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.

Evolution for Leroy

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 5
 [ 86 posts ] 
Evolution for Leroy
Author Message
SparhafocPosts: 1083Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Evolution for Leroy

Dear Leroy.

I personally think it is to be applauded that you would engage in a location which is wholly hostile to your beliefs.

What's not really fair for you at the moment is that you don't understand evolution at all.

For example, you've talked about it being a disposable subject, when it is in fact one of the four pillars of modern Biology. Without it, none of the others make much sense at all either. The four pillars are cell theory, gene theory, evolutionary theory and the principle of homeostasis. All of which have been confirmed in so many different experiments attempting to falsify so many elements that someone like yourself who has no real knowledge of science at all should simply consider them all 'facts' and be done with it.

There's no more debate about whether evolution is valid in academia or scientific enterprises than there is doubt over the other ones. They are all routine. Past routine now. They are just too damn useful, explain too much, and allow us to achieve too much for you to dismiss them as useless.

As such, I propose we use this thread to address all your questions about evolution.

What you know now is not even nothing. Your ideas about evolution are completely wrong. You owe it to yourself to know what you're talking about, even if you don't accept it. In fact, the onus is even more squarely in your court to understand what you are talking about when it's such a specialist subject that takes genuine knowledge and expertise beyond what would be expected from a non-expert in society. Your declarations are just mumblefuckery until you get some basic comprehension of the science and the evidence supporting it.

To wit, one of the expository errors you've made is when you suggested it would be a problem for the theory of evolution if we find that alien organisms share 'genetic material' with us. Of course, if you understood the theory of evolution, then you'd also understand that this presents no challenge to evolution whatsoever.

Evolution is about speciation. It purports to explain, to model analytically, how it is there are multiple species, and how those species come to be. In doing so, it can't help but use the fossil record (the hardest evidence you're likely to find in many fields ;)) but also enjoys the crosscheck of numerous other disciplines, not least the entire field of genetics.

You have to understand that science is an enterprise about getting rid of wrong ideas. We've tried really hard to prove evolution wrong. The advent of genetics alone could so easily have toppled the theory if it wasn't supported by empirical reality. Darwin didn't even know what the unit of inheritance was. As such, you are in the very uncomfortable position of needing to explain just why it is that BOTH palaeontological evidence AND genetic evidence are consilient in their support of evolutionary theory.

If you can't, please reflect.

If you can, you're a genius and will soon be collecting your Nobel Prize the moment you can formalize (i.e. conduct extensive experiments to falsify your own hypothesis) your explanation as to why biological evolution is a bad idea which needs to die.

What are you offering instead?

Magic?

No, seriously now. Don't pull my plonker. If your only alternative is to appeal to the ineffable, then you have no business wasting other peoples time with such pathetic ideas when you could spend 10 minutes enlightening yourself and not sounding like a Bronze Age pastoralist gawping at the vast unknown.
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Thu Jun 29, 2017 5:36 pm
leroyPosts: 1563Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

Sparhafoc wrote:Dear Leroy.

I personally think it is to be applauded that you would engage in a location which is wholly hostile to your beliefs.

What's not really fair for you at the moment is that you don't understand evolution at all.

For example, you've talked about it being a disposable subject, when it is in fact one of the four pillars of modern Biology. Without it, none of the others make much sense at all either. The four pillars are cell theory, gene theory, evolutionary theory and the principle of homeostasis. All of which have been confirmed in so many different experiments attempting to falsify so many elements that someone like yourself who has no real knowledge of science at all should simply consider them all 'facts' and be done with it.

There's no more debate about whether evolution is valid in academia or scientific enterprises than there is doubt over the other ones. They are all routine. Past routine now. They are just too damn useful, explain too much, and allow us to achieve too much for you to dismiss them as useless.

As such, I propose we use this thread to address all your questions about evolution.

What you know now is not even nothing. Your ideas about evolution are completely wrong. You owe it to yourself to know what you're talking about, even if you don't accept it. In fact, the onus is even more squarely in your court to understand what you are talking about when it's such a specialist subject that takes genuine knowledge and expertise beyond what would be expected from a non-expert in society. Your declarations are just mumblefuckery until you get some basic comprehension of the science and the evidence supporting it.

To wit, one of the expository errors you've made is when you suggested it would be a problem for the theory of evolution if we find that alien organisms share 'genetic material' with us. Of course, if you understood the theory of evolution, then you'd also understand that this presents no challenge to evolution whatsoever.

Evolution is about speciation. It purports to explain, to model analytically, how it is there are multiple species, and how those species come to be. In doing so, it can't help but use the fossil record (the hardest evidence you're likely to find in many fields ;)) but also enjoys the crosscheck of numerous other disciplines, not least the entire field of genetics.

You have to understand that science is an enterprise about getting rid of wrong ideas. We've tried really hard to prove evolution wrong. The advent of genetics alone could so easily have toppled the theory if it wasn't supported by empirical reality. Darwin didn't even know what the unit of inheritance was. As such, you are in the very uncomfortable position of needing to explain just why it is that BOTH palaeontological evidence AND genetic evidence are consilient in their support of evolutionary theory.

If you can't, please reflect.

If you can, you're a genius and will soon be collecting your Nobel Prize the moment you can formalize (i.e. conduct extensive experiments to falsify your own hypothesis) your explanation as to why biological evolution is a bad idea which needs to die.

What are you offering instead?

