EvilBrain1:


"There is no external agent" is a positive claim? That word no, does it mean something else in your village? If I said there was no invisible pink monkey on top of my house, would you ask me for proof?



I don't know where you are getting this Brownian motion stuff from. I'm starting to think I'm being trolled. But just in case you actually believe this, Einstein derived the equations that describe Brownian motion in 1905, long after Darwin wrote his book.

Lol that's what a person does to remain right in an argument they bring up false claims to support their argument, So annoying. And I thought he was more intelligent than everyone

sinequanon:
ToE is not saying "we don't know/care about external agency in evolution". It is claiming that there is NO external agency.

This is a positive claim that requires proof for it to be a theory, and not just an hypothesis.

The randomness they are talking about is modeled on Brownian motion.

There is no model or research that quantifies the expected rate of mutation (and hence evolution) using molecular Brownian motion.

So the most that can be said is that the agency, if any, is unknown. We don't know if Brownian motion (+ natural selection) is sufficient to produce the RATE of evolution.

So ToE remains an hypothesis.

The way science is supposed to work is that you demonstrate something scientifically first, then ask for refutation. Otherwise, the existence of god would be accepted as science, too.

Back to the above.

(please ignore the trolls)

EvilBrain1:

Please note that I didn't ask for papers refuting the ToE. I asked for an alternative to it. Its easy to criticise and point out flaws whether real or imagined. Its another kettle of fish to come up with a better model that explains all the phenomena that Darwin's theory predicted while making its own testable predictions. None of your creationist heroes has ever succeeded in doing that. Einstein did it to Newton so it shouldn't be that hard given how abstract physics is compared to biology. And please note that ID doesn't count since it doesn't make predictions and it doesn't agree with observations or experimetal findings. Using Find and Replace to remove the word God from a Christian storybook doesn't change it into a scientific document.

this is unnecessary musical chairs. Its actually not "easy to criticize and point out flaws" in a peer-reviewed published journal. It requires significant thought, in many cases actual empirical testing of the hypothesis, going through rigorous peer-review. Secondly, the articles, if you bothered to read them at all, are not simply a refutation of the ToE but also provide a logical explanation for many of the events that are currently being used to justify the ToE. The problem is YOU and your ilk DO NOT READ. You are not asking for papers so you can objectively analyse the science... this is more of the same obfuscation from you. Not interested in going down that road.

EvilBrain1:

Also, lol at Michael Behe. That brought a smile to my face, thanks.

At least Michael Behe is published in peer-reviewed articles... where are yours? Afterall each time i criticize some aspects of the ToE, you all mewl about how i should first show my published refutations first no? What is good for the goose...

EvilBrain1:

Again, you need to give us an alternative model, just complaining about ToE. And my support of the ToE is based on the fact that I thought it through from first principles and reached largely the same conclusions Darwin did. Also, there's the small matter of the over 98% of biologists who believe in it and consider it to be the foundation of their field. Accepting scientific consensus is far from a perfect system, but it's better that following fringe crackpots.

The alternative model is intelligent design and those papers also provide logical reasons why there is a case for it. the problem is you havent bothered to read them so how can you understand.

EvilBrain1:

Once again I'm asking you to show me specifically the logical flaws in my first post. Silly or no, the post described a process. Tell us exactly why that process is not a plausible explanation for the emergence of the behaviour OP described.

Sinequanon did a good job, there is no point beating a dead horse.

davien:

Pointing me to a flintstones museum'(answersingenesis) is just a huge laugh.. I'm sure you'd toss another big daddy creationist behe's "peer reviewed paper.

you could simply read the papers and learn something rather than the usual pretense.

Dapo777:


Lol that's what a person does to remain right in an argument they bring up false claims to support their argument, So annoying. And I thought he was more intelligent than everyone

and where is the evidence of your own intelligence... other than mewling about others and getting annoyed that is?

davidylan:


you could simply read the papers and learn something rather than the usual pretense.

