mon Jan 23, 2017 6:40 pm
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 765Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

AronRa wrote:That was an educational post, Nesslig20. I learned a few things I was unfamiliar with before. Thank you for that.

Hear, hear.

I probably say this too often, but one should always remember that they are not only adressing the person they are replying but also the rest of us. You might not teach anything to a close minded creationist but you will teach me something.
Tue Jan 24, 2017 1:34 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

AronRa wrote:
thenexttodie wrote:I don't know if I am allowed to answer here.
As it seems that the one who originally challenged me is not up to the challenge, then I guess you'd like to stand in?

Because of the advent of modern technology we can readily test evidences for the theory of gravity, atomic theory, cell theory and germ theory and know we have an overwhelming preponderance of evidence for them.

There is no readily testable evidence you can present to show that higher functions, such as consciousness, reproduction, or the eyesight and the workings of the human eye can arise from a single cell organism.
Sure there is. Consciousness is an emergent property that can occur multiple ways in an interactive cellular construct--or even without one. It can also occur in the form of a hive mind or can even be synthesized. As for reproduction, that begins/began even before life did, at the chemical level. And there are even single-celled organisms that have eyes.

If there were such evidence, it would be proof of evolution.
No it wouldn't, because evolution isn't even required for any of these. Even the eyespot of the protist, euglena could have been derived by other known biological processes. Now if you want to talk about the evolution of the eye as an organ, then we definitely have that one well documented even in Darwin's day. It's funny that creationists so often misquote Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree", yet they never read the rest of that paragraph where he says, "but reason tells me...". He then dedicated whole pages to explaining the evolution of the eye. Remember that he had already done that in his original book 150 years ago, and creationists have to know that, because we know they've poured through his work looking for anything they could take out of context to give a deliberately deceptive impression. Since then of course, that one mined quote made the evolution of the eye the penultimate example, which numerous other biologists have done to death. Seriously, type "evolution of..." into Google, and it will immediately auto-fill "the eye". If you don't want to read any of the popular science, university, or magazine articles, nor peer-reviewed journal entries, or even the easy-to-understand illustrations that immediately come up showing the overwhelming evidence for that, then you could also watch the NOVA documentary or videos where PBS, David Attenborough, and Richard Dawkins explain this repeatedly. I gave a summary explanation twice in the first half of one of my [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=wmJmt91DOqU&t=444s]videos[/url] too.


So remember what we're talking about. My goal is to prove to your satisfaction that biological evolution is the truest, best explanation there is for the origin of our species, and that it is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support or scientific validity. Now, since you're under the same rules and conditions as I am, then you can either concede that I have already done this with regard to the evolution of the eye, or it will be your turn to present scientific documentation which overwhelms and refutes mine and presents support for a different explanation that is even more parsimonious.


Sorry it took my so long to reply. I was actually waiting for a "part 2" of your response, where you would actually provide me with readily testable evidences which prove higher functions such as consciousness, reproduction, and eye sight
can arise from a single celled organism. You yourself posited the ability to do so when you compared your idea to "the theory of gravity or relativity, atomic theory, cell theory, and the germ theory of disease".

You did not provide any test for the production of consciousness, sexual reproduction or even cellular division. (A small die casting plant might test the specific gravity of an alloy 20 times a day)

I haven't read all of the links you have provided. I wish you would have simply posted your youtube video so I know what you think. Am I supposed to be debating you or the editor of Scientific American? Nonetheless, I Feel your arguments for eyesight are based on homologies. I could basically use all of these same arguments for design. I am not even asking you to explain life!

When I ask you for a test which shows consciousness or some other high function can arise from a single cell organism I am not asking you to compare structures and then imagine something. I am asking for much more than that.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Sun Feb 05, 2017 8:19 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

thenexttodie wrote:Sorry it took my so long to reply. I was actually waiting for a "part 2" of your response, where you would actually provide me with readily testable evidences which prove higher functions such as consciousness, reproduction, and eye sight
can arise from a single celled organism.


AronRa has answered that, I have explained it more in dept, scroll up for my previous post.

thenexttodie wrote:You yourself posited the ability to do so when you compared your idea to "the theory of gravity or relativity, atomic theory, cell theory, and the germ theory of disease".


He did more than that.

