MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
De-volution? (Life Sciences)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Denying evolution is tantamount to denying the weather. The method by which evolution occurs is at question.

Read what I wrote again.

Natural selection exists. The question is, can it and does it account for evolution -- or is its impact of minor consequence, akin to the wind's abiliy to shape the final form of a growing tree.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Oh, OK. Your fault, I think.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Did you see the thing about haemophilia in the royal families?

Recessive genes, probabilities and sheer luck are one thing, but what confused me was that they said a third of all cases of haemophilia are new, not inherited. Does that mean it's an incredibly commonly occurring mutation
?

No, didn't see nuffink. The increase in cases of haemophilia might be due to people having more partners; it used to be considered a rare ailment. Weren't royals more inbred than the norm?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Yer missing the point. Haemophilia is supposed to be inherited -- you can't catch it. Unless you're saying that people are having more children by different partners....an interesting concept. Would that materially affect genetics....somebody work it out.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

In a sense haemophilia is "catching" if one of the parents is a carrier; you only know you're a carrier when one of the children turns out to be a haemophiliac. Interviewing people intent on selecting a sexual partner is like watching social Darwinism in action, it's claimed that women are looking for 'niceness' as well as good looks, fitness and so on, it's all very impersonal-seeming but 'niceness' is a bit of a give-away. Even in business, cited as the best example of a 'dog eat dog' environment, unless someone is completely free of attachments like a spy, at some stage someone they think is 'nice' will be promoted.
Send private message
Pulp History


In: Wales
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Yer missing the point. Haemophilia is supposed to be inherited -- you can't catch it. Unless you're saying that people are having more children by different partners....an interesting concept. Would that materially affect genetics....somebody work it out.

I suppose it would accelerate the rate of gene mixing / sharing, as what would normally take several generational pairings is now more commonly done in one.
_________________
Question everything!
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Maybe haemophilia is more widespread because, paradoxically, the disease is treatable; where formerly sufferers commonly died before they were old enough to bear children, now they live longer and can pass on the gene. It's tempting to think this is nature's way of ensuring miscreant genes don't prevail through aborting the parent as it were but it doesn't apply to cancer. [Medical advance, by prolonging life expectancy, has increased the prevalence of cancer though, or is that being simplistic?]

It seems shockingly irresponsible, to an outsider, for a haemophiliac aware of being a carrier to risk transmitting the gene but it's a 50/50 chance (and, in the case of royals, essential to continue the line); there's no law - yet - against people, or dogs, with defective genes having children/litters.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Maybe haemophilia is more widespread because, paradoxically, the disease is treatable; where formerly sufferers commonly died before they were old enough to bear children, now they live longer and can pass on the gene.

That'd make sense, but we dunno whether it is more widespread: the point is that a third of cases of this genetic disease are not inherited.

It seems shockingly irresponsible, to an outsider, for a haemophiliac aware of being a carrier to risk transmitting the gene but it's a 50/50 chance (and, in the case of royals, essential to continue the line)

Yes, they said Prince Leopold was a little bleeder, but Queen Victoria kept quiet about it because it would ruin his chances of marriage.
Send private message
Pulp History


In: Wales
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Why did this genetic change spread so successfully? There is no evidence that blue eyes help people survive. Perhaps the trait was associated with paler skin, which admits more of the sunlight needed for the synthesis of vitamin D. That would be especially important as people may have had more descendants chiefly because they happened to be more attractive to the opposite sex in that geographic region. Either way, the explanation leads straight back to Darwin's two theories - natural and sexual selection.

Maybe they had beer!! That usually results in anybody getting laid.
_________________
Question everything!
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

According to a report in the Mail, (Nov 2018) we are all (both humans and animals), descended from a solitary couple who happily survived a catastrophe, that nearly wiped out all life about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

https://dailym.ai/2DVsI1p


Who would Adam and Eve it......?


This is either cutting edge science or Sunday school science, or both..
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It all began quietly enough

Harriet Vered commented on a post from December 2, 2018.
This evening Dawkins said on BBC Radio 4 that Darwinian evolution is a fact. What? We know it isn't, it's always been the Theory of Evolution. I have no problem with Dawkins believing it but he ended his programme telling us we must only trust the evidence. What he omitted to tell us is the missing link hasn't been found. I'm not a creationist, nor any -ist for that matter, but I support honesty. So, Richard, let's call a Theory a theory shall we?

I will only cite the exchanges between Hatty and Jasem since both represent archetypes – the compulsive revisionist versus the defender of orthodoxy. Though Jasem’s language is not always very academic, his psychology is familiar from the behaviour and attitudes of (currently) Anglo-Saxonists.

Jasem Kashani
Someone needs to educate you on the scientific term "Theory".
Like the "Pythagoras Theorem", that's fact.
Theory of Gravitational Acceleration? Fact.
Theory of Ohms Law? Yeah, That's a fact too.