Magic?

No, seriously now. Don't pull my plonker. If your only alternative is to appeal to the ineffable, then you have no business wasting other peoples time with such pathetic ideas when you could spend 10 minutes enlightening yourself and not sounding like a Bronze Age pastoralist gawping at the vast unknown.


about the stuff in big letters, I was really talking about common ancestry, not evolution. ..........if an alien has a big portion of genetic material in common with humans that would be a problem for common ancestry, because such an even is not predicted given our current understanding on cladistics and nested hierarchies .


about my position on evolution, I personally like to divide evolution in 3 parts, this is obviously just a personal subjective and arbitrary division.

1 the idea organisms change and adapt

2 the idea that all organisms share a common ancestry

3 the idea that complex organs (or stuff) came form simpler organs, through the process of random genetic changes and natural selection


1 obviously true

2 probably true, the most of the evidence suggests that the statement is true, but there is some evidence against that idea.

3 a controversial idea that has not been proven


about teaching evolution in class

I believe that students should learn about evolution, but one should not make a big deal if they don't (for whatever reason)




please let me know if you disagree with any of my points.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Jun 29, 2017 6:02 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1083Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

leroy wrote: about the stuff in big letters, I was really talking about common ancestry, not evolution. ..........if an alien has a big portion of genetic material in common with humans that would be a problem for common ancestry, because such an even is not predicted given our current understanding on cladistics and nested hierarchies .



Well, it wouldn't call our common ancestry to other organisms on Earth into question - again, I don't see how you can reason your way into that. Our common ancestry with other organisms on Earth is not contingent on the existence of aliens, sharing ancestry with us or not.

All it would mean is that somewhere in life's history, it hitched a ride here or there (better be clear here, I don't mean with a passing angel or UFO, but on a rock ejected into space eventually finding its way to another planet's gravity well) and then evolved onwards somehow having survived the journey. Some genetic markers may then still exist which strongly suggest that ancient event (i.e. evidence) but it would be hard to establish it beyond reasonable doubt unless the event in question was relatively recent.

As for nested hierarchies, I would suggest that they are specifically descriptive, not predictive. There are ancient organisms for which we do have solid evidence and we're not all completely sure where to put them in the evolutionary tree. This is an artifact of human thinking though - as is cladistics - not a facet of the reality it seeks to model. There are nearly always two schools of thought in cladistics (and a lot of sciences, actually) - the clumpers, and the splitters. The former prefers to put more organisms into bigger groups stressing their similarities, the latter prefers to divide out into smaller groups focusing on their differences.

Either which way, you have to understand that cladistics is an organisational tool based on morphology and nowadays genetic inheritance. It's not in the business of categorising thought-experiment species, and obviously the devil would be in the details there. We've had to wave our hands over all the problems with the working assumption you've forwarded just to get to this point, but in reality, the notion is not possible other than, as mentioned, pansmermia style (or tinkering spirits/UFO's) dispersal, and all it does is push the question you want to ask about the origin of life back to an uncharted place.

Let's focus on what we do know. Probably will garner more useful results than imaginary rabbits in the Pleistocene of Mars.


leroy wrote: about my position on evolution, I personally like to divide evolution in 3 parts,...


That's nice for you. Sorry, but why would I listen to you? What are you qualifications in this regard to be whimsically splitting up the foundational explanation of Biology?

Do you think it would be unfair to suggest that the below is simply your hubris talking?


leroy wrote: this is obviously just a personal subjective and arbitrary division.


And surely says a lot more about you, your thoughts, or your comprehension of the subject than it does about the subject.


leroy wrote:1 the idea organisms change and adapt

2 the idea that all organisms share a common ancestry

3 the idea that complex organs (or stuff) came form simpler organs, through the process of random genetic changes and natural selection


Cute. How about learning what it really is?


leroy wrote:1 obviously true

2 probably true, the most of the evidence suggests that the statement is true, but there is some evidence against that idea.

3 a controversial idea that has not been proven



3 is a contrived mess that no one serious has ever asked because it would show that they were lacking in competence.

Similarly, no one has proven that the Sun is not my arse sticking through the dimensional divide, nor are they likely to, therefore I am justified in rejecting particle physics?



leroy wrote:about teaching evolution in class

I believe that students should learn about evolution, but one should not make a big deal if they don't (for whatever reason)

Maybe one shouldn't make a big deal if they learn to spell either. Who cares? They'll learn to write eventually through trial and error anyway. Or maybe they can just learn to write when they get to university? It's not like we want to build on generational knowledge, instead we want dogma to dictate that we're not allowed to know more because it makes people uncomfortable to face reality. Forget the hard-earned knowledge gained through systematically interrogating the universe and the essential discovery of evolution which has helped us feed 7 billion people and keep them from all dying of infectious diseases.... if it doesn't leave room for your god, ahh fuck it then. Kids don't need to know the truth anyway! ;)


leroy wrote:please let me know if you disagree with any of my points.


On that much, you can rest assured. I just hope you can see my substantive disagreement through the much-derserved sarcasm.
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Thu Jun 29, 2017 6:57 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1083Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

Here you go, Leroy. A valid description of the Theory of Evolution:

The theory of evolution accounts for the visible and genetic changes in a population of organisms over generations, both through statistical evolution and through natural selection.

Or pithier:

Evolution occurs when the distribution of alleles in a population shifts.