He explained that even single cellular organism can have very simple eyes
And there are even single-celled organisms that have eyes.

and the scientific explanation for how eyes evolve is pretty much well explained by a wide variety of eyes, from many different stages of complexity, exists.
A prime example is that of the Mollusk eye.
Image
Darwin’s greatest discovery: Design without designer wrote:Steps in the evolution of eye complexity in living mollusks. The simplest eye is found in limpets (far left), consisting of only a few pigmented cells, slightly modified from typical epithelial (skin) cells. Slit-shell mollusks (second from the left) have a slightly more advanced organ, consisting of some pigmented cells shaped as a cup. The octopus eye (far right) is quite complex, with components similar to those of the human eye such as cornea, iris, refractive lens, and retina. (Adapted from “Evolution, The Theory of.” By courtesy of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.)[/url]


He also explained that
consciousness is an emergent property that can occur multiple ways in an interactive cellular construct--or even without one. It can also occur in the form of a hive mind or can even be synthesized.


Which I touched on by bringing up swarm intelligence. Multiple units that are on their own don't exhibit intelligence/consciousness on their own (like bees, and neurons), can interact with each other and intelligence/consciousness emerges out of those interactions. And I also explained summarily the evolution of neurons themselves and how brains evolved.

Aron also explained, that the point of reproduction is redundant because evolution is by definition "descent with inherent modification". You cannot have descent without living things reproducing, thus reproduction was already a thing before the evolution of life took place.
As for reproduction, that begins/began even before life did, at the chemical level.

Asking for evolution to explain reproduction, is like asking for gravity to explain the existence of matter/mass.

thenexttodie wrote:You did not provide any test for the production of consciousness, sexual reproduction or even cellular division. (A small die casting plant might test the specific gravity of an alloy 20 times a day)


First you brought up eyes, reproduction and consciousness, but now you are bringing up new stuff. Sexual reproduction and cell division.

Cellular division is also redundant with regard to evolution for the same reason reproduction is. Cell division arose before evolution of life can take place.
However, the process of how different organisms perform cell division has evolved over time, enhanced or tweaked.
Image
Nature article "Evolution of diverse cell division and vesicle formation systems in Archaea" wrote:Recently a novel cell division system comprised of homologues of eukaryotic ESCRT-III (endosomal sorting complex required for transport III) proteins was discovered in the hyperthermophilic crenarchaeote Sulfolobus acidocaldarius. On the basis of this discovery, we undertook a comparative genomic analysis of the machineries for cell division and vesicle formation in Archaea. Archaea possess at least three distinct membrane remodelling systems: the FtsZ-based bacterial-type system, the ESCRT-III-based eukaryote-like system and a putative novel system that uses an archaeal actin-related protein. Many archaeal genomes encode assortments of components from different systems. Evolutionary reconstruction from these findings suggests that the last common ancestor of the extant Archaea possessed a complex membrane remodelling apparatus, different components of which were lost during subsequent evolution of archaeal lineages. By contrast, eukaryotes seem to have inherited all three ancestral systems.


Sexual reproduction, though you didn't brought it up previously, I already had explained that previously (well not me, cdk007 did with his awesome video, here is another one that lists sexual reproduction among different organisms of various stages of complexity)


thenexttodie wrote:I haven't read all of the links you have provided. I wish you would have simply posted your youtube video so I know what you think. Am I supposed to be debating you or the editor of Scientific American? Nonetheless, I Feel your arguments for eyesight are based on homologies. I could basically use all of these same arguments for design. I am not even asking you to explain life!


If you are asking for explaining reproduction, that is part of the origins of life.

Homologies cannot be used for design. Aron has made a video explaining this.


Take for example the homology of the eye. All vertebrates have the same design flaw with the blind spot, but the mollusk eye (albeit very similar looking on the outside) develop differently thus they don't have a blind spot.
Image
There are no mollusks with an eye of a vertebrate and no vertebrate with a better designed mollusk eye. This is concordant with evolution since the rules of phylogeny demands that you make do with what you inherited from your ancestors, thus the designs of organs are fundamentally just modified versions of the organs of its ancestors. This is one example that shows that homology supports evolution but isn't concordant with design. In this case it contradicts it. Why do we have a blind spot??

thenexttodie wrote:When I ask you for a test which shows consciousness or some other high function can arise from a single cell organism I am not asking you to compare structures and then imagine something. I am asking for much more than that.


Like what? What should we do according to YOU? And be specific with that.
We did compare structure among a group and showed that there are various eyes of different stages of complexity and that pattern of these follow the pattern of phylogeny. (look at the pictures above with the mollusk eye and the vertebrate eye).

