FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Well, I did just invite folks to DEFINE speciation, so we can examine it.
The Age-old Argument
- Thread starter Tekki
- Start date
I haven't read anything but the first page, so don't kick me if
something has been said after that which I should know before posting.
Anyway, my opinion is:..
In the beginning, god created the universe. Pretty soon he got tired on it,
and gone to sleep/####ing himself/whatever gods do if they're
not creating new universes.
And then the evolution stuff carried out of rest.
That's my theory. And I'm actually believing on it.
something has been said after that which I should know before posting.
Anyway, my opinion is:..
In the beginning, god created the universe. Pretty soon he got tired on it,
and gone to sleep/####ing himself/whatever gods do if they're
not creating new universes.
And then the evolution stuff carried out of rest.
That's my theory. And I'm actually believing on it.
Algernon Pondlife
Prince
FL2, I took the time out yesterday to read through the whole thread. There are several points that need to be pursued, but in this post I would like to deal with a small digression that occured a bit back.
On page five you posted (17/05/01) a pointer to file discussing an experiment with light. I have now read that also. It starts with a description of a particular (no pun intended) experiment by the experimenter, laying out his method, results and conclusion. There then follows a dialogue with another person who wishes to verify the validity of the results. The discussion focuses mainly on the method of using the equipment and although there are occasional queries, one from the other, as to their mutual level of understanding of the overall subject, they both appear to know quite a lot about the physics of light.
Now, I have never heard of either of these people. I know nothing of their ability and experience to conduct and interpret such experiments. I don't know whether they are basically competent or not. I do not know any of the background as to the intricate details of light physics as presently understood, nor of other experimental work that may be relevant. There is no indication of peer group review of this work. In short I do not know how to evaluate it.
Can you help me with how you were able to come to the conclusion that the experiment was entirely valid and conclusive such that it has changed our understanding of the physics of light so radically?
On page five you posted (17/05/01) a pointer to file discussing an experiment with light. I have now read that also. It starts with a description of a particular (no pun intended) experiment by the experimenter, laying out his method, results and conclusion. There then follows a dialogue with another person who wishes to verify the validity of the results. The discussion focuses mainly on the method of using the equipment and although there are occasional queries, one from the other, as to their mutual level of understanding of the overall subject, they both appear to know quite a lot about the physics of light.
Now, I have never heard of either of these people. I know nothing of their ability and experience to conduct and interpret such experiments. I don't know whether they are basically competent or not. I do not know any of the background as to the intricate details of light physics as presently understood, nor of other experimental work that may be relevant. There is no indication of peer group review of this work. In short I do not know how to evaluate it.
Can you help me with how you were able to come to the conclusion that the experiment was entirely valid and conclusive such that it has changed our understanding of the physics of light so radically?
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
I commend you on your dedication to simple politeness. I will allow the diversion.
That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish...new post being started. Tentative Title: Peer Review and You(the general public), or 'Could you please pull the wool a little higher, there's a chink of light still hitting my eyes?'
Algernon Pondlife
Prince
FL2,
Just to clarify; are we agreed that the second law of thermodynamics is not relevant to the issue of evolution? Now that you have admitted to a good academic record in science, I have the sneaking suspicion that you knew this all along.
Now, about mutations. There have been many many experiments with fruitflies; there have been many instances of mutations in fruitflies failing to take hold over generations. But I do not know of the experiment that proved that mutations could not survive. Was that conclusion drawn by the experimenters or by later commentators? Can you give me a reference?
I get the distinct impression that your description of variation amongst breeds of dogs somehow suggests an opposite conclusion.
A random mutation at the gene level may be harmful, neutral or beneficial to a creature inheriting it. If it is harmful then the creature has a reduced chance of reproducing successfully and therefore in the long or short term the mutation is very likely to be lost. If it is neutral, then its survival in future generations is dependent on the reproductive success of the host and subsequent generations; its survival is also threatened by competition for its place in the DNA chain and its overall chances of establishing itself are very low. If it is beneficial then these chances are tilted a small way in its favour but remain very low.
In other words most (almost all) genetic mutations fail to establish themselves in the gene pool. This stability is actually a natural concommitant of the whole process. A frenzy of randomly and successfully mutating entities is hard to imagine - there would be no defineable species until the frenzy self-destructed.
You have stated that variation is able to occur within a species but not outside a species boundary. What is your concept of a species boundary? What stops a long series of small changes eventually leading to two (say) populations so disimilar that they can be considered separate species?
Just to clarify; are we agreed that the second law of thermodynamics is not relevant to the issue of evolution? Now that you have admitted to a good academic record in science, I have the sneaking suspicion that you knew this all along.