Of course, while the latter is rigorous, it results in the problematic notion for you: evolution is always happening because the population of alleles is always shifting as new children are born and old people die.

Welcome to life, welcome to reality.
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Thu Jun 29, 2017 7:01 pm
leroyPosts: 1563Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

leroy wrote: about the stuff in big letters, I was really talking about common ancestry, not evolution. ..........if an alien has a big portion of genetic material in common with humans that would be a problem for common ancestry, because such an even is not predicted given our current understanding on cladistics and nested hierarchies .



Well, it wouldn't call our common ancestry to other organisms on Earth into question - again, I don't see how you can reason your way into that. Our common ancestry with other organisms on Earth is not contingent on the existence of aliens, sharing ancestry with us or not.



Finding an alien with human like DNA, (human genes) would strongly suggests that common ancestry is not the only way in which one can get a significan portion of genetic similarities.

this would imply that genetic similarities do not necessarily imply common ancestry.



And surely says a lot more about you, your thoughts, or your comprehension of the subject than it does about the subject.


I was simply using a tool to explain my view in a way that I personally believe is clear,



leroy wrote:about teaching evolution in class

I believe that students should learn about evolution, but one should not make a big deal if they don't (for whatever reason)

Maybe one shouldn't make a big deal if they learn to spell either. Who cares? They'll learn to write eventually through trial and error anyway. Or maybe they can just learn to write when they get to university? It's not like we want to build on generational knowledge, instead we want dogma to dictate that we're not allowed to know more because it makes people uncomfortable to face reality. Forget the hard-earned knowledge gained through systematically interrogating the universe and the essential discovery of evolution which has helped us feed 7 billion people and keep them from all dying of infectious diseases.... if it doesn't leave room for your god, ahh fuck it then. Kids don't need to know the truth anyway! ;)


leroy wrote:please let me know if you disagree with any of my points.


On that much, you can rest assured. I just hope you can see my substantive disagreement through the much-derserved sarcasm.[/quote]



nothing else to add, I already told you what my personal opinion is on evolution and the evidence for evolution, and my opinion on teaching evolution in class.


feel free to agree or disagree.



but I do what to know this..............what was the purpose of your thread?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Jun 29, 2017 10:03 pm
leroyPosts: 1563Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

Sparhafoc wrote:Here you go, Leroy. A valid description of the Theory of Evolution:

The theory of evolution accounts for the visible and genetic changes in a population of organisms over generations, both through statistical evolution and through natural selection.

Or pithier:

Evolution occurs when the distribution of alleles in a population shifts.

Of course, while the latter is rigorous, it results in the problematic notion for you: evolution is always happening because the population of alleles is always shifting as new children are born and old people die.

Welcome to life, welcome to reality.




well accepting the second definition does not imply that you have to accept the first definition too,


accepting that alleles shift does not necessarily imply that modern eyes came from simpler organs. additional evidence is required.



I accept the second definition and I am skeptical about the first...............If evidence is provided I will accept the first too.



there is a big difference between


1 random Genetic changes and natural selection account for some of the diversity of life

and

2 random Genetic changes and natural selection account for all (or nearly all) of the diversity of life


accepting 1 does not imply accepting 2
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Jun 29, 2017 10:08 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1083Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

leroy wrote:Finding an alien with human like DNA, (human genes) would strongly suggests that common ancestry is not the only way in which one can get a significan portion of genetic similarities.


With all respect, Leroy. Show some respect.

You don't know what you're talking about, so stop making declarations and go back to question formation.

As I've already told you in detail in the appropriate thread, your idea is hokum.

So let's get back to the actual topic here which is teaching you about evolution.



leroy wrote:this would imply that genetic similarities do not necessarily imply common ancestry.


A brilliantly executed stalking horse. Not.

I am sure I am not the only one who knew where you were going with this. But hey, ok.

Do you think that's how we do cladistics, Leroy? After me already writing a lengthy paragraph explaining to you that we use multiple lines of evidence to categorise living organisms, and that the categories are descriptions widely open to change on the advent of new data, and that cladistics is not something from which you could make predictions about the genetic content of organisms on other planets.

As such, the entire notion is a briar patch you are intent on getting bogged down in.

Here's a hand: I am more than happy to pull you out of your benighted hole, but you've got to stop pretending you can do it yourself because we can all see what a mess you're getting yourself into.



leroy wrote:I was simply using a tool to explain my view in a way that I personally believe is clear,


No, you didn't use a 'tool' unless you mean the computer on which you typed your previous post.

What you did was write your opinion down.

I then informed you that your opinion wasn't worth a ha'penny jizz because it's an uninformed opinion. Your religious belief offers you no special insight into evolution, so if you want to make declarations about biological science, you will need to learn biological science.

Of course, if you don't really care and just want to assert bullshit as fact to people who know better than you - just let me know, and I will be just as happy to leave you to stew in the ignorant anti-science soup you've crafted.



Sparhafoc wrote:
Maybe one shouldn't make a big deal if they learn to spell either. Who cares? They'll learn to write eventually through trial and error anyway. Or maybe they can just learn to write when they get to university? It's not like we want to build on generational knowledge, instead we want dogma to dictate that we're not allowed to know more because it makes people uncomfortable to face reality. Forget the hard-earned knowledge gained through systematically interrogating the universe and the essential discovery of evolution which has helped us feed 7 billion people and keep them from all dying of infectious diseases.... if it doesn't leave room for your god, ahh fuck it then. Kids don't need to know the truth anyway! ;)


Odd that you would even quote this text, not reply to it at all, then continue with your post as if you hadn't read it.