We can go even deeper on the genetic level to see wether the designer has left some clues behind or wether these show the same pattern as morphology has already shown us.
Image
Metazoan opsin evolution reveals a simple route to animal vision wrote:Phylogeny of the opsin family. (A) Unrooted phylogeny of the neuralian opsins. (B) Rooted phylogeny of the neuralian opsins and of other GPCRs showing that the Placopsins are members of the opsin family (Ore, orexin; Lys, lysosphingolipid). (C) Opsin phylogeny rooted by using only the MLT receptors, and showing that cnidarians have orthologues of each bilaterian opsin subfamily: the C, R, and Go/RGR subfamilies. Support values (Bayesian PPs) are reported only for key nodes (SI Appendix shows all support values). The ancestral RBD of the LOCA and of the LOCNA are reported and are identified, respectively, by a black star and a black circle (SI Appendix, Fig. S7). The red position in the logos identifies position 296.


Well would you look at that.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Sun Feb 05, 2017 11:01 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

Image

that is a very nice image, the problem is that each of these steps seems to be irreducibly complex.

for example if you what to evolve a bunch of skin cells in to photosentsive cells (a proto eye) you need

a genetic change that produces photo sensibility in cells

an other independent genetic that produces something that connects the cells with the brain

an other independent genetic change that allows the brain to interpret the light

an other independent genetic change that produces a reaction when light is detected.

etc...


all these genetic changes would have to ocurre at the same time otherwise the system would not be functional and would not be selected by natural selection.

evolutions would have to accept their burden proof and show that ether

all these genetic changes are achievable in 1 or few generations (before genetic drift disappears this change)

or

that each of these steps would have a positive effect (maybe not related to sight)



evolution is a brilliant theory (or maybe I should say hypothesis) and I would even grant that it is a better model than creation, but evolution is far form being comparable to other theories (gravity, atomic theory etc.) and this kind of objections are valid objections, evolutionist should ether answer to this objections or simply admit that they don't have an answer, instead of trolling and answering to straw man arguments.


even if we grant that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life, it is still a fact that there are valid objections against the theory and any honest evolutionist should acknowledge these objections.


an analogy would be, our best models suggest that humans came to America through the Bering Strait, but there is evidence and valid objections against the this theory, and people typically agree and don't react aggressively against arguments against the Bering Strait theory.

the typical evolutionists form forums and youtube treat evolution like a religion and feel emotionally attached to it
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:54 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

Nesslig20 wrote:There are no mollusks with an eye of a vertebrate and no vertebrate with a better designed mollusk eye. This is concordant with evolution since the rules of phylogeny demands that you make do with what you inherited from your ancestors, thus the designs of organs are fundamentally just modified versions of the organs of its ancestors. This is one example that shows that homology supports evolution but isn't concordant with design. In this case it contradicts it. Why do we have a blind spot??


It seems to me that the most up to date information we have shows the human eye is far better equipped than an octopus eye to handle the effects of constantly direct sunlight exposure.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Fri Feb 17, 2017 6:01 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3318Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

leroy wrote:Image

that is a very nice image, the problem is that each of these steps seems to be irreducibly complex.


:docpalm:

Rumraket on June 08, 2014 wrote:
dandan wrote:It´s very easy to predict what going to happen in this debate

OFNF, will asked for evidence that proves that the eye (or something else) is not irreducible complex

Aron will post a video or some pictures of a “simple” photosensitive cells evolving in a complex eye in 5 or 6 steps

OFNF will ask for evidence on how could any of those steps occur in a step by step basis (1 mutation at the time)

Aronra, will never answer to this, and will try to make some word games

Gibberish.

The issue is not that the eye is not irreducibly complex, it certainly is (you can pick out parts that will destroy the function of the extant eye, that means it is irreducibly complex).

The issue is when you think this prevents it's gradual evolution. This is what IDcreationists fail to get time and time again. The biologist Hermann Joseph Muller predicted that the evolutionary process would inevitably produce such irreducibly complex structures, and actually coined the phrase Interlocking Complexity, all the way back in the 1930's, to describe the same phenomenon. Basically Muller suggested that such structures would evolve in what is called the Mullerian two-step, which in a rather simple formulation is:

1. Add a component.
2. Make it necessary.

Things didn't always function they way they do now. The parts that make up the eye didn't have to function in ancestral stages of the eye, the way they do in the extant one.

