Oh God, here we go again - micro/macro evolution

dogjones · 9th November 2009, 06:51 AM

A friend of mine is slowly descending into religiosity. He is a smart chappie but cannot handle the implications of "materialism", "naturalism", etc - namely, that objective moral truths cannot exist within this worldview. Fine, I have a good time debating him philosophically over a few glasses of indifferent Malbec.

Unfortunately though, he is now straying into the realm of attempting to debunk evolution. Not, of course, 'micro' evolution, but 'macro'. His main thing appears to be "evolution cannot explain augmentation of DNA by external information/stimuli alone". I'm not sure even he knows what this means. I guess I would take it to mean that:

1. Evolution successfully describes changes in already existing DNA ("microevolution").
2. But some species have more DNA than others, and possibly this should be the definition of "species".
3. There is no evidence for how this 'creation' of new DNA ("macroevolution") comes about by purely naturalistic processes.
4. Therefore it is reasonable to 'doubt' macroevolution.

Oh yeah, and also the fossil record is incomplete and provides no evidence of said macroevolution.

Um. Help!?

macdoc · 9th November 2009, 06:58 AM

um find a new friend.....or topic of conversation.

Surely you have better things to do with your once around than "save" adult idjits from their own foibles...

If he doesn't get it by now nothing you are going to say will steer him off the path he has chosen and is looking for "justification" for.

dogjones · 9th November 2009, 07:06 AM

Ah well, the thing is, despite his agenda I do find it an interesting question, me being a layman and all...

W.D.Clinger · 9th November 2009, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by dogjones

Unfortunately though, he is now straying into the realm of attempting to debunk evolution. Not, of course, 'micro' evolution, but 'macro'. His main thing appears to be "evolution cannot explain augmentation of DNA by external information/stimuli alone". I'm not sure even he knows what this means. [...]

Oh yeah, and also the fossil record is incomplete and provides no evidence of said macroevolution.

Um. Help!?

If you're really interested in this stuff, then help yourself to a copy of

Eugenie C Scott. Evolution vs Creationism: an Introduction. Second Edition. University of California Press, 2009.

Then follow up by reading the full references cited by the parts that interest you most.

Will

Cainkane1 · 9th November 2009, 07:20 AM

If he's going to sit pat on the bible and thats that then I'd suggest discussing another topic with your friend. You know him better than we do.

MRC_Hans · 9th November 2009, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by dogjones

Fine, I have a good time debating him philosophically over a few glasses of indifferent Malbec.

Indifferent? A good Malbec is never indifferent.

Quote:

Unfortunately though, he is now straying into the realm of attempting to debunk evolution. Not, of course, 'micro' evolution, but 'macro'. His main thing appears to be "evolution cannot explain augmentation of DNA by external information/stimuli alone".

Argument by incredulity. That he (or anybody else, for that matter) do not find it explained, is not an argument that it doesn't exist.

Note that both the distinction between micro- and macro evolution and the definition of a species is entirely arbitrary.

Quote:

1. Evolution successfully describes changes in already existing DNA ("micro evolution").

One definition of micro evolution. However, still arbitrary. And circular, if you define micro evolution as that we have observed, and then claim the fact that we have not observed macro evolution as argument for anything but the definition itself.

Quote:

2. But some species have more DNA than others, and possibly this should be the definition of "species".

One definition of species. Arbitrary. See above.

Quote:

3. There is no evidence for how this 'creation' of new DNA ("macro evolution") comes about by purely naturalistic processes.

Yes there is such evidence: doubling of chromosomes, inversion and recombination of DNA strings, all which can increase the dataset, have been objectively observed.

Quote:

4. Therefore it is reasonable to 'doubt' macro evolution.

Not in itself. Macro evolution, by the definition above (which is as good as any) is extrapolated from micro evolution. There is no reason to believe that such an extrapolation is not valid, since we can observe no distinct barrier that should keep micro evolution from progressing till the point where it qualifies as macro evolution.

Quote:

Oh yeah, and also the fossil record is incomplete and provides no evidence of said macro evolution.

Even incomplete as it is, and must be, it provides plenty of evidence:

1. The slow progress over time where groups of species appear, proliferate, and vanish.

2. Several groups of species can be followed continuously over long time-spans, showing distinct evolution.

3. The less obvious fossil record that exists in DNA and mitochondrial DNA supports the archaeological one.

Hans

MRC_Hans · 9th November 2009, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

If he's going to sit pat on the bible and thats that then I'd suggest discussing another topic with your friend. You know him better than we do.

I think that one thing to point out to a bible believer is that creation is not falsifiable. An almighty god can, of course, create the world and all species in 7 days, 6,000 years ago, and make it appear as if it evolved over billions of years.

However, an almighty god can also create the world last week, or fifty billion years ago, or ......

If he claims that it is preposterous to say that god created the world last week, ask him why. Especially why it is more preposterous than any other time.

Hans

pakeha · 9th November 2009, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

... Macro evolution, by the definition above (which is as good as any) is extrapolated from micro evolution. There is no reason to believe that such an extrapolation is not valid, since we can observe no distinct barrier that should keep micro evolution from progressing till the point where it qualifies as macro evolution. ...
Hans

Well put, Hans.
Here's a vintage Dawkins video (1989) on the subject of natural selection. Perhaps it's very basic, but an enjoyable six and a half minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2etmGcRl1c

dogjones · 9th November 2009, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

If you're really interested in this stuff, then help yourself to a copy of

Eugenie C Scott. Evolution vs Creationism: an Introduction. Second Edition. University of California Press, 2009.

Then follow up by reading the full references cited by the parts that interest you most.

Will

Thanks!

dogjones · 9th November 2009, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

If he's going to sit pat on the bible and thats that then I'd suggest discussing another topic with your friend. You know him better than we do.

No, he’s not a bible basher in that sense. He’s quite maddeningly complex actually. He’s fine with pretty much all of science, voraciously reads things like ‘The Elegant Universe’ and “Cosmos”, etc etc, even the Demon Haunted World. He has a genuinely inquiring mind. Unfortunately he has also had a religious experience. He even acknowledges that it could all be in his head, but he doesn’t think so. And he attempts to back this up with well reasoned arguments. Generally these are metaphysical in nature and are perfectly ok (probably wrong but never provably so). But I am annoyed about his reasoning straying into the realm of the physical.

dogjones · 9th November 2009, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Indifferent? A good Malbec is never indifferent.

Argument by incredulity. That he (or anybody else, for that matter) do not find it explained, is not an argument that it doesn't exist.

Note that both the distinction between micro- and macro evolution and the definition of a species is entirely arbitrary.

One definition of micro evolution. However, still arbitrary. And circular, if you define micro evolution as that we have observed, and then claim the fact that we have not observed macro evolution as argument for anything but the definition itself.

One definition of species. Arbitrary. See above.

Yes there is such evidence: doubling of chromosomes, inversion and recombination of DNA strings, all which can increase the dataset, have been objectively observed.

