patrick.net

michaelsch says

the process you call evolution is apparently different form what austrian_man calls Evolution

No. There is only one process of evolution and it's definition is world-wide. People don't get to make up their own definition of evolution any more than they get to make up their own definition of gravity or prime numbers. Austrian_Man is smart. He has the same understanding of evolution as I do.

michaelsch says

So does that make me an evolution fundamentalist?

It does not as long as you are open to discuss these.

Can you disprove the Theory of Evolution? In principle, yes. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof. When Darwin first proposed Evolution, it was indeed an extraordinary claim. But what followed was 250 years of the most extraordinary proof that -- well, I would say "that man could imagine" except that we couldn't even image the proof because it was so extraordinary.

In order to disprove Evolution, you would have to show that all that evidence is wrong and explain how we were fooled by it. That is an extraordinary claim even greater than The Theory of Evolution was when Darwin published On the Origins of Species. To put it in perspective, it would be easier to prove that the world is flat and that somehow all our satellites stay up in the sky despite that.

Still, some people will still try just that and fail.

michaelsch says

I would appreciate if you explane how genetic code mathematically mandates the process we call evolution.

I thought this would be obvious, but ok. Here's an example.

There are moths of some species in ecosystem with state S1. In S1 all trees are a light brown.

A gene G produces a pigment. A moth is light brown if it has 0 copies of gene G. A moth is dark brown if it has 1 copy of G. A moth is black if it has 2 copies of G (i.e., a copy from each parent).

Genetic variance in the moth species produces a ratio of 6:3:1 of moths that are light brown, dark brown, and black under state S1.

Humans pollute the crap of the ecosystem with coal power plants that release soot into the atmosphere which gathers on trees, changing the bark to black, state S2.

The light colored moths are quickly seen and eaten by predators as the they rest on the tree bark. As a result, any offspring of two moths both lacking gene G will likely die before reproducing. Offsprings of G/~G parents will fair much better. But the offspring of G/G parents will do best. This causes the number of copies of G to increase and the ~G sequences to decrease.

Given enough generations under S2, the ratio of genetic sequences becomes something like 1:2:8. With enough evolutionary pressure, the entire population could become double G.

Similarly, negatively selecting for a gene (i.e., selecting the negative of the traits resulting from the gene), can cause the population to lose that gene.

Genes compete with each other by letting natural selection selectively filter them from subsequent generations. This is the very definition of evolution. You cannot have competing genes without having evolution.

Bap33 says

When you say life showed up 1B years later, was the Earth cool yet? Was there atmosphere and water vapor and oceans and photosenthisis ... or what? Serious question.

Just to add a bit more info on this:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/AOqtJ5YZDtk

Brian Cox is a high-energy physicist at CERN Lab Switzerland. If you haven't heard of CERN, it is the most advanced physics laboratory in the world. They're actually having particles collide extremely close to the speed of light and are asking questions about the deepest laws of nature.

He says that there's a theory that microbes could have landed on earth from some other planetary body, which I thought was very interesting.

A very important statement he makes in the video:

I'm comfortable with the unknown. That's the point of science

I think most religions are born from, and survive on, an unnecessary but strong desire to fill in all the gaps of the unknown. Wherever there's a hole in our knowledge, we often place God, rather than skeptical and rational inquiry.

Dan, your moth example is a pure Mendelian genetics.
I don't see how a new species produced in this example.
In essence it is not different from the development of the Nordic human race. (white, Caucasian, whatever you call it). Biologists I know claim light skin, blond hair, and blue/grey eyes are a very recent development in humans. Most of the time modern human race existed it had dark skin, dark hair, and black/brown eyes.

While it could have a pigmentation genes mutation involved here, it could be that low pigmentation genes existed earlier in a small number of humans. Anyway, they prevailed when some human tribes moved to the North.

However, only a hyper-Nazi would claim it creates any new species.

I actually, hoped you would summarize the basic Darwins principles of constant random chanches in genetic code (mutations) and of natural selection. While your moth example demonstrates the natuarl selection principle, by itself it can't produce anything new, thus is not sufficient for evolution.

Dan8267 says

Austrian_Man is smart. He has the same understanding of evolution as I do.

Well, he writes: "To consider what you just said, you say that human jaws becoming weaker means that humans had to die out...."
Please read it carefully: it is about the mutation necessary for the evolution of humans. Humans did not exist yet, we are talking about a mutation in ape-like creatures, but he assumes they already somehow (mistically) turned to humans. That's exactly what I called the worship of the Great Goddess Evolution.