But fuck all that, I don't have to sit here and spell all that out. You can read all about it here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html
The Mullerian Two-Step: Add a part, make it necessary

or, Why Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" is silly


Version 1.1
Copyright © 2006-2007 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
[Last Update: July 18, 2007]


"... an irreducibly complex system might arise by gradually co-opting parts that initially were dispensable but eventually become indispensable ...."
William A. Dembski 2004, p. 24.

Introduction

Michael Behe's term "irreducible complexity" is, to be frank, plainly silly — and here's why.

"Irreducible complexity" is a simple concept. According to Behe, a system is irreducibly complex if its function is lost when a part is removed1. Behe believes that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve by direct, gradual evolutionary mechanisms. However, standard genetic processes easily produce these structures. Nearly a century ago, these exact systems were predicted, described, and explained by the Nobel prize-winning geneticist H. J. Muller using evolutionary theory2. Thus, as explained below, so-called "irreducibly complex" structures are in fact evolvable and reducible. Behe gave irreducible complexity the wrong name.

... more


No one is arguing for the straw man of evolution that exists in your head. Try actually dealing with the real arguments.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Feb 17, 2017 6:43 pm
YIM WWW
australopithecusAdministratorUser avatarPosts: 4282Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

thenexttodie wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:There are no mollusks with an eye of a vertebrate and no vertebrate with a better designed mollusk eye. This is concordant with evolution since the rules of phylogeny demands that you make do with what you inherited from your ancestors, thus the designs of organs are fundamentally just modified versions of the organs of its ancestors. This is one example that shows that homology supports evolution but isn't concordant with design. In this case it contradicts it. Why do we have a blind spot??


It seems to me that the most up to date information we have shows the human eye is far better equipped than an octopus eye to handle the effects of constantly direct sunlight exposure.


Octopuses don't live in direct sunlight.
Image
Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:14 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2354Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

leroy wrote:that is a very nice image, the problem is that each of these steps seems to be irreducibly complex.


And why would that be a problem? You do know that irreducible complexity is a prediction of evolutionary theory, formalised several decades before Michael Boohoo was even born?

http://reciprocity-giving-something-bac ... ution.html

And that's even before we get into the fact that you're wrong, because those steps aren't actually irreducibly complex.
Sat Feb 18, 2017 1:35 am
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

thenexttodie wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:There are no mollusks with an eye of a vertebrate and no vertebrate with a better designed mollusk eye. This is concordant with evolution since the rules of phylogeny demands that you make do with what you inherited from your ancestors, thus the designs of organs are fundamentally just modified versions of the organs of its ancestors. This is one example that shows that homology supports evolution but isn't concordant with design. In this case it contradicts it. Why do we have a blind spot??


It seems to me that the most up to date information we have shows the human eye is far better equipped than an octopus eye to handle the effects of constantly direct sunlight exposure.


And that is why we have a blind spot? That doesn't explain it. Nor does it explain why mollusks on land that are exposed to direct sunlight don't have the vertebrate eye with this blind spot. Nor does it explain why vertebrates, that live in the same environment as octopi, still have the same eye as humans, even though the are not exposed to direct sunlight like the octopus.

Only evolution, explains this observation.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:29 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

leroy wrote:that is a very nice image, the problem is that each of these steps seems to be irreducibly complex.


That is a very nice assertion that you cannot back up. Irreducible complexity has been predicted by evolution before Behe was born.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/sep06.html

That is another reason why the concept of IC from the ID community is just plane stupid.

leroy wrote:for example if you what to evolve a bunch of skin cells in to photosentsive cells (a proto eye) you need
a genetic change that produces photo sensibility in cells.


Done. The reason how cells can obtain the ability to detect light, is evolving photoreceptor proteins, i.e opsins.

Origin of opsins wrote:Opsins, and their major divisions (25) arose very early in metazoan evolution. In this article the term ‘opsin’ will refer only to ‘Type 2 animal opsins’, and not to the ‘Type 1 microbial opsins’ of bacteria or the ‘channelrhodopsins’ of algae, both of which are unrelated and appear to have arisen by convergent evolution. The phylogeny of ciliary opsins will be considered in Sections 5 and 6 for chordates generally, and for the vertebrate retina, but for now the questions are: How did the ancestral opsin originate? and What were the initial stages in its diversification?. In addressing these questions, important clues have been obtained through analysis of a number of cnidarian opsin sequences that have become available since 2007 (12, 26-31).

