Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: How Do Living Things Morph Over Time?

Expand Messages
  • stewart8724
    High altitude adaptations: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/huertasanchez_01 In this research profile, we will explore these key questions: 1
    Message 1 of 7 , Nov 9, 2012
      High altitude adaptations:
      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/huertasanchez_01 In this
      research profile, we will explore these key questions:

      1 What is the difference between acclimatization and adaptation?
      (The first can be achieved by individuals and the second is acquired by the evolution of a population. An example would be that humans can acclimatise to live more comfortably in the desert by adjusting their activity and in turn their body temperature, thereby reducing water loss. Camels have evolved (adapted) to recycle water from their urine directly into their blood stream, eliminating water loss almost completely).

      2 How are allele frequencies used to identify cases of recent natural
      selection?
      (I don't know)

      3 How can mathematical modeling be used to learn about evolutionary
      history?
      (I don't know)

      4 How can changes in non-coding DNA lead to evolutionary change?
      (I don't know)

      James A Shapiro: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29246 The
      role of selection is to eliminate evolutionary novelties that prove
      to be non-functional and interfere with adaptive needs. Selection
      operates as a purifying but not creative force. Evolutionary inventions
      that survive purifying selection and prove useful are subject to
      microevolutionary refinement, perhaps by the kind of processes envisaged in
      conventional theories.

      Charles P: How Do Living Things Morph Over Time?

      Stewart: Caterpillars pupate and become Butterflies. Silk worms use this method too as do various other insects. Is this what you meant?

      Cha:"Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact
      purposefully to ensure survival, growth, and proliferation. They possess
      corresponding sensory, communication, information-processing, and
      decision-making capabilities", "Evolution: A View From The 21st Century",
      p.143.

      Stewart: Where is the evidence that they make decisions? You wouldn't want to write something that wasn't verifiable or scientific would you Charlie boy?

      Cha:
      1 We can accept the above scientific writing about high altitude
      adaptations as axiomatic. "How" does any empirical and verifiable evidence
      from the above scientific writing support the idea that natural selection
      is a creative process?

      Stewart: The above writing claims that it is 'not' a creative process so this would seem to be a loaded question.
      Screen directors, writers, actors and production companies make films. They are all part of the creative process. Audiences are not part of the creative process, audiences pay to see the films and producers finance the production on the strength of public preferences.
      Although we have not included the audience in the creative process, it is without doubt the audience that determines the nature of vast amount of 'flicks' that are made. Audiences are the natural selection element in cinema, what is consumed is reproduced because consumption equals success. In this analogy the audience represent the environment. Natural selection in Evolution operates on the same principle, no one apart from you claims that natural selection is creative in any way other than this.
      Sometimes films are made that change the public's tastes, these seminal creations tend to spawn other productions of the same ilk. Sometimes a species can change its environment just as dramatically, and round and round we go.


      2 Which of the nine basic principles of natural genetic engineering are
      contradicted by the empirical and verifiable evidence from the above
      scientific writing?

      Stewart: If you're talking about the 'High altitude adaptations' article, one has nothing to do with the other. Adaptations for living at altitude are genetic modifications in a population. Shapiro's musings on the capabilities of individual cells (within an individual) to intelligently modify themselves at will, is a completely different issue.


      3 "Why" would anyone think that natural genetic engineering requires
      living cells and organisms to have a brain to be cognizant (sentient)?

      Stewart: Because cognisant means (conscious, awake, aware etc.) In order to be these things one must have the hardware, cells lack this hardware and so must be considered unconscious, unaware, unfeeling, senseless. They may well be able to detect other elements but this is not sentience it is chemistry. Similarly a magnet can attract a nail without 'knowing' it's there, so effect does not indicate purpose.

      Cha:
      Bonnie Bassler: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVfmUfr8VPA The secret
      social lives of bacteria. This video shows us that the bacteria, Vibrio
      fischeri, are able to know when they are alone and they create no light.
      When they reach a certain population number, they act together to produce
      light. The bacteria know how to assemble the right chemicals from their
      environment for the purpose of creating bioluminescence. The bacteria
      "talk" to each other without having a brain. Bonnie Bassler discovered
      that bacteria "talk" to each other, using a chemical language that lets
      them coordinate defense and mount attacks. The find has stunning
      implications for medicine, industry -- and our understanding of ourselves.