Not in itself. Macro evolution, by the definition above (which is as good as any) is extrapolated from micro evolution. There is no reason to believe that such an extrapolation is not valid, since we can observe no distinct barrier that should keep micro evolution from progressing till the point where it qualifies as macro evolution.

Even incomplete as it is, and must be, it provides plenty of evidence:

1. The slow progress over time where groups of species appear, proliferate, and vanish.

2. Several groups of species can be followed continuously over long time-spans, showing distinct evolution.

3. The less obvious fossil record that exists in DNA and mitochondrial DNA supports the archaeological one.

Hans

Lovely! Thanks Hans. Can you/anyone point me to any reading suitable for a layman on the parts I've bolded, or if anyone here has the time, post some examples?

As for

Quote:

A good Malbec is never indifferent

, this is correct but tautologous.

CurtC · 9th November 2009, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by dogjones

3. There is no evidence for how this 'creation' of new DNA ("macroevolution") comes about by purely naturalistic processes.

His whole argument seems to hinge on this one. When DNA is copied in the cell, sometimes something goes wrong and an error is made. If a gene is making a protein that's necessary for that creature to live, and an error occurs in that gene, then that error is probably going to be detrimental to the creature and it will be selected against.

However, one type of error is that a whole gene will accidentally get duplicated, giving the creature two functional copies. In these cases, errors can occur in one and not be detrimental. Sometimes those errors will be some change that turns out to be helpful. In those cases, new DNA has occurred (and the information content of the DNA has increased) by purely natural, well-understood processes.

This simple example completely refutes those ID proponents who claim that the information content in DNA can only be created by an intelligent designer (Stephen Meyer and Michael Egnor both specifically make this claim).

Wowbagger · 9th November 2009, 08:22 AM

Whenever anyone asks how "The information got into DNA", I generally try to develop an answer along these lines:

The idea that DNA contains information is only an analogy. A useful analogy, to be sure (I use it myself, sometimes), but like all analogies, it does not completely tell the full story. DNA is NOT literally a computer.

If you want to know how it looks like DNA acquired all of that "information", it helps to change your framing of how you think of DNA.

You can think of DNA as a self-replicating, self-catalyzing model. Therefore, the "information" it ends up containing is NOT really used to build life forms. It is used to replicated its own self. The molecular signatures have to change, as the environment changes, through a process of natural selection. And our lives happen to be byproducts of the process.

You can also think of DNA as something like a snowflake crystal. I started a whole thread on that one a little over one year ago: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125866
A snowflake forms as water freezes, and crystallizes, on a microscopic speck of dirt, using its own local rules of chemistry and physics, in its construction. DNA is something like that, with one notable exception: DNA strands have the opportunity to go through many iterations of growing complexity. When a snowflake melts, it rarely (if ever) melts "half-way". When certain organic compounds are placed through iterations of warming and cooling, they could actually melt and refreeze only "part-way", and that adds to the increasing complexity of the system.

These models are, in fact, useful for conducting scientific research. Most discoveries made in the field of abiogenesis uses some alternative model of DNA that is not seen as "information for building life forms".

And, it is here that I link to some specific examples of papers, such as these:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...tool=pmcentrez
http://www.pnas.org/content/92/18/8158.abstract
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1167856
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...t/281/5377/670
Etc.

A creationist might try to argue that those papers are not the whole story, that we will never truly know if they even represent part of the true story, etc. But, the one thing they can't deny (unless they are dishonest) is that they represent progress in a realm of science: New discoveries about this universe we live in; that creationist ideas can never seem to help us develop.
Scientists with the real responsibility of making new discoveries about life, will often shift the frame from the obvious approach.

Then I recommend folks read The Selfish Gene (second edition or later) by Richard Dawkins.

Segnosaur · 9th November 2009, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by dogjones

2. But some species have more DNA than others, and possibly this should be the definition of "species".

So, by your friend's logic, someone with Down's syndrome (extra 21st chromozome, and therefore 'more DNA') isn't a member of the Human species?

macdoc · 9th November 2009, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogjones
3. There is no evidence for how this 'creation' of new DNA ("macroevolution") comes about by purely naturalistic processes.

Has he looked at the mess that maize genome consists of

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17658954

Quote:

People, plants, and genes: the story of crops and humanity - Google Books Result
by Denis J. Murphy - 2007 - Science - 401 pages
Maize A complex genome Maize is a diploid plant with 20 chromosomes and, ... the maize genome, at 2400 Mb, is about six-fold larger than that of rice. ...

http://books.google.com/books?id=P89...%20six&f=false

Rice, oats all with a complex relationship over time.....

BTW viruses are exchange vectors for genes

Fishstick · 9th November 2009, 08:37 AM

If you believe in microevolution but not macroevolution, it's like saying 1+1+1+1 can be 4 but 2+2 can't. The distinction is completely artificial.

Marduk · 9th November 2009, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by dogjones

A friend of mine is slowly descending into religiosity. He is a smart chappie but cannot handle the implications of "materialism", "naturalism", etc - namely, that objective moral truths cannot exist within this worldview. Fine, I have a good time debating him philosophically over a few glasses of indifferent Malbec.

Unfortunately though, he is now straying into the realm of attempting to debunk evolution. Not, of course, 'micro' evolution, but 'macro'. His main thing appears to be "evolution cannot explain augmentation of DNA by external information/stimuli alone". I'm not sure even he knows what this means. I guess I would take it to mean that:

1. Evolution successfully describes changes in already existing DNA ("microevolution").
2. But some species have more DNA than others, and possibly this should be the definition of "species".
3. There is no evidence for how this 'creation' of new DNA ("macroevolution") comes about by purely naturalistic processes.
4. Therefore it is reasonable to 'doubt' macroevolution.

Oh yeah, and also the fossil record is incomplete and provides no evidence of said macroevolution.

Um. Help!?

try showing him this and asking him to explain it

Quote:

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, “Rhodesia man,” 300,000 – 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

was it Gods practice attempts ?
if so how come these werent mentioned in the babble

if hes using the outdated "missing link" belief, then perhaps you should also explain to him what a "transitional fossil" is

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
Transitional fossils (popularly termed missing links) are the fossilized remains of intermediary forms of life that illustrate an evolutionary transition. They can be identified by their retention of certain primitive (plesiomorphic) traits in comparison with their more derived relatives, as they are defined in the study of cladistics. Numerous examples exist, including those of primates and early humans.

According to modern evolutionary theory, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct of a selected form that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight. Contemporary "transitional" forms may be called "living fossils", but on a cladogram representing the historical divergences of life-forms, a "transitional fossil" will represent an organism near the point where individual lineages (clades) diverge.

Eric D · 9th November 2009, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Marduk

try showing him this and asking him to explain it
http://anthropologynet.files.wordpre...nid-skulls.jpg

Those are retarded chimps, man! Everyone knows that! And the one with half the skull missing...crushed by Noah's Ark.