Animal opsins evolved from within the eponymous ‘Rhodopsin family’ of the ‘GRAFS’ superfamily of G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs), and it is known that this superfamily originated in an ancient eukaryote that existed prior to the divergence of fungi (32)). Recently, Feuda et al (30)) analyzed the phylogeny of opsins and proposed a scheme for the early origin of opsins. They showed that the closest relatives of the opsins are found in the lineage that includes the vertebrate receptors for melatonin. However, for the corresponding GPCRs in invertebrates the ligand has not yet been identified, and so it is not clear what the ancestral ligand might have been at the time that the opsin lineage diverged.

One potential problem with the analysis of Feuda et al (30) is its reliance on the (unproven) existence of R-opsins in cnidaria, but that issue appears to have been resolved by an independent and nearly simultaneous study of opsins from a coral (31), that clearly identified the existence of an R-opsin. The following scenario for the early origin of animal opsins, illustrated in Figure 2B builds on the report of Feuda et al (30), and is presented here as the first in a series of scenarios/hypotheses for the events that gave rise to photoreceptors:

A-1) The forerunner of the first opsin arose through duplication of a GPCR in an ancient metazoan, at a time prior to the divergence of the amoeba-like placozoans.

A-2) That forerunner protein did not possess the retinal-binding lysine (‘K296′) in the seventh transmembrane helix (30); this suggests that retinaldehyde ligand occupied the internal cavity by means of non-covalent binding, as for ligands in conventional GPCRs, and in Figure 2B this pre-opsin is termed a ‘retinaldehyde receptor’. The placozoan Trichoplax has a homolog of opsin (dubbed placopsin by Feuda et al, 2012), that likewise is devoid of the retinal-binding lysine residue.

A-3) Acquisition of an appropriately situated lysine residue within the seventh transmembrane segment of that receptor allowed the retinaldehyde ligand to bind covalently. Initially, the Schiff base bond is likely to have been unprotonated, so that the molecule would have absorbed in the UV. Acquisition of an appropriately located negatively charged residue (e.g. E181) permitted the bond to be protonated, thereby creating the ancestral opsin, and enabling the absorption peak to be shifted into the ‘visible’ spectrum.

A-4) As for most opsins (though not for vertebrate visual opsins), the activated metarhodopsin state of this opsin was thermally stable and could undergo photoreversal to the rhodopsin state. Hence this protein probably did not require a source of 11-cis retinal and could instead utilize all-trans retinal perfectly well.

A-5) Subsequently, two duplications of that earliest opsin occurred, during the relatively short interval between the divergence of placozoa and the divergence of cnidarians from bilaterians. Thus, all of the duplications indicated in Figure 2B took place shortly prior to the first of the numbered branchings shown in Figure 1 (i.e. prior to #1).

an other independent genetic that produces something that connects the cells with the brain, an other independent genetic change that produces a reaction when light is detected.

Image
Figure 2. Origin of opsins, and their possible association with membrane type. A, Opsin phylogeny. Cnidarians have orthologs of each bilaterian opsin subfamily; i.e. the C-, R-, and RGR/Go-opsin subfamilies. Numbers indicate support values (Bayesian PPs) for key nodes. From Feuda et al (2012). B, Hypothesized duplications of ancestral opsin and its precursors, and suggested association with membrane type. An ancient GPCR (related to extant vertebrate melatonin receptors) duplicated, and its ligand became retinaldehyde, which bound non-covalently; this is denoted as ‘Retinaldehyde receptor’. After the divergence of the amoeba-like placozoans (~711 Mya), this GPCR evolved a lysine residue in its seventh transmembrane segment and a negatively charged residue (counterion) so that retinaldehyde bound covalently via a protonated Schiff base linkage; this form is denoted ‘Ancestral opsin’. Within a relatively short interval (prior to the divergence of cnidarians, ~700 Mya), this opsin duplicated twice, giving rise to three major families of opsins: C-opsins, R-opsins, and RGR/Go-opsins. It is proposed that these three opsins preferentially associated with ciliary membrane, microvillar membrane, and the membranes of intracellular organelles, respectively. Note that all these events occurred just prior to the starting point of Fig. 1.

Hypothesized association between opsin type and membrane type . A contributory factor in the co-evolution of opsin classes and photoreceptor classes may have been a preferential association of the different opsins with different regions of membrane, as indicated in Figure 2B. Accordingly, the hypothetical scenario for the early evolution of opsins is extended as follows:

A-6) The two variants of opsin that emerged after the first duplication event may have trafficked preferentially to the membrane of sub-cellular organelles and to surface membrane. Those variants would have given rise to the RGR- division and the C-/R- division, respectively, of modern opsins.