I have actually....they opposed some points on previously accepted macroevolution mechanisms...
But to draw an a priori conclusion from them is what I can't do..

davien:
I have actually....they opposed some points on previously accepted macroevolution mechanisms...
But to draw an a priori conclusion from them is what I can't do..

lol you read them right? I know for a fact that the Annu Rev Genetics and Elsevier papers are behind a paywall and the only way you could have read them is if you went ahead and purchased them for close to $60 for both. Why are you folks such inveterate liars? The fact that you didnt read them is evident in the fact that you cannot really articulate what the papers were about lol.

The elsevier paper by Lonnig 2002 describes ACTUAL EMPIRICAL DATA conducted to question one of the basic tenets of the ToE... so to say that they have simply drawn a priori conclusions is quite stupid.

davidylan:


lol you read them right? I know for a fact that the Annu Rev Genetics and Elsevier papers are behind a paywall and the only way you could have read them is if you went ahead and purchased them for close to $60 for both. Why are you folks such inveterate liars? The fact that you didnt read them is evident in the fact that you cannot really articulate what the papers were about lol.

The elsevier paper by Lonnig 2002 describes ACTUAL EMPIRICAL DATA conducted to question one of the basic tenets of the ToE... so to say that they have simply drawn a priori conclusions is quite stupid.

I read abstracts from the papers....you can find them easily with a google search..

davien:
I read abstracts from the papers....you can find them easily with a google search..

you read abstracts lol, thereby missing the introduction (which defines the hypothesis and the logic behind it), methods, results, discussion and conclusions and you're surprised you missed the empirical data provided? there is no point debating with this guy.

davidylan:


you read abstracts lol, thereby missing the introduction (which defines the hypothesis and the logic behind it), methods, results, discussion and conclusions... there is no point debating with this guy.

I can't really give much time to a creationist paper....

davien:
I can't really give much time to a creationist paper....

A paper on chromosomal rearrangements published in the annual reviews of genetics... perhaps one of the most cited review journals on genetics in the world... is not a creationist paper. This basically exposes the vacuousness of many of you. It basically shows that science is not the driving factor in your embrace of ToE... other than the fact that it is the singular alternative that excludes God.

davidylan:


A paper on chromosomal rearrangements published in the annual reviews of genetics... perhaps one of the most cited review journals on genetics in the world... is not a creationist paper. This basically exposes the vacuousness of many of you. It basically shows that science is not the driving factor in your embrace of ToE... other than the fact that it is the singular alternative that excludes God.

I'm not talking about the journal here....but the paper reviewed....creationists don't have a track record of legitimacy on their publications...an example is behe..your big daddy of creationism.

davien:
I'm not talking about the journal here....but the paper reviewed....creationists don't have a track record of legitimacy on their publications...an example is behe..your big daddy of creationism.

Senseless... if you think the paper is not legitimate, you can simply write a letter to the editor. the email is on the website and these are usually published in the next edition of the journal or almost immediately online. Perhaps you can also request a review of the original peer-review of the paper.

At this point, you are simply flailing... you have no substantive scientific objection to the papers other than the ridiculous noise that the papers necessarily lack credibility ONLY because the authors do not agree with ToE? Yeah what a "scientific" approach by you.

davidylan:


Senseless... if you think the paper is not legitimate, you can simply write a letter to the editor. the email is on the website and these are usually published in the next edition of the journal or almost immediately online. Perhaps you can also request a review of the original peer-review of the paper.

At this point, you are simply flailing... you have no substantive scientific objection to the papers other than the ridiculous noise that the papers necessarily lack credibility ONLY because the authors do not agree with ToE? Yeah what a "scientific" approach by you.

Lol....so because I object to a paper forwarded by a creationist that means I'm for the ToE?

I'll leave you to your bedrock assumptions.....

davidylan:


lol you read them right? I know for a fact that the Annu Rev Genetics and Elsevier papers are behind a paywall and the only way you could have read them is if you went ahead and purchased them for close to $60 for both. Why are you folks such inveterate liars? The fact that you didnt read them is evident in the fact that you cannot really articulate what the papers were about lol.