/shrug leading horses to water, I suppose.



leroy wrote:nothing else to add, I already told you what my personal opinion is on evolution and the evidence for evolution, and my opinion on teaching evolution in class.


Aye, and as I told you, your opinion isn't worth anything because it's a specialist subject which requires the pontificator to possess data and understand the scientific mechanisms before their opinion is of any use to anyone.

What you mean is that these are the instructions on how to argue with atheists about evolution offered to you by your preferred outlet for Christian apologetic propaganda. And yes, we've all heard it before thousands of times, so you'd better go and ask all those other Christian fundies to get your opinion back.



leroy wrote:eel free to agree or disagree.


Are you still unaware of my disagreement.

What an odd thing this is.... it's like you're not reading a single word I write. :)



leroy wrote:but I do what to know this..............what was the purpose of your thread?
[/quote]

And following immediately on from my last point, given that I explain the purpose of this thread in the first post of this thread, I suggest you read what I write because it seems like all your follow up questions are already answered every time.
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:52 am
SparhafocPosts: 1083Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

leroy wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Here you go, Leroy. A valid description of the Theory of Evolution:

The theory of evolution accounts for the visible and genetic changes in a population of organisms over generations, both through statistical evolution and through natural selection.

Or pithier:

Evolution occurs when the distribution of alleles in a population shifts.

Of course, while the latter is rigorous, it results in the problematic notion for you: evolution is always happening because the population of alleles is always shifting as new children are born and old people die.

Welcome to life, welcome to reality.




well accepting the second definition does not imply that you have to accept the first definition too,


I... ummm... what? :lol:

It's the same semantic significance, both written by me with the exact same intent, both based on the exact same formalized idea of evolution.... so yeah, of course, you can accept that up is up and then not accept that up is up, but it just means your thinking is incoherent.


leroy wrote:accepting that alleles shift does not necessarily imply that modern eyes came from simpler organs. additional evidence is required.


What tosh. Don't try to bait and switch me, Leroy - it won't go well for you. No definition of evolution includes any requisite about the evolution of eyes - that's just something you tossed out lazily.

Stripping back the added bullshit which is beginning to look like a signature of yours, we are left with 'accepting that alleles shift doesn't mean accepting that evolution occurs'.

Actually, yes it does. The problem is that you don't know what it means to say that the distribution of alleles shift. You don't understand that evolution is something that happens at the population level, rather than at the individual level. You don't understand the power of statistical evolution because you are uninformed on the topic.

However, I have told you the correct definition of evolution - not one crafted by an ideologically hostile ignoramus on a propaganda outlet - but the definition tested repeatedly and observed directly.


As for your latest foray into the all-too-typical Creationist handwaving distraction mill: there is a vast body of work on the evolution of the eye (modern is another irrelevant term considering there are at least a dozen types of eyes extant today) going back a century. The evidence is absurdly clear even for those with the myopia of Creationism. There is a gradual path from photosensitive spot, to pit, the pit wall becoming the retina, to adding a contained liquid in that pit, to adding a lens to that liquid contained pit and so on.

Just because you don't know something, please don't associate us all with it. Some of us actually attended high school science... and given that I went there over 3 decades ago, you can't claim that this is some knowledge that simply slipped under the rug and therefore you overlooked it.

More, you have a duty here, Leroy and you are failing it. You are supposed to be arguing for Christianity - the supposed one true religion of the one true creator god. Yet you are showing only a) ignorance of this specialist topic matter and b) an unwillingness to engage in the facts.

Do you think it's your religious beliefs which make you unable to go and spend half an hour googling the evolution of the eye and noting the readily available evidence published online?

Do you not appreciate that when a non-religious person sees a religious person acting this way, it just looks like outright hubris?

One of the early Christians wrote about this:

Augustine wrote:Usually, even a Heathen knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.


Which suggests that even Augustine realized the damage it would do when uninformed 'Christians' set about trying to attack empirical reality on the basis of their folksy understanding of the world around them. It does reflect on Christianity, and the supposed capabilities of your god character that so many Christians would be so thoroughly ignorant of the world they still somehow believe god created.

Any which way, Leroy - I've offered you an honest chance to inform yourself here.

However, you don't seem capable of taking it. You still seem to want to signal to people that your potted bollocks about evolution should be lent undue acceptance.

That's not how this works. You either do the legwork, or you remain wrong, and painfully, transparently, willfully wrong at that.




leroy wrote:I accept the second definition and I am skeptical about the first...............If evidence is provided I will accept the first too.


As I've told you - the first and second are the same sentence.



leroy wrote:there is a big difference between


1 random Genetic changes and natural selection account for some of the diversity of life

and

2 random Genetic changes and natural selection account for all (or nearly all) of the diversity of life


accepting 1 does not imply accepting 2


You've also just simply made up some new definitions on the fly because you refuse to engage honestly in this discussion.

Again, your notion is complete fucking hogwash, and this reflects only on you. Of course, any statement you make on this topic can have zero credibility when we all know you lack the requisite knowledge and competence.

Last chance dude.... do you want to learn what evolution actually is, as per the field of science which has been used to maintain food security for an over-populated planet and which has provided the chemical response to stave off most of those people dying of infection or disease.... or do you want to repeatedly parrot bullshit you uncritically bought into from some moron preacher with no background in the science at all?