Marduk · 9th November 2009, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by Eric D

Those are retarded chimps, man! Everyone knows that! And the one with half the skull missing...crushed by Noah's Ark.

retarded chimps that made stone tools
interesting

Fishstick · 9th November 2009, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by Marduk

retarded chimps that made stone tools
interesting

God put those stone tools there to test your faith.

dogjones · 9th November 2009, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by Marduk

retarded chimps that made stone tools
interesting

Ah, but given enough time, retarded chimps could also write Hamlet. Making stone tools is far less arduous.

dogjones · 9th November 2009, 11:19 AM

Thanks all for the great info, BTW.

Eric D · 9th November 2009, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by Marduk

retarded chimps that made stone tools
interesting

Those stone tools were just malformed monkey turds...I mean....well people exsisted then! They made the tools!

This here do-hickey is what they used to make brontoburgers. Retarded chimps musta stole it. Crafty buggers.

rwp · 9th November 2009, 04:33 PM

I was once more ignorant of the science of Evolution than I am today. I found the talkorigins.org website to be very enlightening, particularly the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution article by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D. Perhaps it will increase your understanding as well.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 9th November 2009, 04:37 PM

You might ask him why biologists haven't yet discovered the mechanism that prevents a series of microevolutionary changes from becoming a macroevolutionary change, for whatever definitions of micro- and macro- he cares to name.

If that gets boring, ask him where objective moral truths came from in his worldview.

~~ Paul

Dr. Trintignant · 9th November 2009, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

The idea that DNA contains information is only an analogy. A useful analogy, to be sure (I use it myself, sometimes), but like all analogies, it does not completely tell the full story.

This is just a semantic argument, but that seems to be taking it a step too far. It might be better said that DNA is not only information. But it most certainly contains information. Perhaps the key trait of information is that the storage substrate is irrelevant. The data on your computer can be stored in a variety of ways--on a magnetic surface, within memory chips, as a printout, or even as punchcards. As long as you use an appropriate coding, the information can be moved to different substrates without loss. Of course, your JPG file is only displayable when it exists within your system RAM, but how it got there, and where it was stored previously, is irrelevant.

Likewise with DNA. It is simply a quaternary code, easily expressible in binary. One could, in principle, extract the DNA from one of your cells, read it into a computer, synthesize a new strand with the same coding, and inject it back into the cell--and in the end, the cell would operate exactly as before.

Of course, as you point out, DNA does more things than just store information, and in the beginning may not have had much to do with information storage anyway. But that does not change the fact that DNA (as used by modern life) does store information, and in a way completely equivalent to how computers store it.

- Dr. Trintignant

PS: The rest of your post is well-taken; I just had to quibble at this bit.

Wowbagger · 9th November 2009, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by Dr. Trintignant

One could, in principle, extract the DNA from one of your cells, read it into a computer, synthesize a new strand with the same coding, and inject it back into the cell--and in the end, the cell would operate exactly as before.

How does that make DNA special from just about anything else?

You wouldn't normally think of...say... a cleaning sponge as information. One could, in principal, extract the holes in a sponge, read it into a computer, synthesize a new sponge with the same holes, and inject it back into a sponge maker--and in the end, the sponge would operate exactly as before.

And, I just used cleaning sponges as my example, because I happened to be looking at one as I wrote this.

Dr. Trintignant · 10th November 2009, 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

How does that make DNA special from just about anything else?

You wouldn't normally think of...say... a cleaning sponge as information. One could, in principal, extract the holes in a sponge, read it into a computer, synthesize a new sponge with the same holes, and inject it back into a sponge maker--and in the end, the sponge would operate exactly as before.

And, I just used cleaning sponges as my example, because I happened to be looking at one as I wrote this.

Because if you rearrange the holes in a sponge, you still end up with a sponge. The holes carry information, sure, but it's useless--random and irrelevant.

But if you rearrange the base pairs on a strand of DNA, you get something fundamentally different. DNA that codes for humans or bacteria is made of the same stuff, just in a different order.

You could of course use your sponge to carry information, perhaps by arranging the holes to spell out a poem. But now you have a very different thing--the interesting part (the poem) has nothing to do with it being a sponge. The sponge is just a substrate for the information.

- Dr. Trintignant

Nosi · 10th November 2009, 01:38 AM

Originally Posted by dogjones

A friend of mine is slowly descending into religiosity. He is a smart chappie but cannot handle the implications of "materialism", "naturalism", etc - namely, that objective moral truths cannot exist within this worldview. Fine, I have a good time debating him philosophically over a few glasses of indifferent Malbec.

Unfortunately though, he is now straying into the realm of attempting to debunk evolution. Not, of course, 'micro' evolution, but 'macro'. His main thing appears to be "evolution cannot explain augmentation of DNA by external information/stimuli alone". I'm not sure even he knows what this means. I guess I would take it to mean that:

1. Evolution successfully describes changes in already existing DNA ("microevolution").
2. But some species have more DNA than others, and possibly this should be the definition of "species".
3. There is no evidence for how this 'creation' of new DNA ("macroevolution") comes about by purely naturalistic processes.
4. Therefore it is reasonable to 'doubt' macroevolution.

Oh yeah, and also the fossil record is incomplete and provides no evidence of said macroevolution.

Um. Help!?

Macroevolution is the result of a whole lot of microevolution goin' on. The same way a whole lot of teeny rocks make a sandy beach.

dogjones · 10th November 2009, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by Dr. Trintignant

Because if you rearrange the holes in a sponge, you still end up with a sponge. The holes carry information, sure, but it's useless--random and irrelevant.

But if you rearrange the base pairs on a strand of DNA, you get something fundamentally different. DNA that codes for humans or bacteria is made of the same stuff, just in a different order.

You could of course use your sponge to carry information, perhaps by arranging the holes to spell out a poem. But now you have a very different thing--the interesting part (the poem) has nothing to do with it being a sponge. The sponge is just a substrate for the information.

- Dr. Trintignant

I think I see the point. DNA contains information which should be thought of as only affecting itself and how it replicates. Humans/bacteria/slugs emerge from this but are not strictly the 'point' of the code.

Other things contain information, such as sponges. The random noise that the holes on a sponge code for is, in a certain sense, analogous to humans/bacteria/slugs, in that it is only emergent. The difference is that said noise doesn't feed back upon the structure/behaviour/replicability of the sponge. (Unless a certain hole structure led to a tangibly more absorbent sponge, thereby causing the manufacturer to investigate, determine this was the case and then make all of their sponges exactly the same... but IDers would probably latch on to this... the manufacturer is GOD!)

macdoc · 10th November 2009, 08:16 AM

Quote:

(Unless a certain hole structure led to a tangibly more absorbent sponge, thereby causing the manufacturer to investigate, determine this was the case and then make all of their sponges exactly the same...

see Ivory soap

http://www.snopes.com/business/origins/ivory.asp

Interesting parallel as this was a random "mutation" and the selective force was soap buyers preference

Wowbagger · 10th November 2009, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by Dr. Trintignant

Because if you rearrange the holes in a sponge, you still end up with a sponge. The holes carry information, sure, but it's useless--random and irrelevant.

For human purposes, yes. But, the natural world of physics and such does not make such automatic distinctions.