The elsevier paper by Lonnig 2002 describes ACTUAL EMPIRICAL DATA conducted to question one of the basic tenets of the ToE... so to say that they have simply drawn a priori conclusions is quite stupid.

LOL.

I don't see the point of debating with dishonest folk.

Their only use is for highlighting the amount of dishonesty in their belief system.

davien:
Lol....so because I object to a paper forwarded by a creationist that means I'm for the ToE?

I'll leave you to your bedrock assumptions.....

if you objected on the basis of actual science then you may have had a point. As of now, your emotional caterwauling over the paper simply based on who wrote it makes you irrelevant in this debate.

davidylan:


if you objected on the basis of actual science then you may have had a point. As of now, your emotional caterwauling over the paper simply based on who wrote it makes you irrelevant in this debate.

You don't expect me to even try to take people who believe volcanoes transported kangaroos to australia seriously,do you?

davien:
You don't expect me to even try to take people who believe volcanoes transported kangaroos to australia seriously,do you?

that is as unscientific as you can get and basically exposes the fact that most of you base your position on blind faith and emotion. The 4 papers posted have absolutely nothing to do with volcanoes, kangaroos or australia so all that is a red herring. If you have fundamental science-based questions about the published articles then state them.

You all spend so much time whining that there are no scientific papers refuting the ToE (false nonsense anyway). Now that some have been produced, you basically act like little children with your fingers stuck in your ears.

davidylan:


that is as unscientific as you can get and basically exposes the fact that most of you base your position on blind faith and emotion. The 4 papers posted have absolutely nothing to do with volcanoes, kangaroos or australia so all that is a red herring. If you have fundamental science-based questions about the published articles then state them.

You all spend so much time whining that there are no scientific papers refuting the ToE (false nonsense anyway). Now that some have been produced, you basically act like little children with your fingers stuck in your ears.

You've been throwing tantrums all day,just for four papers... lol.
It's been fun messing with you....
But to be on a serious note...I'd follow up on those papers for a while if I can. "

sinequanon:

With DNA, your supposed "code" can fork into two branches, and the two branches can remain compatible. Real code would crash immediately. Imagine if Microsoft and Oracle started maintaining code independently for a while, and then Oracle tried to run its software on Windows. It would crash. But with DNA, you can successfully crossbreed individuals from population which have long separated and evolved independently.

Not all crossbreeding is a success. In fact, crossing unrelated species results in haploidy, which produces sterile and nonviable individuals.

In plants, this problem of sterility has been solved by following through to F2 when chromosome number can be doubled (achieving diploidy and in some complex scenario, polyploidy) and this has impacted positively, in no small measure, on our food production.

Unfortunately in animals, the severity of nonviability in these haploid individuals prevents them from reaching sexual maturity. So, the possibilty of tweaking to achieve diploidy is not yet realised.

Diploidy is vital for fertility and sometimes, viability. So, 'compatility despite forking,' as you put it, is not always true.

labimide:


Not all crossbreeding is a success.

Surprises never cease!

There we all were thinking you could cross a kangaroo with a watermelon...... But NO! It might not work......

labimide:
In fact, crossing unrelated species results in haploidy, which produces sterile and nonviable individuals.

In plants, this problem of sterility has been solved by following through to F2 when chromosome number can be doubled (achieving diploidy and in some complex scenario, polyploidy) and this has impacted positively, in no small measure, on our food production.

Unfortunately in animals, the severity of nonviability in these haploid individuals prevents them from reaching sexual maturity. So, the possibilty of tweaking to achieve diploidy is not yet realised.

Diploidy is vital for fertility and sometimes, viability. So, 'compatility despite forking,' as you put it, is not always true.

Thanks for clearing up the confusion.

UyiIredia:


What about death driving selection ? Listing bogus types of the same bogus concept isn't going to work. Random mutation and NS are the primary mechanisms listed as driving evolution so switching focus won't work here. Try another tactic.

Selection (both natural and artificial), genetic drift, migration, mutation, isolation and gene flow all drive evolution.