It's always your choice as to whether to remain ignorant.

It's not your choice as to how people will perceive such ignorance.
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:20 am
leroyPosts: 1563Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

Sparhafoc, from the definition that you provided....


Here you go, Leroy. A valid description of the Theory of Evolution:

The theory of evolution accounts for the visible and genetic changes in a population of organisms over generations, both through statistical evolution and through natural selection.

Or pithier:

Evolution occurs when the distribution of alleles in a population shifts.


I accept this

Evolution occurs when the distribution of alleles in a population shifts.


I accept that the distribution of alleles shift

I don't accept this

The theory of evolution accounts for the visible and genetic changes in a population of organisms over generations, both through statistical evolution and through natural selection.


I don't grant that all the diversity of life can be explained by the fact that alleles shift.




of course this doesn't mean that the statement is wrong, it simply means that I personally don't grant it, if you present evidence for it, I might change my mind.


after all, I do accept common ancestry, I do believe that we came form ancient apes, If I already accepted the most hated and rejected part of evolution then perhaps I am open minded enough to accept that alleles shifting can account for the diversity of life.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Jun 30, 2017 2:31 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1083Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

leroy wrote:I don't accept this

The theory of evolution accounts for the visible and genetic changes in a population of organisms over generations, both through statistical evolution and through natural selection.


I don't grant that all the diversity of life can be explained by the fact that alleles shift.


Oh I see.

Well, that makes you wrong then.

Do you want to remain wrong, or do you want to learn?




leroy wrote:of course this doesn't mean that the statement is wrong, it simply means that I personally don't grant it, if you present evidence for it, I might change my mind.


Ahh good. There is hope for you yet, Leroy! :)

That's EXACTLY the right response!

Now, I am more than happy to substantiate my claim, but I need to understand what it is you don't accept in the sentence above.



leroy wrote:after all, I do accept common ancestry, I do believe that we came form ancient apes, If I already accepted the most hated and rejected part of evolution then perhaps I am open minded enough to accept that alleles shifting can account for the diversity of life.


So your issue is that evolution - the theory that expressly seeks to account for the diversity of life - doesn't account for the diversity of life? 8-) I need a scratchy head smiley, but that one will do.

More disconcertingly for the cognitive dissonance that must be raging, how you accept common ancestry (and therefore that all life is descended with mutation from earlier life forms) but yet don't accept the very model which expressly predicted and explains that.

Ok, so let's start at the beginning.

I need to know what you know. So I will ask you some questions:

1) What is the unit of inheritance?
2) What is the unit of inheritance made of?
3) How does inheritance occur?
4) Is the unit of inheritance unchanging?
5) Is there differential survival based on physical traits?
6) Is there natural variation among individuals of any given species?
7) What is a gene?
8) Does having a gene that gives you cancer mean that you cannot pass on your genes?

I wonder if you answer those questions honestly whether you will still challenge the point about the changes in alleles in a population being expressly what evolution is.
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Fri Jun 30, 2017 3:22 pm
leroyPosts: 1563Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

Sparhafoc wrote:

1) What is the unit of inheritance?
2) What is the unit of inheritance made of?
3) How does inheritance occur?
4) Is the unit of inheritance unchanging?
5) Is there differential survival based on physical traits?
6) Is there natural variation among individuals of any given species?
7) What is a gene?
8) Does having a gene that gives you cancer mean that you cannot pass on your genes?

I wonder if you answer those questions honestly whether you will still challenge the point about the changes in alleles in a population being expressly what evolution is.


1 gene, (well of course this is a simplistic answer and not 100% accurate, but this answer most work for the sake of the discussion)
2 AGCTs (a combination of base pairs)
3 you inherit genes from mom and dad,
4 no
5 yes
6 yes
7 a combination of base pairs (AGTCs)
8 it means that you are less likely to pass your genes



.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Jun 30, 2017 4:11 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1083Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

Thanks for taking the time to do that.

For now, I would like to say that it's impressive to meet a Creationist (I assume from other comments you self-affiliate with this label) who actually has a basis of understanding of evolution and genetics. I have met thousands of rank and file Creationists who couldn't have answered any of the above, let alone mostly accurately, but were just as confident that evolution was wrong. So you're a special case, Leroy! :)

I'll be back after class to respond, but suffice it to say that you've accepted every aspect of evolution so there's clearly a magical barrier in your mind that prevents you from putting together the fact that you've accepted evolution in toto. Don't worry, that barrier will be broken down because it doesn't actually exist in empirical reality, just in your mind. At least as far as direct observations of nature go. But we'll get to that later, though.
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Sat Jul 01, 2017 1:19 am
leroyPosts: 1563Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

Sparhafoc wrote:Thanks for taking the time to do that.

For now, I would like to say that it's impressive to meet a Creationist (I assume from other comments you self-affiliate with this label) who actually has a basis of understanding of evolution and genetics. I have met thousands of rank and file Creationists who couldn't have answered any of the above, let alone mostly accurately, but were just as confident that evolution was wrong. So you're a special case, Leroy! :)

I'll be back after class to respond, but suffice it to say that you've accepted every aspect of evolution so there's clearly a magical barrier in your mind that prevents you from putting together the fact that you've accepted evolution in toto. Don't worry, that barrier will be broken down because it doesn't actually exist in empirical reality, just in your mind. At least as far as direct observations of nature go. But we'll get to that later, though.