This.

michaelsch says

2. Anatomic changes of jaws, necessary for handling the variety of sounds in languages, but making human jaws much weaker than of any beast

is inconsistent with:

michaelsch says

Humans did not exist yet, we are talking about a mutation in ape-like creatures, but he assumes they already somehow (mistically) turned to humans. That's exactly what I called the worship of the Great Goddess Evolution.

LOL. You're the one who talked about human jaw weakness and not apes. You did not even mention the word "apes".

michaelsch says

Humans did not exist yet, we are talking about a mutation in ape-like creatures, but he assumes they already somehow (mistically) turned to humans.

You are making an unclarified assumption.

As I mentioned, the evolution of human brain is a fascinating field in and of itself, because it is quite nascent. There's a lot of discoveries to be made and that is what is fascinating in science.

We know that human brain is by far the most advanced organ of any organism that ever lived on the face of the earth. We also know that human brains are much larger than all other animals.

Mutation is not the only answer to the process of evolution, there's genetic drift (which is random) and there's natural selection. So it is a combination of factors at play. For instance, researchers have found that once an organ reaches a sufficient level of complexity (such as the human brain), organ-specific evolution slows down.

michaelsch says

That's exactly what I called the worship of the Great Goddess Evolution.

More assumptions. Dan and I admire the scientific process and agree that is the best we have. The theory of evolution has overwhelming scientific evidence and we see that evidence as factual support to the theory.

michaelsch says

I don't see how a new species produced in this example.

You did not ask for this example. The branching of one species into several or the change of a species into a new one is only part of evolution. You asked how genes cause evolution.

As I have explained, the fact that genomes compete for existence drives evolution. As long as you have competing genomes, you will see the process of evolution whether it's due to survival of the host organism or the ability of the host to attract mates.

As for the divergence of species, that was also covered in detailed by biologists ever since On the Origins of Species was published 250 years ago. Seriously, a cursory Google search is all that separates you from the entire knowledge base of mankind.

Nevertheless, I'll go over this material yet again. The worst thing about religion is that it causes people to form very bad though processes which in turn lead them to adopting many misconceptions about how nature and/or scientific theories work. Perhaps the most famous example of this is Christine O'Donnell thinking that just because humans are descendent from monkeys, the Theory of Evolution requires that monkeys would no longer exist. Even a fifth grader has a better understanding of evolution than that.

Unfortunately, you are also getting hung up on misconceptions that have nothing to do with biology or evolution. The term "species" is a human classification of animals made for our convenience in discussing the creatures. Nature does not classify things into nice, little non-overlapping categories that fit nicely into textbooks. Nature is messy. So biologist do their best in making it as neat as possible so they can talk intelligently about it.

That said, the term species is entirely a human concoction. There is no line between one species and its predecessor. The species line you are imagining is no more real than the International Date Line. It's purely imaginary. If you don't understand that, then watch this video in its entirety. It's 10:24 long, but is entertaining and worth it.

That said, biologist consider two animals of sexually reproducing species to be of the same species if and only if they could produce fertile offspring together. Of course, even by this definition, which applies only to sexually reproducing life, produces a continuous gradient of overlapping fuzzy sets as time goes on. There is no distinct species separation over time, although they are clear distinguished sets of species at a given time.

So, michaelsch, are you suggesting that our species is not descendant from monkeys? Such a claim is quite frankly ridiculous given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I'll leave that as an exercise for you. But ask yourself, why do you have a problem with the idea that you are descendant from monkeys, rodents, fish, and ultimately single-celled organisms? Isn't pride supposed to be the original sin?

uomo_senza_nome says

New username and icon?

Dan8267 says

New username and icon?

:) Yep. Got bored with the old one.

Dan8267 says

So, michaelsch, are you suggesting that our species is not descendant from monkeys? Such a claim is quite frankly ridiculous given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

That is a very good question. In fact, I would say if michaelsch thought that the answer is no to that question (meaning he accepts that we're descendants from monkeys), we wouldn't even be having such an elaborate discussion on why evolution is true.

Chimpanzees are our closest cousin michaelsch, whether you like it or not.

Dan8267 says

That said, biologist consider two animals of sexually reproducing species to be of the same species if and only if they could produce fertile offspring together.

LOL, after all the preaching you gave quite a meaningful definition. Of course it's not 100% accurate, as you mentioned, but it is the best we have now.

So, michaelsch, are you suggesting that our species is not descendant from monkeys?