Now, about mutations. There have been many many experiments with fruitflies; there have been many instances of mutations in fruitflies failing to take hold over generations. But I do not know of the experiment that proved that mutations could not survive. Was that conclusion drawn by the experimenters or by later commentators? Can you give me a reference?
I get the distinct impression that your description of variation amongst breeds of dogs somehow suggests an opposite conclusion.
A random mutation at the gene level may be harmful, neutral or beneficial to a creature inheriting it. If it is harmful then the creature has a reduced chance of reproducing successfully and therefore in the long or short term the mutation is very likely to be lost. If it is neutral, then its survival in future generations is dependent on the reproductive success of the host and subsequent generations; its survival is also threatened by competition for its place in the DNA chain and its overall chances of establishing itself are very low. If it is beneficial then these chances are tilted a small way in its favour but remain very low.
In other words most (almost all) genetic mutations fail to establish themselves in the gene pool. This stability is actually a natural concommitant of the whole process. A frenzy of randomly and successfully mutating entities is hard to imagine - there would be no defineable species until the frenzy self-destructed.
You have stated that variation is able to occur within a species but not outside a species boundary. What is your concept of a species boundary? What stops a long series of small changes eventually leading to two (say) populations so disimilar that they can be considered separate species?
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Oh...my...God. An intelligent argument. Please excuse me whilst I go find a gravy ladel to scrape out my trousers...okay, all done.
First off, allow me to thank you for both the intelligent reply, AND the well-deserved nod to my education.
According to the New and Improved Evolution (TM) definition of a species, it's any population that has a different frequency of gene pairs. Yes, according to evolution, if a population of moths changes from mostly grey with some black moths, to mostly black with some grey moths, a new species has arisen, and evolution has occured. Now, I'm sure we all remember this example from high school Biology as being Natural Selection, and having the lesson drilled home that this was not in fact evolution, but merely an example of part of it. Their tune has changed gentlemen, and I for one am not damncing.
Once they can no longer breed, I will consider them different species. This has never happened in recorded history, admittedly a small period of time, but still...
But let's not forget, that under the new definition of evolution and speciation, that every child is a species unto its own, seperate from its parents. Pardon me if I see this as a complete dodge. If I tried to get away with this, I'd get laughed at. But let these high priests of Establishment Science say it, and it is gospel.
Doesn't anyone else see the double standard?
And BTW Algernon, I have never brought up the Second Law, at least, I don't think I have. At best, it is an unnecessary complication, a distraction from the meat of the argument.
My current position on this matter is that ES, having been shown that its position was untenable, has chosen to adopt the doctrine of Sun Tzu, and create a formless argument, such that it might be unassailable. They have achieved that, to be sure. The frequency of gene pairs in populations does change over time, to a certes. No argument from me on that. But I do flatly deny that such immaterial changes can, over any length of time, cause a species to transform into another. There is no evidence to support or justify that claim. All they are doing is claiming that variation within a species will one day lead to a speciation event, where something that cannot breed with its predecessors results. Mankind has, via the domestication if many animals, caused a series of advanced and highly selective eugenics programs to take place. Despite his every effort to change existing species to suit his needs, every cow breed on earth can breed with other cows, and likewise for cats, dogs, sheep, etc...
The Chihuahua has been bred toward the rodent end of the mammal spectrum, while the Husky has been kept almost pure wolf, yet if a male of one breed, and a female in heat of the other breed are put into a room together, they will copulate, and produce viable mutt offspring, that can breed with any other dog breed or mutt. This despite hundreds of generations(human, that is, thousands of dog generations have taken place during their domestication) of effort.
So indeed, it all boils down to where one draws the line and says, 'here be a new species'. I draw it at a logical point, the ability to have fertile offspring. Evolutionist refuse to draw it at all, which, when you think about it, is the safest thing they can do.
First off, allow me to thank you for both the intelligent reply, AND the well-deserved nod to my education.
Regrettably I no longer have it. It was something I read long ago(oddly enough, in a biology textbook, can you dig it?). I suppose that textbook is now residing either in a dump, or has been recycled into yet another paper product. Then again, my school was almost always on an austerity budget, so it may still be in use.
Well, now, that really is the bone of contention now, isn't it? According to my definition of a species boundary, a sheep begets a sheep, and a dog begets a dog. IE, if it barks, wags its tail, and has a cold wet nose, it's a dog.