A-7) Following the duplication event that created the distinction between C- and R-opsins, these two variants trafficked to ciliary and microvillar membrane, respectively. In Figure 2B this duplication is shown as having occurred subsequent to the duplication mentioned in the previous point, but at present one cannot reliably distinguish the order in which this pair of duplication events occurred.

A-8) Subsequently, cells expressing the C- and R-opsin classes became distinct from each other, through a process termed ‘division of labor’ (5, 33), leading to (a) ciliary photoreceptors that possessed C-opsins and (b) microvillar photoreceptors that possessed R-opsins; see next Section. The third variant of opsin, RGR-opsin, tended to be expressed in the membranes of intracellular organelles, possibly as an additional opsin in the first two classes of photoreceptors.

A-9) Later in evolution, further division of labor occurred, so that (for example) RGR-opsin could be expressed in separate cells. This would explain how it is possible, on the one hand, for squid photoreceptors to contain an R-opsin in their microvillar membranes as well as retinochrome (an RGR-opsin) in their intracellular organelles, and, on the other hand, for vertebrate cones and rods to contain only a C-opsin in their outer segments whereas RPE cells contain only RGR-opsin in their endoplasmic reticulum.


leroy wrote:an other independent genetic that produces something that connects the cells with the brain, and other independent genetic change that allows the brain to interpret the light an other independent genetic change that produces a reaction when light is detected.


That is not necessary since there are organisms that have no brains, nor even a nervous system, yet have simple eyes. And I have mentioned the evolution of neurons and brains in my previous posts. Citations are included.

I wrote:Let's start with Consciousness although I think that is the problem of neuroscientists, because how the brain produces consciousness is a question for that particular field, not evolution. How consciousness arises from neurons, I suspect that it is a matter of simple emergence of many interacting neurons, which on their own don't exhibit this property. A similar thing happens with this. A single bee relatively stupid, but the collective beehive can make complex decisions based on how the bees interact with each other, making the beehive behave (haha see what I did there) as if it had a single intelligence. Swarm intellicence


Part of the documentary "What are animal thinking?"

How the brain evolved, that is a question for evolution.
So first we need to have a good representation of how the system works and is composed. The brain has three main components,
the neurons (cells that transmit signals)
the synapsis (the connections between the neurons)
and the circuitry (allowing for the brain to send out specific signals in response to input stimuli).
Well to first state the obvious, the brain is not an irreducible complex structure. These components are known to exists without forming a brain. Like Jelly fish have no brain, but they do have a simple nervous system with neurons. But how did we have neurons evolve? From what?
First explain in basics the neuron. Neurons are basically cells that use action potentials, modulated by ion channels within the membranes of the cells, that sends an electrical signal. This may seem irreducible at first, but each part of this system is found on its own associated with a function that are often not related to the function of the nervous system.

First you have many ion channels, some are voltage gated that allow ions to flow between the membranes in response to a passing wave of action potential in order to continue the action potential even further.
Ion channels have been found in single celled organisms that use these channels for many different purposes, mainly to maintain ion homeostasis, but a surprising function in them is to communicate with electrical impulses. Even though these single cellular organisms don't have any neurons, they do have ion channels that are homologous the ones in our neurons and they serve a very similar function to module action potential to send electrical impulses to neighboring cells. Even specialized voltage-gated ion channels have been found in prokaryotes. Even in single cellular protists, these electrical signals generated by ion channels can be used in very sophisticated ways. When the single cellular paramecium bumps onto an obstacle, that bump opens the ion channels generate a wave of ion flow across the cell. The resulting voltage wave reverses the beating of the cilia making the protist travel in the opposite direction.
So these key components already existed and performed many functions, before any neurons and thus a complete nervous system (including brains) already existed.

What more can we find? what about the synapses? It turns out that many of the components of the synapses are also found in animals that don't even have a nervous system like sponges. For example, the critical synaptic scaffold gene, dlg has homologs present in sponges serving another purpose. And the glutamate receptor (that bind to secreted neuro transmitters) also show a phylogenetic history that precedes synapses.

