View Full Version : DNA changes in hatcheries, interesting.
soapy
02-17-2016, 05:01 PM
A little read for you:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-02/osu-des021216.php
Interesting... looks like they found proof that epigenetics does indeed change the underlying DNA. So much for genetic change taking millions/billions of years... more data that doesn't support evolution.
Zoaelite
02-17-2016, 06:44 PM
Interesting... looks like they found proof that epigenetics does indeed change the underlying DNA. So much for genetic change taking millions/billions of years... more data that doesn't support evolution.
Without access to the actual study I'm inclined to believe another factor is in play that the researchers might not be accounting for.
Many fish species have been observed to undergo adaptive phenotypic gene plasticity. Pretty much a large word for "we have hidden genes you don't know about".
Under adverse or different conditions epigenetic factors cause the phenotypic expression of said genes, something that actually takes a generation or two to occur (very much like the posted study).
If you want to read about gene plasticity in fish here is a good article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22673650
As far as epigenetics effecting the "code" of underlying DNA, I don't believe the authors show any link between the two. We know that epigenetics has a great effect on the overall phenotypic expression due to... well epigenetic factors (methylation of DNA or genetic "switches") but the ability to physically CHANGE the genetic code is... evolution and in this case its not rapid (punctated equilibrium) its just the emergence of an older gene pool through gene plasticity.
So much for genetic change taking millions/billions of years... more data that doesn't support evolution.
Now your playing a really interesting card here Tim, I'm always open for a good discussion so if you would be so kind to elaborate your thoughts on this statement?
albert_dao
02-17-2016, 07:19 PM
Interesting... looks like they found proof that epigenetics does indeed change the underlying DNA. So much for genetic change taking millions/billions of years... more data that doesn't support evolution.
0___0
How does this not support evolution?
somafish
02-17-2016, 07:46 PM
Without access to the actual study I'm inclined to believe another factor is in play that the researchers might not be accounting for.
Many fish species have been observed to undergo adaptive phenotypic gene plasticity. Pretty much a large word for "we have hidden genes you don't know about".
Under adverse or different conditions epigenetic factors cause the phenotypic expression of said genes, something that actually takes a generation or two to occur (very much like the posted study).
If you want to read about gene plasticity in fish here is a good article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22673650
As far as epigenetics effecting the "code" of underlying DNA, I don't believe the authors show any link between the two. We know that epigenetics has a great effect on the overall phenotypic expression due to... well epigenetic factors (methylation of DNA or genetic "switches") but the ability to physically CHANGE the genetic code is... evolution and in this case its not rapid (punctated equilibrium) its just the emergence of an older gene pool through gene plasticity.
Now your playing a really interesting card here Tim, I'm always open for a good discussion so if you would be so kind to elaborate your thoughts on this statement?
I was gonna say the exact same thing. Word for word
From the press release.
"This new DNA evidence directly measured the activity of all genes in the offspring of hatchery and wild fish. It conclusively demonstrates that the genetic differences between hatchery and wild fish are large in scale and fully heritable."
Without access to the actual study I'm inclined to believe another factor is in play that the researchers might not be accounting for.
If the press release is accurate then this research poses some hard questions for people who have faith in Darwinian Macro Evolution(DME), by that I mean "From goo to you by way of the Zoo" and not the ability of our DNA to change based on environmental conditions. Press releases are usually prepared by the people directly involved with the project/research. I agree that it would be best to look directly at the article.
As far as epigenetics effecting the "code" of underlying DNA, I don't believe the authors show any link between the two.
Read the quote above. That's exactly what they show. Environmental hatchery conditions directly making large and heritable changes in the underlying DNA. It would be interesting to see if river hatched offspring(f2) of the hatchery fish(f1) had their DNA revert back to the same as the wild parents. Then Gene Plasticity could be said to exist. But without that info I tend to think your using gene plasticity as a bit of a, if I may... Red Herring? Isn't DME all about the strongest survive to recreate and spread their new improved DNA. How does carrying an old back up of useless DNA make one stronger and better able to reproduce? Counter DME in my books.
How does this not support evolution?
If genetic change does not take millions or billions of years to manifest then there is another problem with Darwin's assumptions upon which he based his theory of evolution. Since one of his main assumptions has been dis-proven by modern science then this could be the death knell for DME.
Based on DME some paleontologists believe that dinosaurs were alive millions of years ago and all died out before humans arrived. But then the data rears it's ugly head and provides fresh dinosaur bones. Fresh meaning bones that showed no signs of fossilization or even the precursor to fossilization, permineralization. This would be the same as if you stumbled upon a pile of moose bones while out for a hike. The fresh Hadrosaur bone article can be found in the Journal of Paleontology via Jstor. Happened in the early 60's.
Back to work for me :-)
sphelps
02-17-2016, 10:27 PM
Tim are you a YEC?
WarDog
02-17-2016, 11:10 PM
Wow... interesting topic of discussion.
I fear that even those people who believe in evolution don't fully understand Darwin's theories. The vast majority of those asked to explain it get it horribly wrong, including myself until about 10 years ago... and I grew up with a Zoologist father.
Tim are you a YEC?
I am neither a Darwinian Evolutionist nor a Young Earth Creationist as they both have issues/baggage caused by their respective belief systems. The DE and YEC labels also have a certain amount of baggage attached that may or may not apply to a person. I believe labels are never helpful and usually just the first step in trying to delegitimatize a person. Not saying that thats the case here. :-) I try to let the data speak for itself instead of trying to fit it into a pre conceived belief system.
I fear that even those people who believe in evolution don't fully understand Darwin's theories. The vast majority of those asked to explain it get it horribly wrong, including myself until about 10 years ago... and I grew up with a Zoologist father.
Good point Warren. It is important to qualify the definitions as different people interpret different things from the same words. To have a valid discussion all parties need to know there is commonality between definitions. That's why I clarified my definitions.
albert_dao
02-18-2016, 12:48 AM
If genetic change does not take millions or billions of years to manifest then there is another problem with Darwin's assumptions upon which he based his theory of evolution. Since one of his main assumptions has been dis-proven by modern science then this could be the death knell for DME.
Based on DME some paleontologists believe that dinosaurs were alive millions of years ago and all died out before humans arrived. But then the data rears it's ugly head and provides fresh dinosaur bones. Fresh meaning bones that showed no signs of fossilization or even the precursor to fossilization, permineralization. This would be the same as if you stumbled upon a pile of moose bones while out for a hike. The fresh Hadrosaur bone article can be found in the Journal of Paleontology via Jstor. Happened in the early 60's.
Back to work for me :-)
Wait, I can debunk all of this...
1. No one said genetic change takes millions of years. It happens generation to generation (the flu is a common example). Hell, it happens within individuals under relatively short time frames.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/poverty-leaves-its-mark-on-dna-researchers-find-1.1053624
2. Darwin proposed evolution. But if he recanted on this deathbed (which he didn't), it wouldn't change its validity nor the expansion of the science that has occurred since his hypothesis became theory.
3. Dinosaur soft tissue discoveries can occur due to obscure preservation events.
http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
Some more reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution
albert_dao
02-18-2016, 12:52 AM
I am neither a Darwinian Evolutionist nor a Young Earth Creationist as they both have issues/baggage caused by their respective belief systems. The DE and YEC labels also have a certain amount of baggage attached that may or may not apply to a person. I believe labels are never helpful and usually just the first step in trying to delegitimatize a person. Not saying that thats the case here. :-) I try to let the data speak for itself instead of trying to fit it into a pre conceived belief system.
Being an "evolutionist" is not a belief system no more than being a "gravitationalist" or a "particalist" is though.
Tim, I am strongly urging you to take a look at the articles I previously linked in my footnotes. I suspect that you may have in incomplete picture of what the theory encompasses or how much of a fundamental keystone it is to modern science. Don't do it man! Evolution is awesome! Be awesome! :D :D :D
Wait, I can debunk all of this...
I wish it were that simple. LoL
1. No one said genetic change takes millions of years. It happens generation to generation (the flu is a common example). Hell, it happens within individuals under relatively short time frames.
Ah that's what I was taught in Biology 12... over millions of years blah blah blah changed and became blah blah blah. Change happens through genetic change. Notice how the millions of years has now become immediate. If a theory is true it doesn't need to be constantly revised. I've never heard of Einstein revising his theory of relativity.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/poverty-leaves-its-mark-on-dna-researchers-find-1.1053624
Interesting article. Just more evidence that genetic change happens quickly. Which I happen to agree with. Some people call that micro evolution and I'm fine with that term.
2. Darwin proposed evolution. But if he recanted on this deathbed (which he didn't), it wouldn't change its validity nor the expansion of the science that has occurred since his hypothesis became theory.
I think the waters been too muddied to know whether Darwin recanted or not. I find the point irrelevant anyways. As far as crediting the expansion of science to the Theory of Evolution. What about the knowledge explosion in the Renaissance? That was way before Darwin's time. My point is there are many factors that contributed to mankinds explosive growth of knowledge. The biggest being printing presses and the internet. Evolution has nothing to do with the dissemination of knowledge. To credit evolution with the advances in science is incorrect when it is due to the rapid dissemination of knowledge.
3. Dinosaur soft tissue discoveries can occur due to obscure preservation events.
http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
Interesting article. They found soft tissue inside fossilized bones. She said they even have found chemicals consistent with being DNA. There's a few differences between this article and the one I mentioned. The Hadrosaur bones I mentioned were not fossilized. They hadn't even started to fossilize. They were found laying on the surface of the ground in a pile.
Here's an interesting article as well:
http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11555
If you read it check out the part by Simon Ho. He is a good example of how evolutionary dogma is clouding his thinking. His reasoning is as follows: There can't be DNA found in dinosaurs or insects trapped in amber as they are at least 65 million years old and we know any bits of DNA code are less than 500,000 yrs old. An unbiased scientist would say something like. Test the dinosaurs and amber trapped insects for dna. If you find it then we know they are less than 500,000 yrs old. If there's no DNA found then there's no issue.
I'll read the rest of your links later.
Being an "evolutionist" is not a belief system no more than being a "gravitationalist" or a "particalist" is though.
Lets break this statement down a bit.
Evolution = non observable and non repeatable which requires faith to believe exists/works. Hence a belief system.
Gravity = observable and repeatable results
Particle Physics = observable and repeatable results
True science is based on Observable and Repeatable results.
Evolution is a hypothetical science that violates known LAWS of the universe. ie 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Darwinian Macro Evolution is a house of cards just before a wind storm. Get out quick Albert. ;^) Even Richard Dawkins is running. Here's an interesting exchange where he endorses intelligent design and then goes on to say the higher intelligence must have come about via Darwinian Evolution.
http://www.c4id.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=253:richard-dawkins-endorses-intelligent-design&catid=1:latest&Itemid=28
Ram3500
02-18-2016, 06:04 AM
This is a interest thread and I wish I could add some interesting intellectual comment that would impress my fellow board members but instead I think I will just continue watching Die Hard and continue my mindless de-evolution.
albert_dao
02-18-2016, 06:06 AM
I wish it were that simple. LoL
It is.
Ah that's what I was taught in Biology 12... over millions of years blah blah blah changed and became blah blah blah. Change happens through genetic change. Notice how the millions of years has now become immediate. If a theory is true it doesn't need to be constantly revised. I've never heard of Einstein revising his theory of relativity.
That's not how science works. Theories are revised as more/better data becomes available. Think of the things that have happened since Darwin's time. Our understanding of biology and genetics has increased thousandfold through good science.
Einstein is dead. He won't be making any revisions to anything. Regardless, this is a strawman, no one is arguing for relativity. Science is additive and if new and better information supplants older information, then it adopts the best fit. This is how the knowledge pool is expanded.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/poverty-leaves-its-mark-on-dna-researchers-find-1.1053624
Interesting article. Just more evidence that genetic change happens quickly. Which I happen to agree with. Some people call that micro evolution and I'm fine with that term.
Macro and micro evolution are just red herring phrases. There's no such thing as either. One is just the other extended over longer periods of time. Think of it this way, if I was to take a picture of you when you were 12 and compare that to now, there would be very clear delineation (a macro change). However, if we did the same thing by comparing a picture of you as a toddler as a gradient of every day of your life to the present, day-by-day comparisons would show little, if any variation (micro). Same thing applies to speciation ---- Which is different than evolution, btw, people get this mixed up all the time.
I think the waters been too muddied to know whether Darwin recanted or not. I find the point irrelevant anyways. As far as crediting the expansion of science to the Theory of Evolution. What about the knowledge explosion in the Renaissance? That was way before Darwin's time. My point is there are many factors that contributed to mankinds explosive growth of knowledge. The biggest being printing presses and the internet. Evolution has nothing to do with the dissemination of knowledge. To credit evolution with the advances in science is incorrect when it is due to the rapid dissemination of knowledge.
I think you're setting up a strawman here Tim :P
Interesting article. They found soft tissue inside fossilized bones. She said they even have found chemicals consistent with being DNA. There's a few differences between this article and the one I mentioned. The Hadrosaur bones I mentioned were not fossilized. They hadn't even started to fossilize. They were found laying on the surface of the ground in a pile.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to pull a "source or it didn't happen" here, haha.
Here's an interesting article as well:
http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11555
If you read it check out the part by Simon Ho. He is a good example of how evolutionary dogma is clouding his thinking. His reasoning is as follows: There can't be DNA found in dinosaurs or insects trapped in amber as they are at least 65 million years old and we know any bits of DNA code are less than 500,000 yrs old. An unbiased scientist would say something like. Test the dinosaurs and amber trapped insects for dna. If you find it then we know they are less than 500,000 yrs old. If there's no DNA found then there's no issue.
This is incorrect, the correct statement would be "DNA will not remain intact for x years", not "DNA only last a so-so amount of time".
Lets break this statement down a bit.
Will do!
Evolution = non observable and non repeatable which requires faith to believe exists/works. Hence a belief system.
It IS observable. It happens in hospitals (superbugs), it happens in transplanted populations. It happens in the lab:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
Gravity = observable and repeatable results
Yes.
Particle Physics = observable and repeatable results
Yes.
True science is based on Observable and Repeatable results.
Yes.
Evolution is a hypothetical science that violates known LAWS of the universe. ie 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
It is not hypothetical and it does not violate thermodynamics... Which has bloody absolutely nothing to do with evolution. This is a common trope of creationist to discredit the theory (which is the highest level an idea can be elevated to within science, btw). Here's a quick summary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3ShyXSHsbc
Darwinian Macro Evolution is a house of cards just before a wind storm. Get out quick Albert. ;^) Even Richard Dawkins is running. Here's an interesting exchange where he endorses intelligent design and then goes on to say the higher intelligence must have come about via Darwinian Evolution.
http://www.c4id.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=253:richard-dawkins-endorses-intelligent-design&catid=1:latest&Itemid=28
No, Richard Dawkins is not running from evolution. ben Stein edited and cherry picked that interview to match his narrative. He's scum for doing it too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AasyrRULHog
There it is from Richard himself.
msjboy
02-18-2016, 03:19 PM
Seems many factors change the DNA very quickly as opposed to thousands of years :
eg) red foxes caught from the wild within a couple of generations change colours and become docile
b) humans who snorkel with suntan lotion has some DNA effect on the corals nearby ( the corals have some DNA changes that would be detrimental to it )
c) the folks at AMI in austraila are trying to breed super corals that would be more resistant to the climatic changes going on in hopes of saving the natural brood stock out there... this can happen in relatively a short span of an years as opposed to the thousands of years of natural incremental changes
and the root of it is of course mankind. I am sure the feed the hatcheries get has weird medicines and steroids of some sort to keep the fish from getting sick and grow faster.
WarDog
02-18-2016, 05:03 PM
:pop2:
Excellent debate people.
That's not how science works. Theories are revised as more/better data becomes available.
Except when it comes to the holy grail of evolutionary belief in the beginnings of life. This theory can never be challenged or discredited otherwise you get academically bullied. It still all boils down to a basic belief that: some elements got together and created some molecules which created some proteins which then started to replicate and over billions of years we have life on the planet and humanity. Unless you have billions of years to make this even remotely possible the idea is patently absurd.
Think of the things that have happened since Darwin's time. Our understanding of biology and genetics has increased thousandfold through good science.
That would be through observable and repeatable science. Such as Gregor Mendel and his pea research.
Einstein is dead. He won't be making any revisions to anything.
Relativity is based on hard science and consequently doesn't need lots of revisions.
Regardless, this is a strawman, no one is arguing for relativity. Science is additive and if new and better information supplants older information, then it adopts the best fit. This is how the knowledge pool is expanded.
You totally missed my point and accused me of intellectual dishonesty. I'm not arguing about relativity, I'm using it as proof that good science doesn't need billions of revisions.
Macro and micro evolution are just red herring phrases. There's no such thing as either.
Are you sure.
"The scientific journal literature also uses the terms "macroevolution" or "microevolution." In 1980, Roger Lewin reported in Science on a major meeting at the University of Chicago that sought to reconcile biologists' understandings of evolution with the findings of paleontology. Lewin reported, "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." (Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," Science, Vol. 210:883-887, Nov. 1980.) "
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/09/busting_another_darwinist_myth_2004215.html
Regardless, I'm sorry, I missed the definition change... Micro Evolution has become Epigenetics while Macro Evolution has become Punctuated Equilibrium and Speciation. Punctuated Equilibrium is just Gould's attempt to reconcile the fact that there is no fossil evidence to support macroevolution. From Nature magazine,
"The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. ... apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground.
(Science, Vol. 199:58-60, Jan. 6, 1978.)
Speciation is just inbreeding on a large scale. We all know how good inbreeding is for weird genetics. ;-D
One is just the other extended over longer periods of time.
See above for your correction to this comment.
Think of it this way, if I was to take a picture of you when you were 12 and compare that to now, there would be very clear delineation (a macro change). However, if we did the same thing by comparing a picture of you as a toddler as a gradient of every day of your life to the present, day-by-day comparisons would show little, if any variation (micro). Same thing applies to speciation ---- Which is different than evolution, btw, people get this mixed up all the time.
Comparing aging(something known to be true) to PE and Speciation(something that is not true) is commonly known as Bait and Switch and is a logical fallacy. Much worse than a strawman. LoL
I think you're setting up a strawman here Tim :P
Somehow I don't think so.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to pull a "source or it didn't happen" here, haha.
Get ready for it...
http://www.toriah.org/articles/Davies-1987.PDF
Here's the juicy bits. From the last paragraph on page 198.
"The bones, catalogued as TMM 42475-1, apparently represent a quick surface collec-
tion by Liscomb, and consist of fragments of limb bones, ribs, and vertebrae. The quality
of preservation is remarkable. The bones are stained a dark red brown but otherwise dis-
play little permineralization, crushing, or distortion."
Here's an interesting article as well:
http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a...f-life-1.11555
If you read it check out the part by Simon Ho. He is a good example of how evolutionary dogma is clouding his thinking. His reasoning is as follows: There can't be DNA found in dinosaurs or insects trapped in amber as they are at least 65 million years old and we know any bits of DNA code are less than 500,000 yrs old. An unbiased scientist would say something like. Test the dinosaurs and amber trapped insects for dna. If you find it then we know they are less than 500,000 yrs old. If there's no DNA found then there's no issue.
This is incorrect, the correct statement would be "DNA will not remain intact for x years", not "DNA only last a so-so amount of time".
Straw manning semantics here Albert. How about responding to the argument.
Will do!
Evolution = non observable and non repeatable which requires faith to believe exists/works. Hence a belief system.
It IS observable. It happens in hospitals (superbugs), it happens in transplanted populations. It happens in the lab:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
Wow, another Bait and Switch. What does Epigentics have to do with Macroevolution/punctuated equilibrium/speciation.
Evolution is a hypothetical science that violates known LAWS of the universe. ie 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
It is not hypothetical and it does not violate thermodynamics... Which has bloody absolutely nothing to do with evolution. This is a common trope of creationist to discredit the theory (which is the highest level an idea can be elevated to within science, btw). Here's a quick summary:
Speciation relies on random genetic mutation that must be "Beneficial" to the organism. This violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that states that everything decays(and does not get better).
No, Richard Dawkins is not running from evolution. ben Stein edited and cherry picked that interview to match his narrative. He's scum for doing it too.
Well, this is what Richard Dawkins said based on the written transcript.
"Prof Dawkins: Well it could come about in the following way. It could be that, eh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very, high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Ehm, now, that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility and I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um detail, details, of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer. "
Prof Dawkins is smart enough to know what he believes and how to properly express it.
Anyways, after being accused of setting up a Strawman argument and then having you try a few Bait and Switch and your own Strawman. I don't think this debate is going to go anywhere positive so it's not worth continuing. I think we can agree to disagree and still be good reefers. :-)
albert_dao
02-19-2016, 09:48 AM
Except when it comes to the holy grail of evolutionary belief in the beginnings of life. This theory can never be challenged or discredited otherwise you get academically bullied. It still all boils down to a basic belief that: some elements got together and created some molecules which created some proteins which then started to replicate and over billions of years we have life on the planet and humanity. Unless you have billions of years to make this even remotely possible the idea is patently absurd.
No, that's abiogenesis and it's completely different and separate from evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
And regardless, it's not a belief. It's a well-founded theory with plenty of evidence and study:
http://scitechdaily.com/new-evidence-on-the-origins-of-life-on-earth/
https://www.quora.com/What-scientific-evidence-exists-for-abiogenesis
And here's what is most probably the most exciting hypothesis to arise in the past little while:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/new-theory-of-life-could-prove-how-life-began-and-disprove-god-10070114.html
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/
TLDR: Life is the most effective agent of entropy.
That would be through observable and repeatable science. Such as Gregor Mendel and his pea research.
Relativity is based on hard science and consequently doesn't need lots of revisions.
0___0, Tim, are you trolling me? Einstein himself made several revisions during the course of his research:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_general_relativity
"By 1912, Einstein was actively seeking a theory in which gravitation was explained as a geometric phenomenon. At the urging of Tullio Levi-Civita, Einstein began by exploring the use of general covariance (which is essentially the use of curvature tensors) to create a gravitational theory. However, in 1913 Einstein abandoned that approach, arguing that it is inconsistent based on the "hole argument". In 1914 and much of 1915, Einstein was trying to create field equations based on another approach. When that approach was proven to be inconsistent, Einstein revisited the concept of general covariance and discovered that the hole argument was flawed.[15]"
You totally missed my point and accused me of intellectual dishonesty. I'm not arguing about relativity, I'm using it as proof that good science doesn't need billions of revisions.
Notwithstanding, should better data become available to discredit or partition our previous understanding or relativity, it WILL be ensconced into the body of knowledge. And, as it turns out, we are adding to relativity. Again, science is both additive and revisionist. What separates so-called "good" from "bad" science is the adhesion to truth without flaws in methodology or personal dogma.
Are you sure.
"The scientific journal literature also uses the terms "macroevolution" or "microevolution." In 1980, Roger Lewin reported in Science on a major meeting at the University of Chicago that sought to reconcile biologists' understandings of evolution with the findings of paleontology. Lewin reported, "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." (Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," Science, Vol. 210:883-887, Nov. 1980.) "
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/09/busting_another_darwinist_myth_2004215.html
That's a load of poppycock. That entire website is a proponent of ID... AND We have seen speciation happen before our eyes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#Evidence_from_observed_ speciation
So any detractors can f-ck right off.
Regardless, I'm sorry, I missed the definition change... Micro Evolution has become Epigenetics while Macro Evolution has become Punctuated Equilibrium and Speciation. Punctuated Equilibrium is just Gould's attempt to reconcile the fact that there is no fossil evidence to support macroevolution. From Nature magazine,
"The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. ... apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground.
(Science, Vol. 199:58-60, Jan. 6, 1978.)
Speciation is just inbreeding on a large scale. We all know how good inbreeding is for weird genetics. ;-D
Please link source (the fact that it's from 1978, virtual bygones when it comes to the current field of evolutionary study).
Comparing aging(something known to be true) to PE and Speciation(something that is not true) is commonly known as Bait and Switch and is a logical fallacy. Much worse than a strawman. LoL
This is not a bait and switch, it is analogous and perfectly valid layman's terms to describe the fallacy of equating micro/macroevolution as some sort of candid 'gotcha!' If you want, I can retract his and provide a perfectly list of studies:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/07/29/rspb.2010.0923.full
http://www.biology.ucr.edu/people/faculty/Garland/Keeney_et_al_2008_rimonabant.pdf
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/1999/2/early-canid-domestication-the-farm-fox-experiment/2
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/180301.stm
http://www.livescience.com/7655-lizards-dance-avoids-deadly-ants.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/science/11evolve.html
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/3/710.abstract
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/08/science/08cnd-brain.html?pagewanted=all
Some creationists respond to the studies. " But once again, this rapid adaptation (which can lead to speciation) fits well within the creation model." Apparently, only one "kind" of thing changing into another "kind" of thing is evolution, whatever that means.
To preemptively rebut this type of thing, I'm going to include this summary of observed examples of speciation. But really, if up to this point, these examples don't lend you pause, nothing going to change no matter what evidence I provide :P
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html - yes, a talkorigins.org link, LOL
Get ready for it...
http://www.toriah.org/articles/Davies-1987.PDF
Here's the juicy bits. From the last paragraph on page 198.
"The bones, catalogued as TMM 42475-1, apparently represent a quick surface collec-
tion by Liscomb, and consist of fragments of limb bones, ribs, and vertebrae. The quality
of preservation is remarkable. The bones are stained a dark red brown but otherwise dis-
play little permineralization, crushing, or distortion."
Dude, surface collection ≠ recent and I already provided a mechanism to explain the remarkable, non-fossilized preservation. The lack of crushing or distortion is a matter of lucky geology, and has little, if anything to do with evolution. Bet you those fossils can be carbon dated to, oh, I dunno, 85-67 MYA, should anyone decide it was worth their time.
I mean, hell, from that article:
The site occurs in what is mapped as undifferentiated Upper Colville Group of Late Cretaceous age, which is overlain by the Plio(?)-Pleistocene Gubik Formation (Brosgk and Whittington, 1966). Recent studies, however, have indicated Paleogene rocks in this region (Carter et al., 1977; Nelson, 198 1; Marincovich et al., 1983). Pending resolution of the stratigraphy, beds underlying the Gubik Formation in the region are being referred to simply as "pre-Gubik" (Carter et al., 1977; R. V. Emmons, personal commun.). Hadrosaurs are exclusively Late Cretaceous and their presence limits the age of the pre-Gubik rocks. "This datum has allowed H. J. Clippinger to interpret somewhat contaminated pollen samples and establish a Maastrichtian or possibly Campanian age for the strata 28 feet above and 12 feet below the dinosaur bed. Foraminifera 2 feet below the bone bed indicate a shallow marine environment" (Shell Oil Company memorandum, with permission of R. V. Emmons and H. J. Clippinger)
Straw manning semantics here Albert. How about responding to the argument.
I don't understand the argument. We have never extracted DNA from dinosaur-era fossiles. I mean... it says so right in the title of the article you linked...
Wow, another Bait and Switch. What does Epigentics have to do with Macroevolution/punctuated equilibrium/speciation.
0___0 c'mon man, at least read my links, I read yours.
Speciation relies on random genetic mutation that must be "Beneficial" to the organism. This violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that states that everything decays(and does not get better).
Gosh darnit. No, this is not how it works and no, it does not violate the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. Speciation is the separation of allele frequencies between two previously nested hierarchies producing traits which make them observably different and/or genetically incompatible.
Well, this is what Richard Dawkins said based on the written transcript.
"Prof Dawkins: Well it could come about in the following way. It could be that, eh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very, high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Ehm, now, that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility and I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um detail, details, of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer. "
Prof Dawkins is smart enough to know what he believes and how to properly express it.
Anyways, after being accused of setting up a Strawman argument and then having you try a few Bait and Switch and your own Strawman. I don't think this debate is going to go anywhere positive so it's not worth continuing. I think we can agree to disagree and still be good reefers. :-)
... I don't even know how to respond to that. I provided a video of him explaining the situation. Literally, out of his mouth, he elaborated how Ben Stein mislead him and then used the interview to further his agenda.
And no, I haven't resorted to any bait/switch strawman arguments. The closest approximation you can make to that is when I used analogies to help illustrate a point in layman's terms.
C'mon Tim, I'm not attacking you. We're having a debate. It is a back and forth. This is not meant to be an attack on your beliefs. But if you're going to take it as such, then I guess I'll duck out of this one also :P
SeaHorse_Fanatic
02-19-2016, 05:05 PM
I am greatly enjoying this online debate. Not taking sides.
Just need to point out that no university would accept Wikipedia as a credible source. Stronger argument if using published academic articles from peer-reviewed journals rather than Wiki.
Please continue:biggrin:
albert_dao
02-19-2016, 07:15 PM
I am greatly enjoying this online debate. Not taking sides.
Just need to point out that no university would accept Wikipedia as a credible source. Stronger argument if using published academic articles from peer-reviewed journals rather than Wiki.
Please continue:biggrin:
Yah, well, I can get better citations, but they lack the TLDR quality of Wikipedia -- Especially since this is all mainstream stuffs.
Reef Pilot
02-19-2016, 08:48 PM
Wow, you guys must have a lot of time on your hands!!...
squibege
02-20-2016, 02:39 PM
This is great! I do not know enough details to comment to the level you guys have, but I do see very valid points on both sides. Thank you for providing me with a lot of reading material while I wait for my damn tank to cycle!
albert_dao
02-20-2016, 07:24 PM
This is great! I do not know enough details to comment to the level you guys have, but I do see very valid points on both sides.
Of which counter points did you find intriguing and/or tangibly credible? Perhaps I can elucidate the point to show otherwise :P
Evolution is a theory, and a a damn fine one at that. For those who are not aware, when you say "theory" in science, it is not akin to a "throw away anecdote" as the word is generally used in common language. A scientific theory (via dictionary.com) a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomen[/]. It is founded upon known laws and principles and is the highest level that an idea can be elevated in scientific context.
You'll find a lot of YEC tend to draw up points like "well this one example shows otherwise, checkmate [i]evolutionist". And, given the benefit of the doubt that it does, the general followup well tend to be "for now". Science is additive and as the knowledge pool is expanded, contrarians will retreat further and further into obscurity. Eventually, those pockets will become explainable by newer science. These little pockets are often referred to as the "God of the Gaps", e.i. holes in our current knowledge = counterpoints = God or Intelligent Design = The CIA planned 9/11 = Global warming is a hoax to make you give your kids vaccines so that the future elite will rule empire over a population fraught with autism, wake up sheeple!!!!
Here's a more thorough and eloquent summary of the argument (worth a read :D):
http://biologos.org/common-questions/gods-relationship-to-creation/god-of-the-gaps
somafish
02-20-2016, 08:16 PM
It was kinda like Bill Nye vs Ken Ham, real valid points proven by science vs obscure,twisted, one off experiments. But what do we know maybe the earth is only 10000 years old, damn carbon dating and evolution
gobytron
02-24-2016, 06:09 PM
Man is a game changer.
We're a destructive force that completely changes our environment, both inadvertently and on purpose.
Nature has never seen anything like us, we bend it to our will rather than the other way around.
We don't even fully understand the effect our imprint has and will have.
Climate change is a good example or the aforementioned sun tan lotion creating changes in coral reefs.
It's hard to imagine that we haven't had a drastic effect on evolution since Darwins time.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.