And, as dogjones sort-of points out: The holes in the sponge might not be so random. Some arrangements could be more efficient at absorption than others, and the optimum arragement might even be different for different substances.

If, for some reason, it ever became useful to store the holes in a sponge as information, for humans we would ("Sponginformatics"?). It happens that it is not useful, so we normally don't. For DNA, it current is. (Though, the whole point of my exercise is to show that it is not the only way to view DNA. This idea of viewing other things as information seems to be a side-track.)

Originally Posted by dogjones

Unless a certain hole structure led to a tangibly more absorbent sponge, thereby causing the manufacturer to investigate, determine this was the case and then make all of their sponges exactly the same... but IDers would probably latch on to this... the manufacturer is GOD!

What if the more efficient hole structure wasn't calculated by humans, but instead by computer, using an evolutionary selection algorithm... Nervermind, the IDers would probably latch on to that one, as well, claiming "the computer program was designed with that specific purpose!"

Wudang · 10th November 2009, 09:44 AM

There's a lot of very accessible material put out by the National center for Science Education. I have them as a friend on facebook to stay abreast
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/evolution.ncse?ref=mf

truethat · 10th November 2009, 09:57 AM

I am a person who says I accept microevolution but have doubts about macroevolution. I still fail to see why we have to accept both. I understand that at times we can prove that a lineage is the way science suggests but at the same time I don't think it is infallible.

I've seen what I consider leaps in theories that later turn out to be wrong. So why should be accept any theory about this?

Someone explain this to me because I'm tired of being treated like an idiot for what seems like common sense to me.

Wowbagger · 10th November 2009, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

I still fail to see why we have to accept both.

Well, one (macro) is simply the result of lots of the other (micro), according to theory.
Do you have another plausible hypothesis?

Originally Posted by truethat

I understand that at times we can prove that a lineage is the way science suggests but at the same time I don't think it is infallible.

Science is not infallible. That much is true.

Originally Posted by truethat

I've seen what I consider leaps in theories that later turn out to be wrong. So why should be accept any theory about this?

Because it's the most informative, useful, and productive theory for explaining what we do find. Individual, specific ideas may be shown to be wrong. But, nothing has contradicted the general theory, yet. (Not even the findings that disproves those more specific ideas.)

If you are a professional scientist tasked with the responsibility to develop reliable, innovative aspects of knowledge about biology: Which framework of thinking are you going to prefer? Evolution, or maybe you have something better in mind?

Originally Posted by truethat

Someone explain this to me because I'm tired of being treated like an idiot for what seems like common sense to me.

No, you're not an idiot. Science is non-intuitive. No humans understand much of it, for most of their lives. It often goes against the grains of our innate, emotional heritage - one that was shaped for millions of years without the aid of the scientific method.

godless dave · 10th November 2009, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by truethat

I am a person who says I accept microevolution but have doubts about macroevolution. I still fail to see why we have to accept both. I understand that at times we can prove that a lineage is the way science suggests but at the same time I don't think it is infallible.

I've seen what I consider leaps in theories that later turn out to be wrong. So why should be accept any theory about this?

Macroevolution isn't a leap. There's no conceptual difference between microevolution and macroevolution, and the distinction between the two is pretty arbitrary.

We have fossils of the progression from land animals to whales. If that's not macroevolution, what is?

I don't think you're an idiot. I think you've been lied to, a lot, about what evolution is and how much evidence there is.

Dr Adequate · 10th November 2009, 06:48 PM

The SkepticWiki article on Mutations and Information^SW may be relevant to the OP.

Dr Adequate · 10th November 2009, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by truethat

I've seen what I consider leaps in theories that later turn out to be wrong. So why should be accept any theory about this?

You could say that about anything. In a sense, you'd be right to say it about anything. Why say it about evolution in particular?

Damien Evans · 10th November 2009, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Marduk

Originally Posted by dogjones

A friend of mine is slowly descending into religiosity. He is a smart chappie but cannot handle the implications of "materialism", "naturalism", etc - namely, that objective moral truths cannot exist within this worldview. Fine, I have a good time debating him philosophically over a few glasses of indifferent Malbec.

Unfortunately though, he is now straying into the realm of attempting to debunk evolution. Not, of course, 'micro' evolution, but 'macro'. His main thing appears to be "evolution cannot explain augmentation of DNA by external information/stimuli alone". I'm not sure even he knows what this means. I guess I would take it to mean that:

1. Evolution successfully describes changes in already existing DNA ("microevolution").
2. But some species have more DNA than others, and possibly this should be the definition of "species".
3. There is no evidence for how this 'creation' of new DNA ("macroevolution") comes about by purely naturalistic processes.
4. Therefore it is reasonable to 'doubt' macroevolution.

Oh yeah, and also the fossil record is incomplete and provides no evidence of said macroevolution.

Um. Help!?

try showing him this and asking him to explain it

Quote:

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, “Rhodesia man,” 300,000 – 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

was it Gods practice attempts ?
if so how come these werent mentioned in the babble

if hes using the outdated "missing link" belief, then perhaps you should also explain to him what a "transitional fossil" is

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
Transitional fossils (popularly termed missing links) are the fossilized remains of intermediary forms of life that illustrate an evolutionary transition. They can be identified by their retention of certain primitive (plesiomorphic) traits in comparison with their more derived relatives, as they are defined in the study of cladistics. Numerous examples exist, including those of primates and early humans.

According to modern evolutionary theory, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct of a selected form that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight. Contemporary "transitional" forms may be called "living fossils", but on a cladogram representing the historical divergences of life-forms, a "transitional fossil" will represent an organism near the point where individual lineages (clades) diverge.

And now for my nitpicks!

1. It should be Homo Neanderthalensis, not Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis.
2. The Dmanisi cranium isn't Homo Erectus, it's Homo Georgicus. http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Homo_georgicus
3. Ergaster isn't "early erectus", indeed given all Ergaster bones have been found in Africa and the near east and all definitively Erectus bones (that is, those whose species is not in dispute) come from East Asia it's difficult to see how this idea even came to exist.

None of which changes the substance of anything you were saying, I was just in a nitpicky mood.

shadron · 10th November 2009, 08:01 PM

At the level of the semi-educated layman (no slur intended), the evidence and non-evidence all boil down to "Who do you believe?" Appeal to authority is all you have, because the basis for understanding anything deeper is simply not there. Most people (yea, even most people here, including yours truly) depend upon authority for their stands on almost anything that is not in their specialty, if they have one.

So, you are faced with resolving an argument over physical biology held between the majority of biological scientists and that held by evangelistic churchman and a very thin veneer of biologists. Which expert are you going to choose from? Because that is the decision.

It's either that or get more educated, both of you.