I don't think I have a magical barrier, I would say that you are the one who is building an "imaginary bridge or imaginary connection" but I ll wait to see what you have to say.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sat Jul 01, 2017 2:31 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1083Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

And finally back with an almost functioning brain! :? :roll: :o

So let's move forward. Now I am aware of what you know, then you shouldn't have any problem following the next step which will show you the principle, and then finally we'll look at the evidence once you've acknowledged the principle.

So we're talking about speciation, but clearly you have trouble accepting any significant morphological change resulting from iterative genetic shuffling and mutation over multiple generations.

The thing about this is that you can approach it purely statistically. There's actually no need for you to understand any more than you already do to find yourself agreeing to the process by which that significant morphological change occurs.

Let's look at just one example of speciation using an analogy originally crafted by Dr Noor of Duke University. It's obviously still basically spherical cows in a vacuum, but we can try to add more grit if necessary.

Imagine a population of squirrels on a land mass. You've already accepted that there is natural genetic variation among the squirrel population (a fact many creationists accept without understanding that they've already thereby allowed for that 'natural' variation to have occurred in the species' past, and therefore have accepted evolution... but leaving that aside), so you appreciate that there are slight variations in morphology, and presumably you accept that there are slight variations in behavior, both of which can be wholly genetic, or partially genetic partly adaptive.

Looking at that population of squirrels with a different eye, you can instead track the genes present in that population. One thing you will find quickly is the concept of the allele, which is basically an inherently variant form of a given gene. It can either be A or B, and alone the difference between this simple binary will provide fairly substantial variation. Set in its genetic environment, set in its physical environment, set in the wider natural selection environment, that variation can have a dramatic effect on the distribution via different behaviors and morphologies of the subsection of the population which possess it.

One such very common behavior in wild animals (in fact an interesting way to measure the wildness of an animal) is its fight or flight response. You can try this for yourself when you next walk down the road. Sparrows in your area, for example, might let you get within 3 or 4 feet before doing the off, while magpies might scarper when you're still 20 feet away. Less noticeable is that each individual has its own invisible radius which will provoke the flight response, while some individuals seemingly have much reduced radii before they feel instinctively inclined to flap.

Thus, in a population, you might have some 'bold' individuals and some 'prudent' individuals, all of which I assume you accept.

Now back to our squirrels. They live on an island - the ancestral squirrels colonized it just a few generations ago and their population has slowly spread across the island. All variations are doing well because there are no natural predators, no competition for food, and they've yet to run out of available territory to colonize. No real pressure mean they explode.

However, there's a river running down the middle of the island separating East and West, and this river is full of alligators with a particular penchant for squirrel meat.

Of course, on the other bank is a vast uncolonized landmass just full of acorns or whatever it is that gets squirrels wet with desire. It would certainly be a benefit to any individual to get over there, especially as this side of the river is beginning to get a bit crowded and competition is starting to become a primary factor in a squirrel's daily duties.

If we were to focus our population attention just on the group which lives nearest to the river, we would of course expect to see a standard distribution of the population possessing the variety of possible fight/flight responses (and all other traits), thereby making some individuals braver and some meeker, as we would if we were looking at any other arbitrarily selected group of squirrels on the island. It's an evolutionary stable number - let's say 25% of squirrels have the 'bold' gene and that it's recessive meaning you'd need a copy of it from both your carrier/ bold dominant parents for that allele to be passed on.

Next what happens is also something you accept. Natural selection. The 75% of squirrels which are meek would not possess any inclination to run the gauntlet with the alligators, and would therefore make do with what they have to paw - no risk, but also no reward. Our bolder squirrels will risk more frequently and consequently get themselves killed by alligators much, much more frequently than the meek squirrels.

Now what happens to the 'bold' gene under such a scenario? A behavior arising from a genetic component is seriously lessening the likelihood of an individual passing on those genes to the next generation. Even if just 10% of bold squirrels die, the prior evolutionary stable strategy is thrown out of whack. There's now a new pressure - an environmental one - that statistically, over generations, results in the bold gene being disadvantaged and therefore less represented in the population if by nothing else than that there are more meek squirrel babies consuming the resources and passing on their genes more frequently successfully.

At this point you've accepted all the necessary components which underlie the question, so you just need to answer the question for yourself. You are essentially witnessing the power of evolution just from a statistical perspective, regardless of any complexities, the kind of evolution you reject is occurring. Of course, you don't see it yet because it's just one step, and you are thinking much bigger and want to see sweeping morphological changes. Well, that's why we chose this particular mode of speciation, because it is so very puissant when it comes to grand morphological change in a relatively short time.

So let's continue our nutty gedanken with the sudden and unexpected success of some of the few remaining bold squirrels. Perhaps rainfall was a bit lower that summer, or perhaps the trees branches extended a little further than usual, or perhaps the alligators got temporarily bored of squirrel meat. Any which way, a small group of bold squirrels makes it to the other side, and all before them lies uncharted territory. And let's keep our cows spherical by saying that after the squirrels got to the West Side, the river got dramatically bigger and there was never a way back ever again. We now have two isolated populations with no gene flow between them.

Firstly, we have a situation known as the founder effect. That means that of the greater squirrel gene population, only an unrepresentative fraction is present on the West Side, and consequently all their offspring will have a common or even universal trait that is actually entirely uncommon in their ancestral population on the other side of the river. Those novel genes in turn can mutate independently in the future resulting in an even wider genetic gulf than already exists the moment the populations are separated.