      Stewart: There are anti-bodies inside us which perform similarly useful functions, do you propose that the anti-bodies 'know' what they're doing? Do you propose that they speak to each other to say that they've detected a threat? Or is it possibly an unconscious, automatic chemical reaction?


      James A Shapiro: Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient)
      entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth, and
      proliferation. They possess corresponding sensory, communication,
      information-processing,and decision-making capabilities.

      Stewart: Is your theory that if you repeat this claim often enough, it will by some osmosis become the truth?


      Gluadys: Thank you. For the first time you have admitted that you do not
      understand the basic theory of evolution and how it works through time. How
      othen can you possibly identify what evidence supports the theory and what
      evidence would not support it?

      Charles P: No ad hominem fallacy statements, please. You are jumping to
      vast conclusions with half-vast data. I probably understand the basic
      theory of evolution better than you do, (WHAT!!!) but that is not important. We can
      all learn something from each other. The empirical and verifiable evidence
      is the same for all of us; we only differ in our interpretations of that
      evidence.

      Stewart: Only you differ in your interpretations which is why you understand so little.

      Cha: The description for the origin and diversity of life is about
      empirical and verifiable evidence. You have not presented any empirical
      and verifiable evidence that contradicts natural genetic engineering.

      Stewart: You haven't provided any evidence that supports it. You provided opinions that it happens, you've shown that chemistry is real, but nothing to show that cells are operating independently and intelligently.


      Gluadys: Tell me if you agree that these are observed events.
      DNA is contained in every living cell.
      DNA is replicated in a
      parent cell and inherited by a daughter cell.
      DNA is not always replicated with absolute faithfulness. Therefore, replication sometimes produces
      alternate versions of a DNA sequence. Therefore, as a population of cells
      reproduces, the DNA sequences in the population of daughter cells vary from
      one individual to another.

      Charles P: I agree that these are observed events. The discussion is
      supposed to be about natural genetic engineering. My guess is that you
      have not bothered to read the book. That's OK. You have a lot of other
      more important things to do, I am sure.

      Stewart: Don't we all?


      Charles P: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29246 My
      Message #29,246 explains the nine basic principles of natural genetic
      engineering. Here are some important conclusions reached from 1,162
      references clearly documented in his book.

      1 Organisms behave purposefully. (But not intelligently)

      2 Organisms evolve themselves. (But not intentionally)

      3 Selection acts as a purifying but not a creative force. (But it determines the course of evolution)

      4 Organisms evolve by intentionally modifying their own DNA in response to
      environmental pressure. (No they don't matey)

      5 The genome is a read-write (RW) storage system with the organism itself
      deciding when and where to modify its DNA.
      (No actual scientifically verifiable or empirical evidence to support this view)

      That's only five, where are the other four basic principles? I think we're being short changed here.


      Charles P: I suggest that you find a copy of Shapiro's book in your local
      library and read it before we continue our discussions about natural
      genetic engineering.

      Stewart: When I joined this forum Charles was arguing for the great flood of Biblical creationism, he then flirted with the concept of ID creationism. Since then he has misinterpreted geological stratification, dallied in apophenia, championed the contention that apes and humans have no common ancestry, ridiculed the very concept of transitional forms, questioned the scientific estimates of the age of the Earth, struggled to understand the process of fossilisation and scoffed at the scarcity of fossil evidence. He has also recently posited the notion that dinosaurs could still have been around a few thousand years ago, while seeing no reason to associate them biologically with birds.
      During all this he has defended absolutely none of these flights of fancy with any measure of conviction or success. Now we have Natural Genetic Engineering, something which is neither creationism nor evolution (in that it plays no part in speciation). This is the latest in a long line of desperate attempts to find some way to discredit evolutionary theory. I have to say I'm always interested to see what he'll come up with next, if only out of a sense of morbid curiosity. Call me perverse, but there you go.
      It's fair to say that Charles would give mental sanctuary to any idea at all, as long as it's not the screamingly obvious scientific truth of Evolution. This is the guy who so proudly (and quite wrongly) describes himself as open minded.

      ..

      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
      >
      > High altitude adaptations:
      > http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/huertasanchez_01 In this
      > research profile, we will explore these key questions:
      >
      > 1 What is the difference between acclimatization and adaptation?
      >
      > 2 How are allele frequencies used to identify cases of recent natural
      > selection?
      >
      > 3 How can mathematical modeling be used to learn about evolutionary
      > history?
      >
      > 4 How can changes in non-coding DNA lead to evolutionary change?
      >
      > The Mysteries Of Tibet:
      > http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/huertasanchez_02
      >
      > A Gene First Approach:
      > http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/huertasanchez_03
      >
      > Close Genetic Ties:
      > http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/huertasanchez_04
      >
      > Narrowing Down The Candidates:
      > http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/huertasanchez_05
      >
      > Evolution Is An Equation:
      > http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/huertasanchez_06
      >
      > A Gene In Control:
      > http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/huertasanchez_07
      >
      > Intron Intrigue:
      > http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/huertasanchez_08
      >
      > Pinpointing The Target Of Selection:
      > http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/huertasanchez_09
      >
      > Digging Deep Into High Altitude Living:
      > http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/huertasanchez_10
      >
      > James A Shapiro: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29246 The
      > role of selection is to eliminate evolutionary novelties that prove
      > to be non-functional and interfere with adaptive needs. Selection
      > operates as a purifying but not creative force. Evolutionary inventions
      > that survive purifying selection and prove useful are subject to
      > microevolutionary refinement, perhaps by the kind of processes envisaged in
      > conventional theories.
      >
      > Charles P: How Do Living Things Morph Over Time? "Living cells and
      > organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact
      > purposefully to ensure survival, growth, and proliferation. They possess
      > corresponding sensory, communication, information-processing, and
      > decision-making capabilities", "Evolution: A View From The 21st Century",
      > p.143.
      >
      > 1 We can accept the above scientific writing about high altitude
      > adaptations as axiomatic. "How" does any empirical and verifiable evidence
      > from the above scientific writing support the idea that natural selection
      > is a creative process?
      >
      > 2 Which of the nine basic principles of natural genetic engineering are
      > contradicted by the empirical and verifiable evidence from the above
      > scientific writing?
      >
      > 3 "Why" would anyone think that natural genetic engineering requires
      > living cells and organisms to have a brain to be cognizant (sentient)?
      >
      > Bonnie Bassler: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVfmUfr8VPA The secret
      > social lives of bacteria. This video shows us that the bacteria, Vibrio
      > fischeri, are able to know when they are alone and they create no light.
      > When they reach a certain population number, they act together to produce
      > light. The bacteria know how to assemble the right chemicals from their
      > environment for the purpose of creating bioluminescence. The bacteria
      > "talk" to each other without having a brain. Bonnie Bassler discovered
      > that bacteria "talk" to each other, using a chemical language that lets
      > them coordinate defense and mount attacks. The find has stunning
      > implications for medicine, industry -- and our understanding of ourselves.
      >
      > James A Shapiro: Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient)
      > entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth, and
      > proliferation. They possess corresponding sensory, communication,
      > information-processing,and decision-making capabilities.
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • Charles Palm
      Stewart: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29952 Evolution is the process that results from the interaction of genetic strains over many
      Message 2 of 7 , Nov 10, 2012
        Stewart: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29952 Evolution
        is the process that results from the interaction of genetic strains over
        many generations. It does not submit that creatures metamorphose from one
        species into another.

        Charles P: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03
        Stewart is correct. There is no empirical and verifiable evidence
        that a
        gray whale of today is the descendant of Pakicetus.

        Charles P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pakicetus_BW.jpg Stewart is
        correct. There is no empirical and verifiable evidence that a gray whale
        of today is the descendant of Pakicetus.

        Charles P: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrHpLEUo0lI Stewart is correct.
        There is no empirical and verifiable evidence that a featherless chicken
        is the descendant of a dinosaur.

        Jack Horner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QVXdEOiCw8 Time 9:00 to
        10:40. Birds are living dinosaurs. We actually classify them as
        dinosaurs. We now call them non-avian dinosaurs and avian dinosaurs.
        Avian dinosaurs are our modern birds. So, we don't have to make a
        dinosaur. We already have them. The chicken is a dinosaur. You can't
        argue with it because we are the classifiers and we classified it that way.

        Charles P: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/28565 The
        20th Century version of The Theory of Evolution can't be falsified. It is
        based on definitions that are not supported by empirical and verifiable
        evidence that has been tested and reproduced by others.

        Science: http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position1.htm Science, by
        definition, is a method of learning about the natural universe by asking
        questions in such a way that they can be answered empirically and
        verifiably. If a question cannot be framed so that the answer can be
        tested, and the test results can be reproduced by others, then it is not
        science.

        http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-View-Century-Press-Science/dp/0132780933
        James A. Shapiro's Evolution: A View from the 21st Century proposes an
        important new paradigm for understanding biological evolution. Shapiro
        demonstrates why traditional views of evolution are inadequate to explain
        the latest evidence, and presents a compelling alternative. His
        information- and systems-based approach integrates advances in
        symbiogenesis, epigenetics, and mobile genetic elements, and points toward
        an emerging synthesis of physical, information, and biological sciences.

        James A Shapiro:
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/bob-dylan-encode-and-evol_b_1873935.html
        Thinking of the genome informatically and of mobile DNA as a potent
        force
        for genome organization are central to the arguments presented on this blog
        and in my book.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • stewart8724
        Stewart: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29952 Evolution is the process that results from the interaction of genetic strains over many
        Message 3 of 7 , Nov 11, 2012
          Stewart: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29952 Evolution
          is the process that results from the interaction of genetic strains over
          many generations. It does not submit that creatures metamorphose from one
          species into another.

          Charles P: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03
          Stewart is correct. There is no empirical and verifiable evidence
          that a
          gray whale of today is the descendant of Pakicetus.

          Charles P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pakicetus_BW.jpg Stewart is
          correct. There is no empirical and verifiable evidence that a gray whale
          of today is the descendant of Pakicetus.

          Charles P: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrHpLEUo0lI Stewart is correct.
          There is no empirical and verifiable evidence that a featherless chicken
          is the descendant of a dinosaur.

          Stewart: Charles you're embarrassing yourself, you have shown that you fail to understand not only what I tried to tell you, but that you also have no appreciation of how evolution works.
          The examples you mention are not of the metamorphosis of individuals, but of the evolution of species.


          Charles P: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/28565 The
          20th Century version of The Theory of Evolution can't be falsified. It is
          based on definitions that are not supported by empirical and verifiable
          evidence that has been tested and reproduced by others.

          Stewart: The 19th century Darwinian Theory of Evolution could be falsified simply by showing that a species that evolved from another lived before it. The 19th century theory is based on observable evidence on a broad range of sciences including geology, biology and zoology. It is testable and verified and has not been successfully challenged in 153 years. The biological mechanisms of evolution have also been used by individuals to reproduce the effects of natural selection for many generations, this is known as selective breeding.
          Everything you have posted here is false and without any scientific evidence to suppose that it's true. Do you consider yourself exempt from the rules you set out for the rest of us?


          ..