9th November 2009, 06:51 AM	#1
dogjones Muse Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Bermuda Posts: 820	Oh God, here we go again - micro/macro evolution A friend of mine is slowly descending into religiosity. He is a smart chappie but cannot handle the implications of "materialism", "naturalism", etc - namely, that objective moral truths cannot exist within this worldview. Fine, I have a good time debating him philosophically over a few glasses of indifferent Malbec. Unfortunately though, he is now straying into the realm of attempting to debunk evolution. Not, of course, 'micro' evolution, but 'macro'. His main thing appears to be "evolution cannot explain augmentation of DNA by external information/stimuli alone". I'm not sure even he knows what this means. I guess I would take it to mean that: 1. Evolution successfully describes changes in already existing DNA ("microevolution"). 2. But some species have more DNA than others, and possibly this should be the definition of "species". 3. There is no evidence for how this 'creation' of new DNA ("macroevolution") comes about by purely naturalistic processes. 4. Therefore it is reasonable to 'doubt' macroevolution. Oh yeah, and also the fossil record is incomplete and provides no evidence of said macroevolution. Um. Help!?
	__________________ It's great being ideologically flexible. Last edited by dogjones; 9th November 2009 at 06:53 AM.

9th November 2009, 06:58 AM	#2
macdoc Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Planet earth on slow boil Posts: 2,616	um find a new friend.....or topic of conversation. Surely you have better things to do with your once around than "save" adult idjits from their own foibles... If he doesn't get it by now nothing you are going to say will steer him off the path he has chosen and is looking for "justification" for.
	__________________ _{Nature Reports Climate Change Copenhagen Climate Change Synthesis Report 2009 http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/} _{Anyone wishing a list of mainstream climate science sources to get up speed feel free to PM. Others have found the links useful.}

9th November 2009, 07:06 AM	#3
dogjones Muse Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Bermuda Posts: 820	Ah well, the thing is, despite his agenda I do find it an interesting question, me being a layman and all...
	__________________ It's great being ideologically flexible.

9th November 2009, 07:18 AM	#4
W.D.Clinger Thinker Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 215	Originally Posted by dogjones Unfortunately though, he is now straying into the realm of attempting to debunk evolution. Not, of course, 'micro' evolution, but 'macro'. His main thing appears to be "evolution cannot explain augmentation of DNA by external information/stimuli alone". I'm not sure even he knows what this means. [...] Oh yeah, and also the fossil record is incomplete and provides no evidence of said macroevolution. Um. Help!? If you're really interested in this stuff, then help yourself to a copy of Eugenie C Scott. Evolution vs Creationism: an Introduction. Second Edition. University of California Press, 2009. Then follow up by reading the full references cited by the parts that interest you most. Will
W.D.Clinger Thinker Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 215

9th November 2009, 07:20 AM	#5
Cainkane1 Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The great American southeast Posts: 2,566	If he's going to sit pat on the bible and thats that then I'd suggest discussing another topic with your friend. You know him better than we do.
	__________________ If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.

9th November 2009, 07:23 AM	#6
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: N55.47'36" E12.30'21" Posts: 10,485	Originally Posted by dogjones Fine, I have a good time debating him philosophically over a few glasses of indifferent Malbec. Indifferent? A good Malbec is never indifferent. Quote: Unfortunately though, he is now straying into the realm of attempting to debunk evolution. Not, of course, 'micro' evolution, but 'macro'. His main thing appears to be "evolution cannot explain augmentation of DNA by external information/stimuli alone". Argument by incredulity. That he (or anybody else, for that matter) do not find it explained, is not an argument that it doesn't exist. Note that both the distinction between micro- and macro evolution and the definition of a species is entirely arbitrary. Quote: 1. Evolution successfully describes changes in already existing DNA ("micro evolution"). One definition of micro evolution. However, still arbitrary. And circular, if you define micro evolution as that we have observed, and then claim the fact that we have not observed macro evolution as argument for anything but the definition itself. Quote: 2. But some species have more DNA than others, and possibly this should be the definition of "species". One definition of species. Arbitrary. See above. Quote: 3. There is no evidence for how this 'creation' of new DNA ("macro evolution") comes about by purely naturalistic processes. Yes there is such evidence: doubling of chromosomes, inversion and recombination of DNA strings, all which can increase the dataset, have been objectively observed. Quote: 4. Therefore it is reasonable to 'doubt' macro evolution. Not in itself. Macro evolution, by the definition above (which is as good as any) is extrapolated from micro evolution. There is no reason to believe that such an extrapolation is not valid, since we can observe no distinct barrier that should keep micro evolution from progressing till the point where it qualifies as macro evolution. Quote: Oh yeah, and also the fossil record is incomplete and provides no evidence of said macro evolution. Even incomplete as it is, and must be, it provides plenty of evidence: 1. The slow progress over time where groups of species appear, proliferate, and vanish. 2. Several groups of species can be followed continuously over long time-spans, showing distinct evolution. 3. The less obvious fossil record that exists in DNA and mitochondrial DNA supports the archaeological one. Hans
	__________________ The time is always right to do what is right. (Martin Luther King JR.)

9th November 2009, 07:28 AM	#7
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: N55.47'36" E12.30'21" Posts: 10,485	Originally Posted by Cainkane1 If he's going to sit pat on the bible and thats that then I'd suggest discussing another topic with your friend. You know him better than we do. I think that one thing to point out to a bible believer is that creation is not falsifiable. An almighty god can, of course, create the world and all species in 7 days, 6,000 years ago, and make it appear as if it evolved over billions of years. However, an almighty god can also create the world last week, or fifty billion years ago, or ...... If he claims that it is preposterous to say that god created the world last week, ask him why. Especially why it is more preposterous than any other time. Hans
	__________________ The time is always right to do what is right. (Martin Luther King JR.)

9th November 2009, 07:33 AM	#8
pakeha Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 3,099	Originally Posted by MRC_Hans ... Macro evolution, by the definition above (which is as good as any) is extrapolated from micro evolution. There is no reason to believe that such an extrapolation is not valid, since we can observe no distinct barrier that should keep micro evolution from progressing till the point where it qualifies as macro evolution. ... Hans Well put, Hans. Here's a vintage Dawkins video (1989) on the subject of natural selection. Perhaps it's very basic, but an enjoyable six and a half minutes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2etmGcRl1c
pakeha Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 3,099	__________________ It's a perfect time of year. It's your hemisphere that's all wrong. from "The Wisdom of Akhenaten, the Heretic Pharaoh", vol. 12.

9th November 2009, 07:38 AM	#9
dogjones Muse Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Bermuda Posts: 820	Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger If you're really interested in this stuff, then help yourself to a copy of Eugenie C Scott. Evolution vs Creationism: an Introduction. Second Edition. University of California Press, 2009. Then follow up by reading the full references cited by the parts that interest you most. Will Thanks!
	__________________ It's great being ideologically flexible.

9th November 2009, 07:48 AM	#10
dogjones Muse Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Bermuda Posts: 820	Originally Posted by Cainkane1 If he's going to sit pat on the bible and thats that then I'd suggest discussing another topic with your friend. You know him better than we do. No, he’s not a bible basher in that sense. He’s quite maddeningly complex actually. He’s fine with pretty much all of science, voraciously reads things like ‘The Elegant Universe’ and “Cosmos”, etc etc, even the Demon Haunted World. He has a genuinely inquiring mind. Unfortunately he has also had a religious experience. He even acknowledges that it could all be in his head, but he doesn’t think so. And he attempts to back this up with well reasoned arguments. Generally these are metaphysical in nature and are perfectly ok (probably wrong but never provably so). But I am annoyed about his reasoning straying into the realm of the physical.
	__________________ It's great being ideologically flexible.