Secondly, we have a new environmental niche with new environmental pressures. Perhaps together with the abundance of food on the West Side, so there is an abundance of predators who are too scared of alligators to head to the East side. Perhaps the topography and climate are different, perhaps there are numerous different pressures on the survival of the West Side Squirrels (an instant classic Musical, I am sure) which then exert selection on their population.

Betwixt the two, we have all the ingredients for speciation. Mutations arising in the original population may offer no survival value and just be shuffled around aimlessly with respect to survival and reproduction. Meanwhile the very same mutation on the very same gene in the new population may offer dramatic benefits which ultimately result in that gene becoming universal in that population. Now add time. Stir with a divine wooden spoon... or just let nature (or even mathematics) take its course and you will find that by generation 100, there are now two substantially different gene pools, and it would be easy to identify whether any given squirrel comes from the East or West solely by the genes they possess.

But then you have to ask yourself what the genes they possess are doing to them in the visible terms that most Creationists focus on. Well, we need to wonder about details here: Are they fleeing predators more often? Then those best able to respond to predators will succeed statistically more frequently than those which don't thereby leaving more offspring. Meanwhile, no such pressure on the other side means no such naturally selected mutation can become prevalent. Did they encounter a new food source that wasn't very nutritious at first thanks to their chemical inability to process the nutrients efficiently but which they, over generations, became evolved to process efficiently? (a good example of this in humans is milk)

So let's forward a thousand years, ten thousand years, a hundred thousand years... we now have two distinct populations. Even if we assume they are still Platonic squirrel form for the moment, they are genetically sufficiently distinct that even were the alligators to go extinct and relations once again established, the dramatic differences in the genetic lines of the two populations would mean they were not interfertile. Now, regardless of whether you still don't accept major morphological change, you've still go to acknowledge the fact that there are now two different groups of squirrels, and we'd have a different name for them.

But factually, what also would have occurred is that the two populations would have diverged morphologically as well. This would certainly happen faster if the environments the two groups operated in were markedly different as there might be a pressure towards a certain form of perambulation, for example, or an abundance of food allowing larger body size, but it would also happen solely by the arisal of novel mutations in different populations and the vagaries of gene shuffling through recombination. Once the two groups are isolated, they are already speciating, and speciation means there are differences genetically and morphologically. As such, regardless of whether you want a squirrel to grow a horn, or learn to fly before you accept 'macro-evolution' (as per the Creationist usage of it), this is actually exactly such an example, none of which you can disagree with and be consistent with your earlier answers.

The only thing you can do is erect a magical barrier that we can't detect in nature, and which appears to be completely contradictory to observable evidence. You'll assert that there can be changes (and call it adaptation) but claim there can't be 'enough' changes to speciate. Firstly, as explained above, that's speciation regardless of whether they even look different or not, but factually they would accrue minor morphological changes encoded into their genes generation by generation, and eventually that will add up enough so that not only are the two populations genetically distinct, but thanks to those different genes, phenotypically distinct as well.

So if you still somehow don't accept this principle, even though it must follow logically from the answers you've already given, then we'll just have to start pointing to the litany of examples which establish this beyond credible doubt. I wonder what you'll do then, I personally find it intriguing, and even more so when someone shucks off their emotional programming.
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:08 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1083Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

leroy wrote: I don't think I have a magical barrier, I would say that you are the one who is building an "imaginary bridge or imaginary connection" but I ll wait to see what you have to say.


Yes, but as we've already established, it doesn't matter what you think.

Your thoughts are not the arbiter. Your thoughts are so easily wrong, as with everyone else.

Instead the arbiter we use to check our ideas is repeated experimentation on external reality, where different people follow the same steps and arrive at the same result... that intersubjective element of knowledge that has no place whatsoever for your conjecture unless you are willing to send it through the gauntlet.

Just because you can think something, doesn't make it valid.

The magical barrier you are placing is on macroevolution. I've told you - been doing this a while, I know. You accept that evolution occurs, you accept the manner in which evolution occurs, you just deny that evolution can result in significant morphological change.

However, as explained already, significant morphological change can be achieved slowly, gradually, and generationally. We don't need Hopeful Monsters - in fact, we expressly state that appealing to Hopeful Monsters is anti-scientific.

Instead, we actively assume that changes will accrue slowly because if you change a big thing randomly, you're more likely to fuck something up (and thereby kill that novel gene) than if you change something small and it goes tits up.

So, small changes (genetic mutations) may be good, bad or neutral. The bad die, the neutral survive and may be the same as the good or more or less efficacious in some respect while also carrying a negative element to them in another respect (i.e. sickle cell syndrome), and the good for the contemporary environment survival scenario survive to the next generation in greater numbers, thereby accruing one small change. What happens if you add up lots of small things, Leroy?

The analogy is that you accept that I can take a pace forward, but you refute the possibility for me to take several paces forward then go down the shops. It is, of course, silly. But it's the best Creationists can muster these days.

Do it for yourself. Take some plasticine, Step 1: Mold it into a perfect sausage. Step 2: make a tiny little subtle change you can barely detect. Step 3: do step 2 several million times to emulate generations of a population. Step 4: note that the millions of barely perceptible changes have resulted in a dramatic change. Welcome to the removal of your magical barrier.
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:18 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3246Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

Sparhafoc wrote:Odd that you would even quote this text, not reply to it at all, then continue with your post as if you hadn't read it.