UyiIredia:


What about death driving selection ? Listing bogus types of the same bogus concept isn't going to work. Random mutation and NS are the primary mechanisms listed as driving evolution so switching focus won't work here. Try another tactic.

Actually, you keep proving that you don't know enough to distinguish between bogus and genuine, if you are confronted with either.

Logic and eloquence are not enough, splice them with adequate knowledge.

You do leave a lot to admire, anyway. The reason I look forward to you posts. Quite some analytical mind!

labimide:


Selection (both natural and artificial), genetic drift, migration, mutation, isolation and gene flow all drive evolution.

I think the main point is that all these do not produce new distinct species. That is the fundamental problem.

davidylan:


I think the main point is that all these do not produce new distinct species. That is the fundamental problem.

They all do. It should be mentioned though, that variability is the ingredient for evolution. And it is supplied by mutation. This raw material (variability) is what other factors work upon to bring about, first, micro-evolution and eventually speciation (macro-evolution).

The whole process takes place in millions of years. However, micro-evolution can be observed and measured, using tools such as Hardy-Weinberg's, gene frequencies, genotypic frequencies etc, within a reasonably short period of time.

A question for another day is, to what extent should two organisms be different before they are considered new species? Understanding this gives the whole concept new and interesting meaning.

labimide:


They all do. It should be mentioned though, that variability is the ingredient for evolution. And it is supplied by mutation. This raw material (variability) is what other factors work upon to bring about, first, micro-evolution and eventually speciation (macro-evolution).

The whole process takes place in millions of years. However, micro-evolution can be observed and measured, using tools such as Hardy-Weinberg's, gene frequencies, genotypic frequencies etc, within a reasonably short period of time.

A question for another day is, to what extent should two organisms be different before they are considered new species? Understanding this gives the whole concept new and interesting meaning.

Rather than wasting time talking in circles, can you provide one example where speciation has actually been observed empirically? thanks.

davidylan:


Rather than wasting time talking in circles, can you provide one example where speciation has actually been observed empirically? thanks.

Unfortunately, it would seem 'talking in circles' is what I enjoy doing. So?

labimide:


Unfortunately, it would seem 'talking in circles' is what I enjoy doing. So?

Not a problem. I just didnt want us to spend too much time speculating and pretending that this is equivalent to fact.

davidylan:


Not a problem. I just didnt want us to spend too much time speculating and pretending that this is equivalent to fact.

It's ok. The challenge is, we all choose to be convinved and until we do, no amount of facts can do the trick.

So, about the question. It's not a question for an evolutionist whose stance is that life started as a single species and diverged to as many as we have today and is still diverging.

Nobody ever lives up to a million years to ascertain first hand about classical speciation. So, the evidences tends more to the side of deductive reasoning.

But then, you will ask me about 'testability'. Yes, it is a bedrock of science. The testability lies more on the side of micro-evolution. Studies on micro-evolution have greatly favoured the theory of evolution with inspiring results. I am even working on one at present.

This is not to say that there hasn't been specific research on speciation. In fact, scientist have found a way around this millions of years requirement by researching on organisms with extremely short life cycles. And microbial studies have come handy in this regard.

So, in keeping with your question, you might want to consider malaria parasites (Plasmodium sp). Which have undergone significant evolution over the years in the line of drug resistance. Also, while scientists do not refer to viruses as species, but rather strains, HIV is a classical example of 'radical evolution in progress'.

Again, I'll mention that the understanding of the term 'species' as being used by scientist is critical to a thorough understanding of evolution.

PS: Your question would have been more decent without the use of the phrase 'talking in circles'.

labimide:


It's ok. The challenge is, we all choose to be convinved and until we do, no amount of facts can do the trick.

So, about the question. It's not a question for an evolutionist whose stance is that life started as a single species and diverged to as many as we have today and is still diverging.

Nobody ever lives up to a million years to ascertain first hand about classical speciation. So, the evidences tends more to the side of deductive reasoning.

But then, you will ask me about 'testability'. Yes, it is a bedrock of science. The testability lies more on the side of micro-evolution. Studies on micro-evolution have greatly favoured the theory of evolution with inspiring results. I am even working on one at present.