9th November 2009, 07:59 AM	#11
dogjones Muse Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Bermuda Posts: 820	Originally Posted by MRC_Hans Indifferent? A good Malbec is never indifferent. Argument by incredulity. That he (or anybody else, for that matter) do not find it explained, is not an argument that it doesn't exist. Note that both the distinction between micro- and macro evolution and the definition of a species is entirely arbitrary. One definition of micro evolution. However, still arbitrary. And circular, if you define micro evolution as that we have observed, and then claim the fact that we have not observed macro evolution as argument for anything but the definition itself. One definition of species. Arbitrary. See above. Yes there is such evidence: doubling of chromosomes, inversion and recombination of DNA strings, all which can increase the dataset, have been objectively observed. Not in itself. Macro evolution, by the definition above (which is as good as any) is extrapolated from micro evolution. There is no reason to believe that such an extrapolation is not valid, since we can observe no distinct barrier that should keep micro evolution from progressing till the point where it qualifies as macro evolution. Even incomplete as it is, and must be, it provides plenty of evidence: 1. The slow progress over time where groups of species appear, proliferate, and vanish. 2. Several groups of species can be followed continuously over long time-spans, showing distinct evolution. 3. The less obvious fossil record that exists in DNA and mitochondrial DNA supports the archaeological one. Hans Lovely! Thanks Hans. Can you/anyone point me to any reading suitable for a layman on the parts I've bolded, or if anyone here has the time, post some examples? As for Quote: A good Malbec is never indifferent , this is correct but tautologous.
	__________________ It's great being ideologically flexible.

9th November 2009, 08:19 AM	#12
CurtC Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,248	Originally Posted by dogjones 3. There is no evidence for how this 'creation' of new DNA ("macroevolution") comes about by purely naturalistic processes. His whole argument seems to hinge on this one. When DNA is copied in the cell, sometimes something goes wrong and an error is made. If a gene is making a protein that's necessary for that creature to live, and an error occurs in that gene, then that error is probably going to be detrimental to the creature and it will be selected against. However, one type of error is that a whole gene will accidentally get duplicated, giving the creature two functional copies. In these cases, errors can occur in one and not be detrimental. Sometimes those errors will be some change that turns out to be helpful. In those cases, new DNA has occurred (and the information content of the DNA has increased) by purely natural, well-understood processes. This simple example completely refutes those ID proponents who claim that the information content in DNA can only be created by an intelligent designer (Stephen Meyer and Michael Egnor both specifically make this claim).
	__________________ Is there a God? Find the answer at The Official God FAQ.

9th November 2009, 08:22 AM	#13
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 7,725	Whenever anyone asks how "The information got into DNA", I generally try to develop an answer along these lines: The idea that DNA contains information is only an analogy. A useful analogy, to be sure (I use it myself, sometimes), but like all analogies, it does not completely tell the full story. DNA is NOT literally a computer. If you want to know how it looks like DNA acquired all of that "information", it helps to change your framing of how you think of DNA. You can think of DNA as a self-replicating, self-catalyzing model. Therefore, the "information" it ends up containing is NOT really used to build life forms. It is used to replicated its own self. The molecular signatures have to change, as the environment changes, through a process of natural selection. And our lives happen to be byproducts of the process. You can also think of DNA as something like a snowflake crystal. I started a whole thread on that one a little over one year ago: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125866 A snowflake forms as water freezes, and crystallizes, on a microscopic speck of dirt, using its own local rules of chemistry and physics, in its construction. DNA is something like that, with one notable exception: DNA strands have the opportunity to go through many iterations of growing complexity. When a snowflake melts, it rarely (if ever) melts "half-way". When certain organic compounds are placed through iterations of warming and cooling, they could actually melt and refreeze only "part-way", and that adds to the increasing complexity of the system. These models are, in fact, useful for conducting scientific research. Most discoveries made in the field of abiogenesis uses some alternative model of DNA that is not seen as "information for building life forms". And, it is here that I link to some specific examples of papers, such as these: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...tool=pmcentrez http://www.pnas.org/content/92/18/8158.abstract http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1167856 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...t/281/5377/670 Etc. A creationist might try to argue that those papers are not the whole story, that we will never truly know if they even represent part of the true story, etc. But, the one thing they can't deny (unless they are dishonest) is that they represent progress in a realm of science: New discoveries about this universe we live in; that creationist ideas can never seem to help us develop. Scientists with the real responsibility of making new discoveries about life, will often shift the frame from the obvious approach. Then I recommend folks read The Selfish Gene (second edition or later) by Richard Dawkins.
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC 2009: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ Photos and Stuff Now Available A conference on science and skepticism where *you* could be a presenter!

9th November 2009, 08:31 AM	#14
Segnosaur Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 3,918	Originally Posted by dogjones 2. But some species have more DNA than others, and possibly this should be the definition of "species". So, by your friend's logic, someone with Down's syndrome (extra 21st chromozome, and therefore 'more DNA') isn't a member of the Human species?
Segnosaur Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 3,918	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff) I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy

9th November 2009, 08:35 AM	#15
macdoc Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Planet earth on slow boil Posts: 2,616	Quote: Originally Posted by dogjones 3. There is no evidence for how this 'creation' of new DNA ("macroevolution") comes about by purely naturalistic processes. Has he looked at the mess that maize genome consists of http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17658954 Quote: People, plants, and genes: the story of crops and humanity - Google Books Result by Denis J. Murphy - 2007 - Science - 401 pages Maize A complex genome Maize is a diploid plant with 20 chromosomes and, ... the maize genome, at 2400 Mb, is about six-fold larger than that of rice. ... http://books.google.com/books?id=P89...%20six&f=false Rice, oats all with a complex relationship over time..... BTW viruses are exchange vectors for genes
	__________________ _{Nature Reports Climate Change Copenhagen Climate Change Synthesis Report 2009 http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/} _{Anyone wishing a list of mainstream climate science sources to get up speed feel free to PM. Others have found the links useful.} Last edited by macdoc; 9th November 2009 at 08:38 AM.

9th November 2009, 08:37 AM	#16
Fishstick Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 303	If you believe in microevolution but not macroevolution, it's like saying 1+1+1+1 can be 4 but 2+2 can't. The distinction is completely artificial.

9th November 2009, 09:00 AM	#17
Marduk Dragon Killer Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 3,073	Originally Posted by dogjones A friend of mine is slowly descending into religiosity. He is a smart chappie but cannot handle the implications of "materialism", "naturalism", etc - namely, that objective moral truths cannot exist within this worldview. Fine, I have a good time debating him philosophically over a few glasses of indifferent Malbec. Unfortunately though, he is now straying into the realm of attempting to debunk evolution. Not, of course, 'micro' evolution, but 'macro'. His main thing appears to be "evolution cannot explain augmentation of DNA by external information/stimuli alone". I'm not sure even he knows what this means. I guess I would take it to mean that: 1. Evolution successfully describes changes in already existing DNA ("microevolution"). 2. But some species have more DNA than others, and possibly this should be the definition of "species". 3. There is no evidence for how this 'creation' of new DNA ("macroevolution") comes about by purely naturalistic processes. 4. Therefore it is reasonable to 'doubt' macroevolution. Oh yeah, and also the fossil record is incomplete and provides no evidence of said macroevolution. Um. Help!? try showing him this and asking him to explain it Quote: (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My (I) Homo heidelbergensis, “Rhodesia man,” 300,000 – 125,000 y (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern was it Gods practice attempts ? if so how come these werent mentioned in the babble if hes using the outdated "missing link" belief, then perhaps you should also explain to him what a "transitional fossil" is Quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil Transitional fossils (popularly termed missing links) are the fossilized remains of intermediary forms of life that illustrate an evolutionary transition. They can be identified by their retention of certain primitive (plesiomorphic) traits in comparison with their more derived relatives, as they are defined in the study of cladistics. Numerous examples exist, including those of primates and early humans. According to modern evolutionary theory, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct of a selected form that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight. Contemporary "transitional" forms may be called "living fossils", but on a cladogram representing the historical divergences of life-forms, a "transitional fossil" will represent an organism near the point where individual lineages (clades) diverge.
	__________________ Senno Ecto Gama ĝae haš dug zae ama kibid "Stupid humans" (Wollery) "Kill all humans" (Bender) "for while heaven may be closed I am always open, even on Christmas." (Lucifer) Last edited by Marduk; 9th November 2009 at 09:03 AM.

9th November 2009, 09:51 AM	#18
Eric D Scholar Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 95	Originally Posted by Marduk try showing him this and asking him to explain it http://anthropologynet.files.wordpre...nid-skulls.jpg Those are retarded chimps, man! Everyone knows that! And the one with half the skull missing...crushed by Noah's Ark.
Eric D Scholar Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 95

9th November 2009, 09:56 AM	#19
Marduk Dragon Killer Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 3,073	Originally Posted by Eric D Those are retarded chimps, man! Everyone knows that! And the one with half the skull missing...crushed by Noah's Ark. retarded chimps that made stone tools interesting
	__________________ Senno Ecto Gama ĝae haš dug zae ama kibid "Stupid humans" (Wollery) "Kill all humans" (Bender) "for while heaven may be closed I am always open, even on Christmas." (Lucifer)

9th November 2009, 10:52 AM	#20
Fishstick Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 303	Originally Posted by Marduk retarded chimps that made stone tools interesting God put those stone tools there to test your faith.

9th November 2009, 11:18 AM	#21
dogjones Muse Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Bermuda Posts: 820	Originally Posted by Marduk retarded chimps that made stone tools interesting Ah, but given enough time, retarded chimps could also write Hamlet. Making stone tools is far less arduous.
	__________________ It's great being ideologically flexible.

9th November 2009, 11:19 AM	#22
dogjones Muse Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Bermuda Posts: 820	Thanks all for the great info, BTW.
	__________________ It's great being ideologically flexible.

9th November 2009, 11:27 AM	#23
Eric D Scholar Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 95	Originally Posted by Marduk retarded chimps that made stone tools interesting Those stone tools were just malformed monkey turds...I mean....well people exsisted then! They made the tools! This here do-hickey is what they used to make brontoburgers. Retarded chimps musta stole it. Crafty buggers.
Eric D Scholar Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 95

9th November 2009, 04:33 PM	#24
rwp Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 209	I was once more ignorant of the science of Evolution than I am today. I found the talkorigins.org website to be very enlightening, particularly the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution article by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D. Perhaps it will increase your understanding as well. http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

9th November 2009, 04:37 PM	#25
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Looking for Fountain of Smart Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 17,157	You might ask him why biologists haven't yet discovered the mechanism that prevents a series of microevolutionary changes from becoming a macroevolutionary change, for whatever definitions of micro- and macro- he cares to name. If that gets boring, ask him where objective moral truths came from in his worldview. ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz pi = 3.1415926...19729715941700531415926095214704122509...

9th November 2009, 06:19 PM	#26
Dr. Trintignant Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 458	Originally Posted by Wowbagger The idea that DNA contains information is only an analogy. A useful analogy, to be sure (I use it myself, sometimes), but like all analogies, it does not completely tell the full story. This is just a semantic argument, but that seems to be taking it a step too far. It might be better said that DNA is not only information. But it most certainly contains information. Perhaps the key trait of information is that the storage substrate is irrelevant. The data on your computer can be stored in a variety of ways--on a magnetic surface, within memory chips, as a printout, or even as punchcards. As long as you use an appropriate coding, the information can be moved to different substrates without loss. Of course, your JPG file is only displayable when it exists within your system RAM, but how it got there, and where it was stored previously, is irrelevant. Likewise with DNA. It is simply a quaternary code, easily expressible in binary. One could, in principle, extract the DNA from one of your cells, read it into a computer, synthesize a new strand with the same coding, and inject it back into the cell--and in the end, the cell would operate exactly as before. Of course, as you point out, DNA does more things than just store information, and in the beginning may not have had much to do with information storage anyway. But that does not change the fact that DNA (as used by modern life) does store information, and in a way completely equivalent to how computers store it. - Dr. Trintignant PS: The rest of your post is well-taken; I just had to quibble at this bit.
	__________________ Visit SkepTech, a blog and podcast dealing with technology and skepticism. You can subscribe to our RSS feed directly or look for us on iTunes.

9th November 2009, 10:14 PM	#27
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 7,725	Originally Posted by Dr. Trintignant One could, in principle, extract the DNA from one of your cells, read it into a computer, synthesize a new strand with the same coding, and inject it back into the cell--and in the end, the cell would operate exactly as before. How does that make DNA special from just about anything else? You wouldn't normally think of...say... a cleaning sponge as information. One could, in principal, extract the holes in a sponge, read it into a computer, synthesize a new sponge with the same holes, and inject it back into a sponge maker--and in the end, the sponge would operate exactly as before. And, I just used cleaning sponges as my example, because I happened to be looking at one as I wrote this.
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC 2009: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ Photos and Stuff Now Available A conference on science and skepticism where *you* could be a presenter!

10th November 2009, 12:38 AM	#28
Dr. Trintignant Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 458	Originally Posted by Wowbagger How does that make DNA special from just about anything else? You wouldn't normally think of...say... a cleaning sponge as information. One could, in principal, extract the holes in a sponge, read it into a computer, synthesize a new sponge with the same holes, and inject it back into a sponge maker--and in the end, the sponge would operate exactly as before. And, I just used cleaning sponges as my example, because I happened to be looking at one as I wrote this. Because if you rearrange the holes in a sponge, you still end up with a sponge. The holes carry information, sure, but it's useless--random and irrelevant. But if you rearrange the base pairs on a strand of DNA, you get something fundamentally different. DNA that codes for humans or bacteria is made of the same stuff, just in a different order. You could of course use your sponge to carry information, perhaps by arranging the holes to spell out a poem. But now you have a very different thing--the interesting part (the poem) has nothing to do with it being a sponge. The sponge is just a substrate for the information. - Dr. Trintignant
	__________________ Visit SkepTech, a blog and podcast dealing with technology and skepticism. You can subscribe to our RSS feed directly or look for us on iTunes.