According to the New and Improved Evolution (TM) definition of a species, it's any population that has a different frequency of gene pairs. Yes, according to evolution, if a population of moths changes from mostly grey with some black moths, to mostly black with some grey moths, a new species has arisen, and evolution has occured. Now, I'm sure we all remember this example from high school Biology as being Natural Selection, and having the lesson drilled home that this was not in fact evolution, but merely an example of part of it. Their tune has changed gentlemen, and I for one am not damncing.
Once they can no longer breed, I will consider them different species. This has never happened in recorded history, admittedly a small period of time, but still...
But let's not forget, that under the new definition of evolution and speciation, that every child is a species unto its own, seperate from its parents. Pardon me if I see this as a complete dodge. If I tried to get away with this, I'd get laughed at. But let these high priests of Establishment Science say it, and it is gospel.
Doesn't anyone else see the double standard?
And BTW Algernon, I have never brought up the Second Law, at least, I don't think I have. At best, it is an unnecessary complication, a distraction from the meat of the argument.
My current position on this matter is that ES, having been shown that its position was untenable, has chosen to adopt the doctrine of Sun Tzu, and create a formless argument, such that it might be unassailable. They have achieved that, to be sure. The frequency of gene pairs in populations does change over time, to a certes. No argument from me on that. But I do flatly deny that such immaterial changes can, over any length of time, cause a species to transform into another. There is no evidence to support or justify that claim. All they are doing is claiming that variation within a species will one day lead to a speciation event, where something that cannot breed with its predecessors results. Mankind has, via the domestication if many animals, caused a series of advanced and highly selective eugenics programs to take place. Despite his every effort to change existing species to suit his needs, every cow breed on earth can breed with other cows, and likewise for cats, dogs, sheep, etc...
The Chihuahua has been bred toward the rodent end of the mammal spectrum, while the Husky has been kept almost pure wolf, yet if a male of one breed, and a female in heat of the other breed are put into a room together, they will copulate, and produce viable mutt offspring, that can breed with any other dog breed or mutt. This despite hundreds of generations(human, that is, thousands of dog generations have taken place during their domestication) of effort.
So indeed, it all boils down to where one draws the line and says, 'here be a new species'. I draw it at a logical point, the ability to have fertile offspring. Evolutionist refuse to draw it at all, which, when you think about it, is the safest thing they can do.
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
I was just reading through this thread for entertainment value, and to kill time here at work where nothing is happening, but someone has to be on hand to monitor all the computers, and on the third page or so, I said something about Thermodynamics, after Tekki brought it up. My bad.
The funny thing is, while I was reading it, I realized the exact same thing I said above. It is an unneccessary complication, and it is also irrelevant.
A seed, an egg, any biological process by which growth of an organism occurs, is an orderly force, and is working counter to the laws of thermodynamics by its very design.
Think about it. A tree makes a seed, and that seed carries within it a simple factory (an embreyonic tree), and blueprints for a new tree (DNA). That factory eventually is activated, and it begins to work from its plans to construct a new tree. This is the same as a person nailing loose siding back onto his house. The person is preventing a natural force (wind and weather) from degrading an object (his home). Well that seed is preventing a natural force (decay) from further reducing the complexity of soil by absorbing soil nutrients and water, and using them to make more tree.
Life is directly opposed to entropy, so all living things, by the function of living, are acting contrary to entropy and the laws of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics' laws only apply when no countering force exists. Life is a countering force. Given this, it is pointless and misleading to involve thermodynamics in a debate about evolution. All it does is confuse the issue, and waste time.
Of course, it does make for an interesting debate about how life could possibly develop spontaneously, given that it is counter to the laws of energy transfer (thermodynamics).
It almost seems that something must have deliberately inserted life into the universe... 
The funny thing is, while I was reading it, I realized the exact same thing I said above. It is an unneccessary complication, and it is also irrelevant.
A seed, an egg, any biological process by which growth of an organism occurs, is an orderly force, and is working counter to the laws of thermodynamics by its very design.
Think about it. A tree makes a seed, and that seed carries within it a simple factory (an embreyonic tree), and blueprints for a new tree (DNA). That factory eventually is activated, and it begins to work from its plans to construct a new tree. This is the same as a person nailing loose siding back onto his house. The person is preventing a natural force (wind and weather) from degrading an object (his home). Well that seed is preventing a natural force (decay) from further reducing the complexity of soil by absorbing soil nutrients and water, and using them to make more tree.
Life is directly opposed to entropy, so all living things, by the function of living, are acting contrary to entropy and the laws of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics' laws only apply when no countering force exists. Life is a countering force. Given this, it is pointless and misleading to involve thermodynamics in a debate about evolution. All it does is confuse the issue, and waste time.