From this we can construct the phylogenetic history of the synapses.
Image
Phylogenetic tree depicting taxons of current relevance to synapse evolution. An extant model organism of each clade is displayed at the top of the phylogeny (see Supplementary information S2 (Box) for additional details on the phylogenetic placing of Porifera relative to Cnidaria). Nodes on the phylogeny represent the divergence points of various clades and are presented by coloured circles. The red node represents Urbilateria (the last common ancestor of all bilaterians). The small grey circle represents the ursynapse (last common ancestor of all synapses). Beside each node the range of published estimations of the given divergence time are given in mya (millions of years ago), as well as the average (av) estimated divergence time based on published studies (available through the public resource for knowledge on the timescale and evolutionary history of life, Timetree43, 104). Superimposed on the phylogeny are notable proteins that are involved in synapse formation and/or function, showing at what intervals in evolutionary history various synaptic components arose. See Supplementary information S3(Box) for additional details on the possible origins of GABA and metabotropic glutamate receptors. AMPA, α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid; CaMKII, calcium/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II; CASK, calcium/calmodulin dependent serine protein kinase; CRIPT, cysteine-rich PDZ-binding protein; Dlg, discs, large homolog; GABA, g-aminobutyric acid; GKAP, guanylate kinase associated protein; GRIP, glutamate receptor interacting protein; KIR channel, inwardly rectifying potassium channel; LIMK, LIM domain kinase; MAGUK, membrane-associated guanylate kinase; MASC, MAGUK associated signalling complex; MuSK, muscle specific kinase; NCAM, neural cell adhesion molecule; NF1, neurofibromin 1; NMDA, N-methylase-D-aspartate; NOS, nitric oxide synthase; PKC, protein kinase C; PMCA, plasma membrane calcium transporting ATPase; Shank, SH3 and multiple ankyrin repeat domains; S-SCAM, membrane associated guanylate kinase, WW and PDZ domain containing 2; SynGAP, synaptic Ras GTPase activating protein.

Now we have a rough understanding of the evolution of neurons and the synaptic connections between them, but how can neural networks evolve. Well that is relatively simply. Any connection has a benefit or not and the ones that do are preserved, while others are not. This can be shown with simulations of evolving neural networks or in real life robots with neural networks evolving based on the rules of population genetics.


From this we have functional nervous system and later we can develop a more complex system with a brain and so on. From the simple brain of the lancelet, which is barely a larger area of the central nerve chord, to the brains of fishes, then amphibians, reptiles and mammals.
Image
Molecular evolution of the synapse. The postsynaptic proteins comprising the receptor and signalling machinery of vertebrate synapses arose in prokaryotes and eukaryotes and were coopted into the earliest metazoan synapses. The red arrow indicates the two genome duplications that expanded the numbers of proteins to produce the highly complex vertebrate synapse proteome around approximately 550 Ma. The subsequent radiation of vertebrate species is illustrated.

https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/42 ... Evolution1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3606080/

In summary:



Of course, I should be fair and give the - *cough* - alternative explanation from the other side.
God....uh...I mean...the Designer Did it!!


College exams on ID/creationism would be very easy.
On the episode “The Monkey Suit” - after coming home from class, Lisa says wrote:Today we had a test [on creationism], and every answer was "God did it."


leroy wrote:evolution is a brilliant theory (or maybe I should say hypothesis) and I would even grant that it is a better model than creation,


There is the fact that evolution happens, that biodiversity increases and that new species can evolve by means of speciation (i.e. macro evolution). The theory of evolution is the theory that explains WHY evolution occurs, what the mechanisms there are, etc. It is not a mere hypothesis.

Creationism has no model. It is pure freaking magic and that is not scientific in any sense.

leroy wrote:but evolution is far form being comparable to other theories (gravity, atomic theory etc.)


The theory of evolution is one of the strongest theories in science, stronger than the theory of gravity. While we do have a good understand for why evolution happens, that is not the case with gravity. The best theory we have for gravity is explaining it in terms of the curvature of spacetime, however the theory of relativity is in conflict with quantum mechanics. That is a failure of that theory that evolution doesn't have.

leroy wrote:and this kind of objections are valid objections, evolutionist should ether answer to this objections or simply admit that they don't have an answer, instead of trolling and answering to straw man arguments. even if we grant that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life, it is still a fact that there are valid objections against the theory and any honest evolutionist should acknowledge these objections.


Valid objections aren't coming from the creationist/evolution side. The best objections I have heard are coming from within the, what you would call the "evolutionists" community who are discussing the details of how evolution happens, what are the phylogenetic relationships between different organisms. Of course whether evolution happened and whether life has an evolutionary history with common ancestry that goes back isn't an issue anymore.

leroy wrote:the typical evolutionists form forums and youtube treat evolution like a religion and feel emotionally attached to it


Image
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:35 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

australopithecus wrote:
Octopuses don't live in direct sunlight.