No, where did you get this?
What I say is:
1. Development of humans out of ancient apes (or ape-like creatures, monkey is to general a word here) has several issues not fully explained yet, and possibly not explainable, because we have not enough evidence left, and because any Lab experiment seams unlikely.
2. Nevertheless, some evolutionist biologists find it appropriate to come up with various hypotheses, which seam to be unlikely and based on nothing, in order to exlplain out these issues. This indicates they treat Evolution not as a scientific theory, but as a dogma and something they need to serve, not something supposed to serve their research work.
3. Evolution classes are designed to avoid any white spots in the process of evolution. Usually, they are given as an introduction to biology to students who are clueless in natural science. That's why I consider them brainwashing indoctrination rather than science education.
4. This type of "education" causes damage to science, because researches are so used to ignore the "white spots" that only the most talented of them even get to addressing them.
5. Altogether, considering our existing Evolution classes much closer to cults than to education, I can understand why followers of different cults wish to skip such. That does not necessary mean I accept their cult.

michaelsch says

1. Development of humans out of ancient apes (or ape-like creatures, monkey is to general a word here) has several issues not fully explained yet, and possibly not explainable, because we have not enough evidence left, and because any Lab experiment seams unlikely.

Unethical, yes. Impossible, no. In principle I can reactivate dominant genes in your cells that would cause you to grow hair like your non-human ape ancestors did a mere 2 million years ago or would cause you to grow a tail like your monkey ancestors. In fact, there are genetic diseases that do exactly this because we are descendant from apes and, before that, monkeys. It is only a matter of time before this is technologically feasible as well.

Using genetics, biologists have mapped the relationships among hundreds of species of primates including all hominid species.

And "monkey" is not too general a word. It has a precise biological delimitation. There are three kinds of primates.

1. Prosimians - they have snouts and tails
2. Monkeys - they have flat faces and tails
3. Apes (including humans) - they have flat faces and lack tails.

Why are you so averse to acknowledging that you are a descendant of a monkey? Do you feel that makes you inferior or less special? Put away such childish nonsense. The more you learn about the long and random road that led to your existence, the more empowered you become.

michaelsch says

2. Nevertheless, some evolutionist biologists find it appropriate to come up with various hypotheses, which seam to be unlikely and based on nothing, in order to exlplain out these issues. This indicates they treat Evolution not as a scientific theory, but as a dogma and something they need to serve, not something supposed to serve their research work.

No. Simply no.

Dogma is for religion. There is no dogma in science. That's what you're failing to grasp. Belief is based solely upon evidence, not faith. The very concept of dogma is incompatible with science.

michaelsch says

3. Evolution classes are designed to avoid any white spots in the process of evolution. Usually, they are given as an introduction to biology to students who are clueless in natural science. That's why I consider them brainwashing indoctrination rather than science education.

No science class every hides facts or even lack of knowledge. I challenge you to provide a video of any real-world instance of this happening.

Here's how the science classes I took in school went.

Biology
Me: Why does A happen?
Teacher: You'll learn that in chemistry.

Chemistry
Me: Ok, that explains A, but why does B happen?
Teacher: You'll learn that in physics.

Physics I
Me: Ok, that explains B, but why the hell does C happen?
Teacher: You'll learn that in Physics II.

Physics II
Me: Wait, you're saying that C was only an approximation? It's really D? OK, D makes more sense than C, but why does it happen?
Teacher: You'll learn that in Physics III.

Physics III
Teacher: Everything you learned in Physics II was wrong. But now that you understand that, we can teach you what's really going on.

Of course, each layer of physics did give me a deeper understanding of the universe even though it's sometimes frustrating not knowing why a law exists because it involves more advance physics and mathematics than you currently have. But there is no other way to learn things.

michaelsch says

4. This type of "education" causes damage to science, because researches are so used to ignore the "white spots" that only the most talented of them even get to addressing them.

Ditto response to point 3.

michaelsch says

5. Altogether, considering our existing Evolution classes much closer to cults than to education, I can understand why followers of different cults wish to skip such. That does not necessary mean I accept their cult.

Have you every actually taken a class in evolution? Not being a medical student or biology major, I haven't. Sure, I read about it, but the closest to getting a class in it has been in general high school biology.

How many evolution courses have you taken? Of course, there are free ones online, but somehow I don't think you've actually sat through such a course as you do not seem to grasp even the basics of it. A person passing such a course would have a much more detailed and deep knowledge.

uomo_senza_nome says

Chimpanzees are our closest cousin michaelsch, whether you like it or not.

Bonobo chimps and humans share 98.8% of their DNA. There's not much difference between us. We're just lucky to have first evolved slightly larger brains or they would have ruled the earth.

Given Bonobo behavior though, that might not be a bad thing. Bonobos don't go to war because they solve disputes by having sex. Damn, I joined the wrong species. Wait, no. That would mean having sex with Cloud. Ewwwww.

michaelsch says

3. Evolution classes are designed to avoid any white spots in the process of evolution. Usually, they are given as an introduction to biology to students who are clueless in natural science. That's why I consider them brainwashing indoctrination rather than science education.
4. This type of "education" cause damage to science, because researches are so used to ignore the "white spots" that only the most talented of them even get to addressing them.
5. Altogether, considering our existing Evolution classes much closer to cults than to education, I can understand why followers of different cults want to skip such. That does not necessary mean I accept their cult.

All of the above statements fly completely contrary to reality. If you really want to talk about indoctrination, we should talk about the 2005 Federal Court case that dealt with whether "Intelligent Design" should be taught along with evolution in class rooms. "Intelligent Design" = creationism.

Federal court judge's ruling on the case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. …It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.

michaelsch says

and possibly not explainable, because we have not enough evidence left, and because any Lab experiment seams unlikely.

That's kinda lame. That's like saying Newton's laws of physics is the best we can do. That's true only until an Einstein came along.

Medical students? They are required to study only a very small course in nutrition. Nutrition is the cornerstone for good health. I have diminishing respect for them every time i think of that. So who cares about where they stand on religion. Religion is intangible to the closed eye anyway. Oh and btw, what if ot were all true and based on visitors from another world? The world is not flat.

KILLERJANE says

So who cares about where they stand on religion.

The point is we do care where they stand on evolution and whether or not they attend classes in medical school. See the AIDs example I gave above for why. If their religion conflicts with the science upon which their profession is based, then they must choose between the two, and if they choose their religion then they don't get to practice medicine.

Practicing medicine is not a right. It is a privilege earned by going through the rigorous process of medical training.

KILLERJANE says

Nutrition is the cornerstone for good health.

Not when you get hit by a bus. There's way more to learn about than nutrition when it comes to earning a D.M. And the vast majority of doctors do not become nutritionist. I suspect those who do, take more than one course in it.

Mike Weiner - aka Dr. Mike Savage - is a nutrient doc.

Dan8267 says

Not when you get hit by a bus. There's way more to learn about than nutrition when it comes to earning a D.M. And the vast majority of doctors do not become nutritionist. I suspect those who do, take more than one course in it.

No they prefer to treat patients chronically, more $$$. I have personally seen 3 people get well by juicing. But doctors told my mom n law it wasn't a good idea. One person, by juicing, got to throw out her high blood pressure medicine. The second saw a chronic illness of 7 years disappear. The third was a boy who had a 102 fever go away within 6 hours.
Even more stories where people are healed from cancers. Google it.
But yeah you can worship the docs if you want. And yes i know they are great for many accident injuries. But, however they also prefer to do chemo and all other sorts of "practice" without any regard of nutrition first.

Oh yeah and the godlike doctors also gave thousands upon thousands labotomies ( forgive spelling) in the 50's or so. They don't don't do that anymore. I guess when they were practicing then they made some poor judgements.

Dan8267 says

Practicing medicine is not a right. It is a privilege earned by going through the rigorous process of medical training.

Yes and from there they "practice". Don't assume the world is flat because someone said so. I am not questioning the Science behind the science, but the fact is the universe is vast.

And science on going. We learn new things everyday. Ok so you know so much to completely disrespect people religion then please tell me this;
Who, what, where, when, and why of the pyramids of Egypt?

KILLERJANE says

Ok so you know so much to completely disrespect people religion then please tell me this;

How the fuck is insisting that medical students actually attend the core classes of their curriculum before practicing medicine "disrespecting people's religion"? That is the most asinine statement I've heard in a long time.

If my religion refused to acknowledge the existence of atoms because it contradicted my holy book, would I be excused from taking an organic chemistry class and still be allowed to practice medicine? What if my religion forbids the study of anatomy? Evolution is no different. Grow up.

I never said that. But as for you your headline, you are as closed minded as those who insist that only evolution was involved.

KILLERJANE says

I have personally seen 3 people get well by juicing.

And here's a website for "Survivors" of these diets.
http://www.beyondveg.com/

If you don't want to seek new info and ideas, then why do you post? This is a discussion forum. Or is it a way to make you feel better about yourself?

There is scientific proof that other life producing worlds exist. Maybe they had an influence here?

KILLERJANE says

There is scientific proof that other life producing worlds exist. Maybe they had an influence here?

News to me. I heard there are candidates for planets that support life, and it is possible there may be bacterial life under the surface of Mars, but no scientific proof.

Got Links?

Check google news recently. Another report out a couple days ago, kepler, i believe. I am working now. Have good day.

KILLERJANE says

But as for you your headline, you are as closed minded as those who insist that only evolution was involved.

I think Dan's point is that if your religious belief is so completely inconsistent with well-established, factually supported science -- then it is best to reevaluate your beliefs. That's not close mindedness, that's asking for more open-mindedness.

KILLERJANE says

I am not questioning the Science behind the science, but the fact is the universe is vast.

I guess you are trying to say that "we don't know everything". This is true and I think we all agree on that. Sure, but there is a well-established, time tested, fool-proof method to know what you are curious to know: which is observation.

KILLERJANE says

One person, by juicing, got to throw out her high blood pressure medicine. The second saw a chronic illness of 7 years disappear. The third was a boy who had a 102 fever go away within 6 hours.
Even more stories where people are healed from cancers. Google it.

Healthy food is important regardless of the age. But to say "juicing" can cure so many deadly diseases is an extraordinary claim, therefore requires extraordinary proof. Here's the problem: Internet is no different than the real world, there are full of quacks. How to tell the difference? By scrutinizing what you read.

No read his headline, his point is that religion is bad and medicine good. Whatever. Read headline. The evolution point he makes below that is mostly understandable, but still a bit small minded.

uomo_senza_nome says

Healthy food is important regardless of the age. But to say "juicing" can cure so many deadly diseases is an extraordinary claim, therefore requires extraordinary proof. Here's the problem: Internet is no different than the real world, there are full of quacks. How to tell the difference? By scrutinizing what you read.

Not saying it is 100% cure all. But doctors should study it, and it is not required in a significant way under there curriculum.

Gerson-key word for one set of 50 case studies.

KILLERJANE says

No read his headline, his point is that religion is bad and medicine good. Whatever. Read headline. The evolution point he makes below that is mostly understandable, but still a bit small minded.

Thinking saying and doing need to line up.

I think it's pretty well supported that religion is bad if it causes unqualified and untrained people to become doctors. Yes, that's really bad. That's life and death bad. Can't get more black and white than that. Just take a look at all the examples of why it's bad listed in this thread.

Dan8267 says

f my religion refused to acknowledge the existence of atoms because it contradicted my holy book, would I be excused from taking an organic chemistry class and still be allowed to practice medicine? What if my religion forbids the study of anatomy?

Can you honestly make the point that medical students should be able to cherry pick which requirements apply to them because of religious reasons? That would not only be absurd, it would be dangerous.

Dan8267 says

I think it's pretty well supported that religion is bad if it causes unqualified and untrained people to become doctors. Yes, that's really bad. That's life and death bad. Can't get more black and white than that. Just take a look at all the examples of why it's bad listed in this thread.

Staff infection and medical malpractice and chemo also kill masses.

Dan8267 says

Can you honestly make the point that medical students should be able to cherry pick which requirements apply to them because of religious reasons? That would not only be absurd, it would be dangerous.

No i don't make that point, but i am not going for your short sided black and white approach either.

KILLERJANE says

Staff infection and medical malpractice and chemo also kill masses.

And that's relevant how?

KILLERJANE says

No i don't make that point, but i am not going for your short sided black and white approach either.

Some things are black and white, like slavery is bad. Just because one side is indefensible, doesn't make the other side "short-sighted". The Earth is round and anyone who says different is simply wrong, not insightful. It's ok to call bullshit, bullshit, especially when lives are on the line.

Of couse, I say black and white and you respond slavery. Take your doctors advice on the labotamy, i am sure it couldn't hurt. Pun intended.

the Earth is not round. It is an orb-like shape that is much larger around the equator than the circum. is at 90* to the equator.

A circle is round.

Just messing with you Dan. lol

Bap33 says

the Earth is not round. It is an orb-like shape that is much larger around the equator than the circum. is at 90* to the equator.

This is actually a common misconception. Nothing is perfectly round, as the fact that everything is made of atoms prevents that. However, you can measure how close to "round" an object is.

Earth's Diameter at the Equator: 7,926.28 miles (12,756.1 km)
Earth's Diameter at the Poles: 7,899.80 miles (12,713.5 km)

The difference between the major and minor axis of the Earth is a mere 0.334%. To put that in perspective, the Earth is about as smooth as an official billiards ball. The World Pool-Billiard Association states "All balls must be composed of cast phenolic resin plastic and measure 2 ¼ (+.005) inches [5.715 cm (+ .127 mm)] in diameter". So a billiards ball may deviate up to 0.222%. The Earth is pretty close to that level of smoothness.

wouldn't it be the same to say, "Bap is right. And in a related story, billiards balls are not very true either."? lol

Bap is right