This is not to say that there hasn't been specific research on speciation. In fact, scientist have found a way around this millions of years requirement by researching on organisms with extremely short life cycles. And microbial studies have come handy in this regard.

So, in keeping with your question, you might want to consider malaria parasites (Plasmodium sp). Which have undergone significant evolution over the years in the line of drug resistance. Also, while scientists do not refer to viruses as species, but rather strains, HIV is a classical example of 'radical evolution in progress'.

Again, I'll mention that the understanding of the term 'species' as being used by scientist is critical to a thorough understanding of evolution.

PS: Your question would have been more decent without the use of the phrase 'talking in circles'.

I think i like to deal with empirical evidence rather than mere speculation... which really is the basis for the current ideas about speciation. There have been studies with fungi spanning more than 25 years and yet has produced zero evidence for speciation.

the idea that speciation must be true because we can prove that micro-evolution occurs is mere fantasy at best. Yes plasmodium sp. (and a myriad of bacterial organisms) have shown evidence for drug resistance... but all these are evidence for random mutations but not speciation. The same can be said for HIV... random mutations may change certain phenotypic characteristics but they still remain HIV. Its like saying differences in coat color all of a sudden makes the Agouti mouse a different organism from the C57BL/6 mice.

I think we already have a standard, scientific definition for the term "species", trying to change it up to force-fit our preconceived notions is not helpful in any regard.

davidylan:


I think i like to deal with empirical evidence rather than mere speculation... which really is the basis for the current ideas about speciation. There have been studies with fungi spanning more than 25 years and yet has produced zero evidence for speciation.

the idea that speciation must be true because we can prove that micro-evolution occurs is mere fantasy at best. Yes plasmodium sp. (and a myriad of bacterial organisms) have shown evidence for drug resistance... but all these are evidence for random mutations but not speciation. The same can be said for HIV... random mutations may change certain phenotypic characteristics but they still remain HIV. Its like saying differences in coat color all of a sudden makes the Agouti mouse a different organism from the C57BL/6 mice.

I think we already have a standard, scientific definition for the term "species", trying to change it up to force-fit our preconceived notions is not helpful in any regard.

Agouti mouse will not declare itself a new species. Scientist eventually does that. & HIV has never remained still HIV, the numerous strains are the equivalent of species.

Catfishes may look just catfish but there are some species of it.

In short, if you don't mind, I really need to know what you referred to as the standard definition of species and your understanding of it.

If I'm right, Plasmodium was first discovered as P. malariae but in the face of increasing severity of malaria, P. falciparum came to light. And it was said to be more virulent.
P. vivax too was discovered.

In plants too, differents species have been found to be natural hybrids of preexisting species. & these hybrids have been reproduced through artificial selection.

Regarding mutation, I will repeat, it is necessary for variability, & variability serves evolution.

labimide:


Agouti mouse will not declare itself a new species. Scientist eventually does that. & HIV has never remained still HIV, the numerous strains are the equivalent of species.

Catfishes may look just catfish but there are some species of it.

In short, if you don't mind, I really need to know what you referred to as the standard definition of species and your understanding of it.

If I'm right, Plasmodium was first discovered as P. malariae but in the face of increasing severity of malaria, P. falciparum came to light. And it was said to be more virulent.
P. vivax too was discovered.

In plants too, differents species have been found to be natural hybrids of preexisting species. & these hybrids have been reproduced through artificial selection.

Regarding mutation, I will repeat, it is necessary for variability, & variability serves evolution.

As is usual... you are confusing strains with species... a strain is simply a subtype of a particular organism all within the same specie (higher taxonomic classification).

As i said earlier, the agouti mouse has a genetic variation that gives it a unique brown coat color, Balb/C mice are typically white, while C57BL/6 mice are black. In addition, there are numerous variants of genetically modified mice... they are all mice, unless you claim that scientists have been creating new species for the last 30 years.

Yes there are variants of plasmodium... but they are all still PLASMODIUM. None of them has evolved into completely different species with clear differences in phenotype.