10th November 2009, 01:38 AM	#29
Nosi Muse Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 679	Originally Posted by dogjones A friend of mine is slowly descending into religiosity. He is a smart chappie but cannot handle the implications of "materialism", "naturalism", etc - namely, that objective moral truths cannot exist within this worldview. Fine, I have a good time debating him philosophically over a few glasses of indifferent Malbec. Unfortunately though, he is now straying into the realm of attempting to debunk evolution. Not, of course, 'micro' evolution, but 'macro'. His main thing appears to be "evolution cannot explain augmentation of DNA by external information/stimuli alone". I'm not sure even he knows what this means. I guess I would take it to mean that: 1. Evolution successfully describes changes in already existing DNA ("microevolution"). 2. But some species have more DNA than others, and possibly this should be the definition of "species". 3. There is no evidence for how this 'creation' of new DNA ("macroevolution") comes about by purely naturalistic processes. 4. Therefore it is reasonable to 'doubt' macroevolution. Oh yeah, and also the fossil record is incomplete and provides no evidence of said macroevolution. Um. Help!? Macroevolution is the result of a whole lot of microevolution goin' on. The same way a whole lot of teeny rocks make a sandy beach.
Nosi Muse Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 679

10th November 2009, 06:42 AM	#30
dogjones Muse Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Bermuda Posts: 820	Originally Posted by Dr. Trintignant Because if you rearrange the holes in a sponge, you still end up with a sponge. The holes carry information, sure, but it's useless--random and irrelevant. But if you rearrange the base pairs on a strand of DNA, you get something fundamentally different. DNA that codes for humans or bacteria is made of the same stuff, just in a different order. You could of course use your sponge to carry information, perhaps by arranging the holes to spell out a poem. But now you have a very different thing--the interesting part (the poem) has nothing to do with it being a sponge. The sponge is just a substrate for the information. - Dr. Trintignant I think I see the point. DNA contains information which should be thought of as only affecting itself and how it replicates. Humans/bacteria/slugs emerge from this but are not strictly the 'point' of the code. Other things contain information, such as sponges. The random noise that the holes on a sponge code for is, in a certain sense, analogous to humans/bacteria/slugs, in that it is only emergent. The difference is that said noise doesn't feed back upon the structure/behaviour/replicability of the sponge. (Unless a certain hole structure led to a tangibly more absorbent sponge, thereby causing the manufacturer to investigate, determine this was the case and then make all of their sponges exactly the same... but IDers would probably latch on to this... the manufacturer is GOD!)
	__________________ It's great being ideologically flexible.

10th November 2009, 08:16 AM	#31
macdoc Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Planet earth on slow boil Posts: 2,616	Quote: (Unless a certain hole structure led to a tangibly more absorbent sponge, thereby causing the manufacturer to investigate, determine this was the case and then make all of their sponges exactly the same... see Ivory soap http://www.snopes.com/business/origins/ivory.asp Interesting parallel as this was a random "mutation" and the selective force was soap buyers preference
	__________________ _{Nature Reports Climate Change Copenhagen Climate Change Synthesis Report 2009 http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/} _{Anyone wishing a list of mainstream climate science sources to get up speed feel free to PM. Others have found the links useful.}

10th November 2009, 09:11 AM	#32
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 7,725	Originally Posted by Dr. Trintignant Because if you rearrange the holes in a sponge, you still end up with a sponge. The holes carry information, sure, but it's useless--random and irrelevant. For human purposes, yes. But, the natural world of physics and such does not make such automatic distinctions. And, as dogjones sort-of points out: The holes in the sponge might not be so random. Some arrangements could be more efficient at absorption than others, and the optimum arragement might even be different for different substances. If, for some reason, it ever became useful to store the holes in a sponge as information, for humans we would ("Sponginformatics"?). It happens that it is not useful, so we normally don't. For DNA, it current is. (Though, the whole point of my exercise is to show that it is not the only way to view DNA. This idea of viewing other things as information seems to be a side-track.) Originally Posted by dogjones Unless a certain hole structure led to a tangibly more absorbent sponge, thereby causing the manufacturer to investigate, determine this was the case and then make all of their sponges exactly the same... but IDers would probably latch on to this... the manufacturer is GOD! What if the more efficient hole structure wasn't calculated by humans, but instead by computer, using an evolutionary selection algorithm... Nervermind, the IDers would probably latch on to that one, as well, claiming "the computer program was designed with that specific purpose!"
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC 2009: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ Photos and Stuff Now Available A conference on science and skepticism where *you* could be a presenter! Last edited by Wowbagger; 10th November 2009 at 09:17 AM.

10th November 2009, 09:44 AM	#33
Wudang BOFH Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Sheffield Posts: 4,412	There's a lot of very accessible material put out by the National center for Science Education. I have them as a friend on facebook to stay abreast http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/evolution.ncse?ref=mf
	__________________ Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it.

10th November 2009, 09:57 AM	#34
truethat Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 2,566	I am a person who says I accept microevolution but have doubts about macroevolution. I still fail to see why we have to accept both. I understand that at times we can prove that a lineage is the way science suggests but at the same time I don't think it is infallible. I've seen what I consider leaps in theories that later turn out to be wrong. So why should be accept any theory about this? Someone explain this to me because I'm tired of being treated like an idiot for what seems like common sense to me.
truethat Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 2,566	__________________ "The only thing greater than the truth is living the truth." Frank Jimenez

10th November 2009, 10:49 AM	#35
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 7,725	Originally Posted by truethat I still fail to see why we have to accept both. Well, one (macro) is simply the result of lots of the other (micro), according to theory. Do you have another plausible hypothesis? Originally Posted by truethat I understand that at times we can prove that a lineage is the way science suggests but at the same time I don't think it is infallible. Science is not infallible. That much is true. Originally Posted by truethat I've seen what I consider leaps in theories that later turn out to be wrong. So why should be accept any theory about this? Because it's the most informative, useful, and productive theory for explaining what we do find. Individual, specific ideas may be shown to be wrong. But, nothing has contradicted the general theory, yet. (Not even the findings that disproves those more specific ideas.) If you are a professional scientist tasked with the responsibility to develop reliable, innovative aspects of knowledge about biology: Which framework of thinking are you going to prefer? Evolution, or maybe you have something better in mind? Originally Posted by truethat Someone explain this to me because I'm tired of being treated like an idiot for what seems like common sense to me. No, you're not an idiot. Science is non-intuitive. No humans understand much of it, for most of their lives. It often goes against the grains of our innate, emotional heritage - one that was shaped for millions of years without the aid of the scientific method.
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC 2009: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ Photos and Stuff Now Available A conference on science and skepticism where *you* could be a presenter! Last edited by Wowbagger; 10th November 2009 at 10:51 AM.