...

What an odd thing this is.... it's like you're not reading a single word I write. :)

...

And following immediately on from my last point, given that I explain the purpose of this thread in the first post of this thread, I suggest you read what I write because it seems like all your follow up questions are already answered every time.


Ignoring the vast majority of what one writes and asking questions that have already been answered is a dandan/leroy trade mark. Enjoy.

leroy wrote:after all, I do accept common ancestry, I do believe that we came form ancient apes, If I already accepted the most hated and rejected part of evolution then perhaps I am open minded enough to accept that alleles shifting can account for the diversity of life.


Like I said, dandan/leroy can learn. It just takes time and effort.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sat Jul 01, 2017 8:29 pm
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 1083Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Ignoring the vast majority of what one writes and asking questions that have already been answered is a dandan/leroy trade mark. Enjoy.


Sadly, I have noticed this elsewhere.

Still, chin up I say. If he won't listen, it's not hurting me! ;)


he_who_is_nobody wrote:Like I said, dandan/leroy can learn. It just takes time and effort.


I don't want to be rude to him, but I think it may just be possible that the above was learned here... although that description might need the adverb 'painfully' in reference to other people's patience in repeating basic elements of genetics over and over until they sank in.

But maybe I am doing him an injustice and his knowledge of the answers to the above questions predated his tenure here.
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Sat Jul 01, 2017 9:13 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1083Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

leroy wrote:1 gene, (well of course this is a simplistic answer and not 100% accurate, but this answer most work for the sake of the discussion)
2 AGCTs (a combination of base pairs)
3 you inherit genes from mom and dad,
4 no
5 yes
6 yes
7 a combination of base pairs (AGTCs)
8 it means that you are less likely to pass your genes



.



Incidentally, I forgot to address some of these points which need a little polishing.

1) It's more than adequate, even DNA would be fine. You'd be surprised how few Creationists know this.

2) & 7) Fine but odd that you answered 7 as if it were the same question as 2. With 7, if my question wasn't clear enough, I was asking you what role a gene has.

3) Ahh but I think you're missing a special little something there. Recombination. Yes you get half from mum's line and half from dad's line, but the recombination of the two means you have something actually unique, you have instantly become a new data point in the gene pool. That takes you back to the point made earlier about how shifts in allele frequencies is expressly what evolution is measuring or mechanically what is happening that generates evolution. And to really appreciate that it's important to remember that the first order of environment that genes operate in is the environment of the genes themselves, regulating, blocking, superseding, cancelling out the effect or part of the effect of another gene. When you realize that recombining two separate lines of genes produces an important variation in the environment of the genes, in the environment of the body made by those genes, and in the body's environment ultimately resulting in sexual reproduction. Very, very small changes can have a dramatic effect.

8) This is the only one that's wrong. If a gene makes you likely to have cancer, it will only mean you are less likely to pass on your genes if your cancer kills you before you reproduce. If you make 2 babies who survive to make more babies, you've wholly succeeded the genetic lottery game we call life. You win! A gene could make your head explode on your 40th birthday, and as long as you sowed your wild oats previously, natural selection would be wholly blind to it.

This has a bunch of ramifications that are interesting, but I am not here just for interest but to prod you in the right direction to understand why you're mistaken about evolution.

Evolution by natural selection is a brute force phenomenon that beats, bullies, smashes and pulps everything which doesn't pass muster. Long ago at the beginning of life on Earth, and again at the various points of dramatic environmental shifts or speciation events there were literally mortal threats to the survival of any species. Every single species that exists today has an ancestor that beat ridiculous odds. Consequently, our bodies are fairly well 'designed' in the sense that the genes which make the phenotype have fought and won a high stake game for the last 3-4 billion years. Winner takes all, and the loser disappears into history. And in most circumstances, in most niches, in most environments there is another statement attributed falsely to Darwin, but which does best sum up one of the many other discoveries he made which most people are still wholly ignorant about.... it is not the strongest of the species which survives, but the one most responsive to change. You could just as easily change the wording to 'strongest species' or to 'strongest gene' and all would equally be true, albeit in different ways. And change is unequivocal. Unless you feel comfortable explaining away the mineralized forms of ancient organisms which clearly show evolutionary change - yes, what Creationists call 'macroevolution' and claim doesn't exist - then I don't see how you can simultaneously reject evolution and be confident that you are being honest to yourself.
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Sat Jul 01, 2017 9:33 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3246Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

Sparhafoc wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Like I said, dandan/leroy can learn. It just takes time and effort.


I don't want to be rude to him, but I think it may just be possible that the above was learned here... although that description might need the adverb 'painfully' in reference to other people's patience in repeating basic elements of genetics over and over until they sank in.

But maybe I am doing him an injustice and his knowledge of the answers to the above questions predated his tenure here.


He learned it here. This is, however, his first addition of it.

;)
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Jul 02, 2017 2:40 am
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 1083Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Evolution for Leroy

he_who_is_nobody wrote:He learned it here. This is, however, his first addition of it.

;)


/Raise a glass in toast emoticon

It works. It might be unthanked, it might be done under hostile conditions, some may spit, lash out and rage... but every few hundred people, one of them learns something.... and that makes it all worthwhile!! :)
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Sun Jul 02, 2017 6:59 am
Next
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 5
 [ 86 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests