Evolution is a valid scientific theory

Would be interesting, but is not likely to happen.

In the end the thing I care about is that noone is allowed to insult my intelligence. And so far i have seen no evidence to support validity of the theory in question.


Hm, never heard of Karl Popper before. Looks like he was questioning the possibility of sun rising tomorrow and that if it didn't you could falsify the theory that it will ,and keep it as working theory until then.

I think the analogies he employ suffer from lack of precision: even though the concept of not always relying on past events to predict future is very reasonable under certain curcumstances (like in stock market), yet it sounds absurd when applied to planetary motion that just can't be stopped all of a sudden (unless you can come up with astronomical theory and probability of earth being hit by the asteroid so huge that it could reverse or stop it's rotation).

I don't know where you get an idea that Karl Popper had similar views to mine and where you think the similarity is, but thank you for mentioning , always good to discover something new.

 

O.K. If you're interested I read through all of the Spetner/Max debate and Spetner never says that gene duplications haven't been observed. Here's a lab experiment where a yeast gene experienced a duplication. Here's the quote

Also, in one replication, the processing of phosphate was improved by a duplication of the gene that produces phosphatase. This is experimental evidence of an extremely important mechanism in evolutionary history!

The full experiment is found under #4 on this page if you're interested in reading it.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

 

:smilielol5:

 

How is your remote cousin Mr gas stove is doing?

Monkey boy, the study in the link you provide predates the Spetner - Max exchange by more than a decade. You think neither one knew about it to mention?

May be you didn't read carefully Spetners responce to Max where he says that much more than simple mutation or speciation (from mustard to broccoli) is needed to be shown to make case that the theory is workable.
I would suggest you read it again.

Also, i can not avoid getting an impression that Darwinists have an emotional stake in this argument, not unlike Creationists, and are first and above all have faith and conviction that Darwinism works and only then care to show why.

If you read Max relpies to Spetner you will know what i mean. Notice how he avoids addressing issues raised by Spetner directly, going instead after straw men arguments he finds among Creationists to contrast his point as more reasonable.

Will get back to you more in details (re: new link) when i study it little more.

Thanks.
:cheers2:

 

In the exchange regarding duplication Max was refering to homologous genes within the human genome. So obviously these duplications can never be observed since would have occured over millions of years. What I've search for is an observed duplication to show that it does occur in life.

What Spetner asking for is impossible as far as I know since evidence from the earliest life is very rare. However, evolution as it pertains to the splitting of two species can be tested more readily and therefore is a valid theory as seen in the evidence I've provided.

They may have an emotional stake. They are human afterall. This doesn't mean rules aren't followed.

And may I also say that Spetner also hints at creationism as a possible equal to evolution which is laughable.

I compare your view to Karl Popper's because he believes Evolution is not a valid theory, because it can not be tested. Instead he compare it to a metaphysical research project.

 

This is a raw reply.

And I didn't have time to look up and research some references and studies you mentioned related to your previous latest link.

No, what I believe Spetner said was that there must be observed some series of beneficial mutations occuring by chance and natural selection must make them dominate the population and that according to theory thousands of such steps must have taken place in relatively short period of time with nothing, no lab evidence to show in proportionate scale that what theory claims happened could indeed happen the way evolutionists say.


You have a broccoli and it's not mustard, but did it go any furtehr than that?
You breed dogs and get new breed of dog, but is it going anywhere beyond, no matter how long bred so you could say in a 100K years it could become something as different as some fossilized species 100K away from each other are?

You have virus changing and adapting to circumstances, but are you able to witness any further development on it's part into higher organism and beyond mere adaptation and limited in scope variation (that it could have capacity to adjust in the first place)?

Isn't the same thing with the speciation involving lizards and some other animals and plants mentioned on this and two other links?

No, i don't think Spetner made some extraordinary "jump into time machine and get me DVD record from 2 billion BC" kind of request.
Did you read Spetner or are you just assuming Spetner would request such a thing and now you say you read Spetner in lieu of actually doing so?
I don't do that to links you post if i reply to them. I even quoted relevant parts from your posted article when asked you pointed questions and btw you failed to answer those specific questions i asked so far

Nobody questions observed phenomena of speciation and/or breeding.

No, the problem is not that they are humans with emotions.

Problem is that the state of emotion influences them to the degree that they sometimes manipulate data and interpretation of evidence to fit the purpose and at other times plainly refuse to address raised issues attacking instead some straw men in Creationists camp.

Yes, he too is in error for making such assumption that may have roots in his own religious beliefs.
Even though i didn't read parts where he says anything like that (last i heard Okiefreak mention it , without giving a quote or anything) i have to say that it would be an error on his part to bring religion into this, since the debate must focus on scientific validity of theory and you can't stay consistently focused on topic if you bring religion to that.
Not laughable but sad if he digresses anywhere like that and uses it as justification for alternative to Darwinism theory. But as i noted earlier, his digressing or having possibly erroneous opinion on anything else anywhere else doesn't make those arguments which i quoted invalid.

No, you are being little bit too clever here and trying to make my position into what it is not.

First of all I told you that while i agree with some of his concepts (such as not relying under certain circumstances on past events to predict future, ex. stock market) , i find that it leads to absurdity when taken to extreme (such as 'sun rising tomorrow is falsifiable theory but can be used as workable as long as sun rises, but we can't be 100% sure if it will').
Perhaps his analogy suffers from lack of precision (as i noted) and he didn't mean what it sounds like he did.
In any event i can't see any similarities in my and his views as i read his views to be.

I don't say that the dog that Darwin bred may not be bred the same way again and that even though it happened and was witnessed millions of times in past there is possibility that it won't produce same result tomorrow (thus falsifiable).

What i said was that to draw inference you must have testable , however short term, lab result to prove greater changes can occur in the longer run.

You tell me you can breed lots of different dogs (a lot more than anyone has done so far) and i say yes, sure , it's possible.
But then you say it's possible for dogs to become something entirely different than dogs , to the degree that it would justify assumption that dogs themselves have become what they are from single cell by means of random chance and natural selection. In such case i request more evidence.

Yes, turtles seen in California had plenty of time to get there from Argentina , even if they moved 20ft North-West per day through many generations.
But if one day turtle is found in some far away galaxy i will have very hard time believing that it reached there by mere walking 20ft per day, even if you say that it's true because turtles started going in that direction 5 billion years ago, which gave them ample time to do the deed, and you can't prove it to me now because we don't have 5 billion more years to live so i could witness it with my own eyes.
It just doesn't seem possible for turtle to accomplish such feat.


Anyway, this was a raw responce (as disclaimed earlier) and i'll need to look up the link you provided and search some references in more details before addressing anything related to it.


Take care for now
:cheers2:

 

It's called raw logic. Handle with care my friend.

:hat:

 

No, monkey boy, what you stated is called "hand waving technique", one of the classic methods employed by darwinists when pressed to the corner LOL

Even my "raw reply" (for anyone to see) has a lot more detail and logic to it than anything you have posted so far.

What did you do?

Asserted the theory is valid.

Brought a link about 2 monkeys then refused to answer pointed questions I asked in regards.

Posted a new link (which i lately said will reply to after doing more research on it, since i am not accustomed to brushing off , debunking or agreeing with something without necessary understanding of it's aspects).

Misunderstood what Spetner said and then instead of trying to understand it better and addressing his argument, resorted to Okiefreakish Ad Hominem that somewhere else (not in the quote provided nor in his particular argument with Max) the guy says something about Creationism or what not.
What relevance does it have to what he says to Max and what Max appears to be unable to address?

Then you went on and twisted my views and alleged that I am in par with Karl Popper who says that Sun may or may not rise tomorrow but it's a workable (or falsifiable) theory that it will unless it doesn't.

Now you say I have a "raw logic".

Talk about handling with care

:cheers2:

 

You're leaning on one man's analysis instead of evidence that has been peer reviewed by thousands of scientists. You even said yourself that Spetner is wrong. Now you're bringing his unfounded evidence back up. Why?

You accept speciation and fossil evidence. Natural selection is obvious and duplication and mutation happens. This is ridiculous.

 

I was addressing the duplication near the end of the debate. You're refering to the B-cell mutation experiments at the beginning.

Spetner said the mutation rate in nature is too slow for evolution to have happened over a 4 billion year time period. Skizm provided an example that showed a higher mutation rate than Spetner said was possible. That's when you said Spetner was wrong. This higher mutation rate makes it possible for evolution to have happened which makes your turtle walking to Jupiter analogy false. You lose. Sorry.

 

monkey boy, I can't lose this argument by definition, since i never claimed to know how species evolved. But you can, since you made an assertion and now obliged to back it up.

1. Einstein was just one man but his analysis proved to be of higher value than that of countless others before him.

This is not to say that Spetner is Einstein.

Only to say that in Science ratio of numbers in favor of one or another theory has not historically been a decisive factor in determining it's validity.


2. Well, to be honest with you i conceded argument with Skizm because i was too lazy to dig into link provided and analyse all the consequences of it. So i said: so be it, you are right.

I would leave it there in good spirits, had it not been for Baron Okiefreak Munchausen who later used my concession to advance his typical ad hominems aganst me and then all the rest who came back to argue along with him.

Here is the link Skizm posted
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Your+...+reverses+coil,+makes+new+species-a0110459320

Based on this one link Skizm declared whole analysis of Spetner wrong.
Without looking much further into it i left argument for lack of interest in arguing with Skizm.

However, now that i look at it, even quick scan of text raises the following questions:

A) First of all note the "here we found the final most decisive proof of...." line of argument. Almost every other day you get a link like that on your homepage at yahoo. It's hillarious, how many times they have to find decisive proof of evolutionary processess, after finding it so many times before?
Even layman, with little analytical capacity, must understand that no further decisive evidence or proof in favor of evolutionary theory would be needed if it has already been decisevly proven.
You don't see anyone posting "We had found yet another decisive proof that Sun rises on the East, thus our theory about Sun rising on the East is right" . If physicists did such thing you would assume they were insane or just trolling around.



B) Next, Spetner's argument INDEED not proven wrong by bunch of snails changing a single code in genom to better mate with each other.
His argument stands the ground and stays valid as far as his statement that long series of beneficiary changes must occur and that natural selection must allow for domination of those with advantageous changes.
One change in the genom of a snail can hardly serve as evidence or argument for possibility of long series of advantageous changes by random chance and in responce to outer stimuli.
One simply isn't equal to "long series of beneficial mutations" necessary for sweeping macroevolutinary advances.

Besides, as I noted repeatedly in past, the change and what you call "speciation" could very well be an adaptive mechanism which is already pre-programmed in the genom of the snail.
In another words, to make an analogy with the car that utilizes it's vipers during the rainy weather, those vipers don't grow out of nowhere but pre-exist and simply utilized when needed.

Where is the proof that it is not the case when it comes to single change in genome encoding?
What further series of changes and speciation did scientist observe, other than ONE?
How is it different from the "turtle can fly to Jupiter in few billion years since we observe it walking 20 ft per hour on the sand" kind of argument?

I could continue on and on. If you really want to be dicky about arguing this subject and make it into "win-lose" contest then you better also back it up.
Or else i will make you lose this argument.

Of course i accept single step speciation and am not blind to deny the fact that fossils exist.

What I deny is the conclusion made based on those facts.

And you are telling me i am being ridiculous?
Munchausen would be proud of you !
:cheers2:

 

the way I see it is that we seem to be creative beings could we have not been created?

 

It's official-- monkeyboy joins the ranks of the legions that have debunked jumbulli's nonsense.
Congradulations!
B.Y.O.B.

Jumbulli, I hear Kirk Cameron is looking for you.

 

We were created-- through the processes collectively called Evolution.

 

UFO is a rocketplane -- it flies through process collectively called a Horsepoop.

 

You claimed that evolution is as likely as a turtle walking to Jupiter. The evidence I've provided has proven otherwise. Therefore it is possible and like I said before your analogy is false.

Einstein offered his analysis to be peer reviewed by other scientists. Spetner simply published the book without it being confirmed by others. This gives his arguments less credibility.

Spetner's claim was that mutation rates in nature were far too low and therefore couldn't be compared to B-cell lab experiements where even he acknowledged increase in information had been observed. The mutation rate of the snails proves his claim false plain and simple. Higher mutation rates do exist in nature therefore the long series of steps are possible.

Even Spetner agrees that new information can be created which goes against the pre-programmed/variation claim. The creation of new genes is not variation.

If you accept speciation and fossils why do you go back to pre-programmed variation?

Hey, no need to call me a dick now.

 

Fool!

 

You never read my replies, do you?

"It's valid because it's valid since it's valid ergo it's valid"....


==========================================================

Is this the evidence that most complex organisms evolved out of archaic single cell by means of random chance and natural selection?
Selective LOSS OF BENEFICIAL GENES* are evidence for increasing complexity with random chance and natural selection as responsible mechanism for evolution of higher forms of life from the most primitive?

*Bacterial evolution through the selective loss of beneficial Genes. Trade-offs in expression involving two loci.
Erik R Zinser, Dominique Schneider, Michel Blot, and Roberto Kolter
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1462639/