          --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
          >
          > Stewart: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29952 Evolution
          > is the process that results from the interaction of genetic strains over
          > many generations. It does not submit that creatures metamorphose from one
          > species into another.
          >
          > Charles P: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03
          > Stewart is correct. There is no empirical and verifiable evidence
          > that a
          > gray whale of today is the descendant of Pakicetus.
          >
          > Charles P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pakicetus_BW.jpg Stewart is
          > correct. There is no empirical and verifiable evidence that a gray whale
          > of today is the descendant of Pakicetus.
          >
          > Charles P: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrHpLEUo0lI Stewart is correct.
          > There is no empirical and verifiable evidence that a featherless chicken
          > is the descendant of a dinosaur.
          >
          > Jack Horner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QVXdEOiCw8 Time 9:00 to
          > 10:40. Birds are living dinosaurs. We actually classify them as
          > dinosaurs. We now call them non-avian dinosaurs and avian dinosaurs.
          > Avian dinosaurs are our modern birds. So, we don't have to make a
          > dinosaur. We already have them. The chicken is a dinosaur. You can't
          > argue with it because we are the classifiers and we classified it that way.
          >
          > Charles P: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/28565 The
          > 20th Century version of The Theory of Evolution can't be falsified. It is
          > based on definitions that are not supported by empirical and verifiable
          > evidence that has been tested and reproduced by others.
          >
          > Science: http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position1.htm Science, by
          > definition, is a method of learning about the natural universe by asking
          > questions in such a way that they can be answered empirically and
          > verifiably. If a question cannot be framed so that the answer can be
          > tested, and the test results can be reproduced by others, then it is not
          > science.
          >
          > http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-View-Century-Press-Science/dp/0132780933
          > James A. Shapiro's Evolution: A View from the 21st Century proposes an
          > important new paradigm for understanding biological evolution. Shapiro
          > demonstrates why traditional views of evolution are inadequate to explain
          > the latest evidence, and presents a compelling alternative. His
          > information- and systems-based approach integrates advances in
          > symbiogenesis, epigenetics, and mobile genetic elements, and points toward
          > an emerging synthesis of physical, information, and biological sciences.
          >
          > James A Shapiro:
          > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/bob-dylan-encode-and-evol_b_1873935.html
          > Thinking of the genome informatically and of mobile DNA as a potent
          > force
          > for genome organization are central to the arguments presented on this blog
          > and in my book.
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • Charles Palm
          Stewart: The examples you mention are not of the metamorphosis of individuals, but of the evolution of species. Charles P: Thank you, Stewart, for your
          Message 4 of 7 , Nov 11, 2012
            Stewart: The examples you mention are not of the metamorphosis of
            individuals, but of the evolution of species.

            Charles P: Thank you, Stewart, for your ideas.

            Kathryn Schulz:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QleRgTBMX88&feature=relmfu Time
            10:00 to 15:55. You think that your beliefs perfectly reflect reality.
            How do you explain it to those who disagree with you? Most of us make a
            series of unfortunate assumptions.

            1 The Ignorance Assumption.

            2 The Idiocy Assumption.

            3 The Evil Assumption.

            Kathryn Schulz: We generate these incredible stories about the world
            around us and then the world turns around and astonishes us.


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • stewart8724
            Stewart: The examples you mention are not of the metamorphosis of individuals, but of the evolution of species. Charles P: Thank you, Stewart, for your ideas.
            Message 5 of 7 , Nov 13, 2012
              Stewart: The examples you mention are not of the metamorphosis of
              individuals, but of the evolution of species.

              Charles P: Thank you, Stewart, for your ideas.

              Stewart: You're welcome.

              Kathryn Schulz:
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QleRgTBMX88&feature=relmfu Time
              10:00 to 15:55. You think that your beliefs perfectly reflect reality.
              How do you explain it to those who disagree with you? Most of us make a
              series of unfortunate assumptions.

              1 The Ignorance Assumption.

              2 The Idiocy Assumption.

              3 The Evil Assumption.

              Kathryn Schulz: We generate these incredible stories about the world
              around us and then the world turns around and astonishes us.

              Stewart: Exactly. Take heed of these words Charles and with hard work you need not continue making such mistakes in the future. You have succeeded in identifying that you are prone to these crazy assumptions, which is a good sign that you are capable of dealing with your problem. This is a big step forward, well done Charles. One day at a time mate, one day at a time.


              ..

              --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
              >
              > Stewart: The examples you mention are not of the metamorphosis of
              > individuals, but of the evolution of species.
              >
              > Charles P: Thank you, Stewart, for your ideas.
              >
              > Kathryn Schulz:
              > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QleRgTBMX88&feature=relmfu Time
              > 10:00 to 15:55. You think that your beliefs perfectly reflect reality.
              > How do you explain it to those who disagree with you? Most of us make a
              > series of unfortunate assumptions.
              >
              > 1 The Ignorance Assumption.
              >
              > 2 The Idiocy Assumption.
              >
              > 3 The Evil Assumption.
              >
              > Kathryn Schulz: We generate these incredible stories about the world
              > around us and then the world turns around and astonishes us.
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.