This is fair comment. Both Jasem and Hatty are highlighting, in their separate ways, an unsolved problem in epistemology: human beings just have no way of knowing, and signally their knowing, what is absolutely true, what is near-as-damnit true, true for present purposes true and so on. There are textbook definitions of what is a law, a theory, a theorem, a hypothesis, a proposal and so on but nobody takes much notice of the labels. Or bothers to change them as the evidence accumulates (or doesn't). Jasem however spoils a good case by adding a rider

I've got a Real Theory - I theorize you're about as intelligent as a cockroach. Congratulations
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Hatty confirms this by indulging in premature patronisation, a rookie mistake

Harriet Vered
Bless, you're talking about a scientific theory that's taught as an article of faith. Usually inconsistencies are a sign that something's not quite right with a theory. Unless of course the theorists have decided in advance they're right in which case they'd rather be burnt at the stake than retract. Even a devotee of Darwinian evolution will concede 'more research is needed'. But not academic biologists who have been glossing over any inconsistencies.

Allowing Jasem to claim the high ground

Jasem Kashani
Bless... Someone doesn't realise biology is a science, which utilises scientific theory. Also, as an atheist, your 'Bless' is less valuable to me than dog turd. Let me guess... if evolution doesn't exist, a bearded bloke in the clouds wished us all into existence instead?

This also was a mistake. Hatty had already said she wasn’t a creationist but in Jasem’s world there can only be Evolutionists and Creationists. It allowed Hatty to now indulge in some proper patronising

Harriet Vered
Let me bless you, Jasem, by explaining the difference. It is a fact that living beings on earth have evolved over time because we have copious evidence of it in the form of the fossil record. The mechanism for this process is presently 'a theory' – that this happens via natural selection and genetic mutation. The only scientific evidence for this theory -- in the form of millions of induced fruit fly mutations under controlled conditions – has not thus far produced true speciation. So it may be time to canvass other possibilities. What we in the trade call hypotheses, the best of which may in time become A Theory.

This is, one would have thought, difficult to argue against, being a fair summation of the present state of play (albeit couched in AE terms) but Jasem, like all upholders of orthodox paradigms, insists on defending it against enemies that were dispatched long, long ago...
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Jasem Kashani
Yeah, we've got no current proof of evolution... Except in mammals (humans in this case): https://www.sciencemag.org/.../humans-are-still-evolving... Or Birds...: https://www.sciencemag.org/.../humans-are-still-evolving... Or fish......: https://www.newscientist.com/.../2124873-these-fish-are.../ Or reptiles......: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/.../lizard-evolution.../ Or insects........: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib.../news/100901_bedbugs

That accounts for the majority of animal groups in the world and that's happening over the space of years. Not decades, not centuries, not millennia, but years.

This is characteristic of Defenders of the Paradigm. They suppose that by reiterating Holy Writ enough times their opponents will fall to the ground and start worshipping the True God. They never do but it never stops them trying. We get it all the time from Anglo-Saxonists. "Why won't you believe us, here's someone else saying it and he's a professor." But Jasem does add an interesting point

But you "Canvas for Other Possibilities" The real world will accept it and move on.

He demonstrates the problem. The world does not canvas for other possibilities because it has no intention of moving on. It has found its God. Darwinism goes back to the 1850’s and the only ‘moving on’ that has taken place since is the insertion of genetics in the early nineteen hundreds. Darwinism has been replaced but only with Neo-Darwinism (the correct technical term for The Theory). But again poor old Jasem decides to tackle the man and not the ball

I hear people are still debating the flatness of the earth - perhaps you could "Canvas for Other Possibilities" about whether or not the earth is a oblate spheroid?

giving Hatty the opportunity at last to set the trap.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Darwinian Evolution has one glaring weakness and it’s called the Living Ancestor Paradox. The process of speciation via natural selection takes a long time so, as a matter of definition, the ancestral species has to co-exist for a considerable period alongside the evolved species as the natural selection plays out. Indeed, the ancestor might survive indefinitely in habitats where it has a competitive advantage over the daughter species (even out-survive it). Thus at any one point in time there will be two types of species in the world:
1. Those that still have their ancestor species around and
2. Those that don’t.

If we take the present moment in time, when there are several million species around, they too must be divided into 1) and 2). So an AE-ist asks a Darwinian Evolutionist to name a species in category one, and then stands back to watch the fireworks

Harriet Vered
Can you point out a living species that has a living ancestor (i.e. not extinct)?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Unfortunately, Hatty has the intelligence of a cockroach, and hadn’t asked the question in exactly the correct way. But that is all to the good because you can watch as a typical Defender of the Paradigm concentrates on dispatching his tormentor rather than ever, ever, thinking about his blessèd paradigm.

Jasem Kashani
You only asked for one - easy: Dogs and Wolves. Your very question shows a complete lack of understanding of "natural selection" i.e. 'survival of the fittest'. Most species have wiped out their ancestors! Natural Selection = Evolution. I really hope you don't study anything science-based... Or god help you

I have to say Hatty scrambles quite well to repair the damage

Harriet Vered
You make my point for me. Dogs and wolves only speciated because of human selection, not natural selection. And since they both co-exist, your other point about species wiping out their ancestors seems wide of the mark as well.

But Jaseem shows unexpected resources of his own

Jasem Kashani
OK - you want another without human input? Brown Bears are the ancestors of Polar bears. Next? The second point is the entire basis of natural selection, if it was any closer to the mark it'd be a singularity. Come on Harriet, I've conceded to two people today so far - don't give up now. I love being wrong probably more than I do being right!

That would make him unique in the annals of the human species but can Hatty make it three concessions in a row for Jasem?
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Jump to:  
Page 2 of 3

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group