Correct.

In a human eye the photo receptive cells must be closer to the back of the eye, next to the choriocapillaris, a blood supply which will quickly replentish them after severe damage caused by, for instance, accidently looking at the sun for a split second and being temporally blinded. So our photo cells are actually behind a bundle of nerve fibers, as shown in the illustration Nesslig has provided for us. We also have special cells called Müller cells which provide us an actual biological fiber optic system which guides light directly through the bundle of neurons and what else we have in front of our photo receptive cells.

Image
Müller cells

"Müller cells separate white light according to its wavelengths; medium- and long-wavelength light is concentrated onto cones and short-wavelength light leaks to illuminate nearby rods. Next, we show similar theoretical calculations for the guinea pig Müller cells and describe imaging experiments in the isolated guinea pig retina, to find remarkable agreement between the experimental results and the computational model. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that the wave guiding properties of Müller cells are wavelength-dependent in a manner that improves cone-mediated vision while minimally impeding rod-mediated vision." Amichai M. Labin, Shadi K. Safuri, Erez N. Ribak, and Ido Perlman, “Müller cells separate between wavelengths to improve day vision with minimal effect upon night vision,” Nature Communications, 2014,



In an octopus eye, the "photo receptive cells" can safely exist in front the nerve fiber, because as you correctly pointed out, they do not live in direct sunlight.

Nesslig20 wrote: And that is why we have a blind spot? That doesn't explain it.
Yes it does GOD DAMN IT! It exactly explains it!

Nesslig20 wrote: Nor does it explain why mollusks on land that are exposed to direct sunlight don't have the vertebrate eye with this blind spot.
I doubt land dwelling mollusks,like snails, would have the metabolic power required to operate an acute system of vision. They use their eyes to help them find shade.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Last edited by thenexttodie on Tue Feb 21, 2017 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sat Feb 18, 2017 7:33 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

thenexttodie wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote: And that is why we have a blind spot? That doesn't explain it.
Yes it does GOD DAMN IT! It exactly explains it!


No it doesn't. You argue that the receptor cells need to be covered in order to be shaded by direct sunlight, but that doesn't explain the blind spot.

thenexttodie wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote: Nor does it explain why mollusks on land that are exposed to direct sunlight don't have the vertebrate eye with this blind spot.
I doubt land dwelling mollusks,like snails, would have the metabolic power required to operate an acute system of vision. They use their eyes to help them find shade.


During their quest for shade, they are in direct sunlight.....which doesn't help your argument very much. Nor does it explain why fish that live in the same environment as octopus, still have the same blind spot.

So your argument doesn't explain why the blind spot exists and even if the blind spot was necessary for an eye to function in direct sunlight, it doesn't explain why some still have it where no direct sunlight exists.

Nor does it explain this.
Image
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Sat Feb 18, 2017 8:25 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Prove an interpretation?

hackenslash wrote:
leroy wrote:that is a very nice image, the problem is that each of these steps seems to be irreducibly complex.


And why would that be a problem? You do know that irreducible complexity is a prediction of evolutionary theory, formalised several decades before Michael Boohoo was even born?

http://reciprocity-giving-something-bac ... ution.html

And that's even before we get into the fact that you're wrong, because those steps aren't actually irreducibly complex.



that is what I am talking about

Image

No one is saying that those proto eyes would be useless, sure a proto eye that can detect light is better than nothing in an environment where detecting light represents a selective benefit.


the point is and has always been that each of those steps requires multiple independent genetic changes, even a small benefit requires multiple independent genetic changes

for example if you what to evolve a bunch of skin cells in to photosentsive cells (a proto eye) you need

a genetic change that produces photo sensibility in cells

an other independent genetic that produces something that connects the cells with the brain

an other independent genetic change that allows the brain to interpret the light

an other independent genetic change that produces a reaction when light is detected.

etc...


what you have to so is provide a step by step path, each step has to be positive and each step has to be achievable in 1 generation. ..........


If you cant do this, it would not be a big deal, all you have to do is admit that this a valid argument against evolution, admitting that there is a valid argument against a theory is not a big deal, all theories have holes,
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:29 pm
Next
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 5
 [ 98 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Rumraket and 3 guests