Of course, it does make for an interesting debate about how life could possibly develop spontaneously, given that it is counter to the laws of energy transfer (thermodynamics).
It almost seems that something must have deliberately inserted life into the universe... 
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
We are advanced monkeys...
End of story.
We monkeys invented silly religions to exlpain things we didn't understand...
Luckily we had some very wise monkeys who put two and two together and realised where we came from...We evolved! Isn't it obvious?
Anyone who clings to the notion that we are all bred from one couple of humans called "adam and eve"...This christian fairy tale is one of the more dubious and draconian concepts that some people still believe today. (as well as santa claus)
Every culture has creation myths, but we move on, well, most of us, at least...
Science has won this argument long ago...
End of story.
We monkeys invented silly religions to exlpain things we didn't understand...
Luckily we had some very wise monkeys who put two and two together and realised where we came from...We evolved! Isn't it obvious?
Anyone who clings to the notion that we are all bred from one couple of humans called "adam and eve"...This christian fairy tale is one of the more dubious and draconian concepts that some people still believe today. (as well as santa claus)
Every culture has creation myths, but we move on, well, most of us, at least...
Science has won this argument long ago...
Magnus
Diplocat
Excellent post, FearlessLeader2, I agree that life runs counter to entropy.
A question for you.
If God created life, who or what created God?
A question for you.
If God created life, who or what created God?
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
I don't know, but He claims to have always existed. Since there was no one around to counter His version, I'm willing, based on His past record of truthfulness, to accept this testimony
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Originally posted by CurtSibling
We are advanced monkeys...
End of story.
Science has won this argument long ago...
Read the whole thread, and then say that again.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
I have read it, FL2,
And I still denounce any creation myth.
We evolved.
End of story. (again)
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Ah, well, YOU said it. It must be true then. I guess I'll have to become an evolutionist now...
Proof, butt-munch. Got any?
Proof, butt-munch. Got any?
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
I have proof that you are less evolved, you resort to name calling, almost instantly.
Read Darwins theory. And those of scientists and thinkers including Aristotle, Babbage, Wallace, and many others.
Read up on this:
www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evolution.html
Then denounce it if you want. I'll just laugh at you.
PS FL2,
I am not having a personal attack on you.
And neither do I have any desire to argue or lock horns with you.
You have allan to do that.
Like you, I have an opinion, and I don't expect everyone to agree in a mindless fashion. So calm down. I respect your opinion.
I wont give you big long diatribes, just staight talk,
So watch you manners, before you call names, pal.
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
I'll go check your link, but let's get a few ground rules straight.
1) Right now, by dint of superior logic, evidentiary weight, and eloquence, I am king of the mountain, and that means the burden of proof is on your side, not mine. I have nine pages of thread in which I am the clear leader to back that up.
2) 'Because I said so.' and phrases to that effect, are NOT admissible as arguments, and attempting to enter them as such is grounds for immediate scorn, abuse, and disrespect. You want to not get name-called, don't use that argument.
3) The kid gloves are basically off with you already, because you started off by breaking ground rule #2. You want them put back on, well, we'll see what's in your link, but from now on, you argue with YOUR words, not someone else's.
Oh, and as far as who died and made me boss of this thread, that would be Tekki.
1) Right now, by dint of superior logic, evidentiary weight, and eloquence, I am king of the mountain, and that means the burden of proof is on your side, not mine. I have nine pages of thread in which I am the clear leader to back that up.
2) 'Because I said so.' and phrases to that effect, are NOT admissible as arguments, and attempting to enter them as such is grounds for immediate scorn, abuse, and disrespect. You want to not get name-called, don't use that argument.
3) The kid gloves are basically off with you already, because you started off by breaking ground rule #2. You want them put back on, well, we'll see what's in your link, but from now on, you argue with YOUR words, not someone else's.
Oh, and as far as who died and made me boss of this thread, that would be Tekki.
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Your link goes to a link page, and not to any specific argument. So basically, not only are these not your words, you apparently didn't have anything in mind to say except to parrot what anyone supporting your opinion had to say.
Not exactly a powerful argument.
Not exactly a powerful argument.
I'm sorry to ask, but when you say that life runs counter to entropy, what is the system you consider?
Because saying that implies that there exists a (closed) system where entropy is destroyed. So what is that system, and why is entropy destroyed?
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
In trying to explain what I meant, I have come to realize that I used a bad analogy. What I meant to say was that life tends to concentrate and store energy, in opposition to the laws of thermodynamics, which show how energy is dissipated and transmitted.
Sorry for the confusion. I was associating entropy with thermodynamics, which makes a kind of sense, but is too narrow a focus. Life prevents energy from dissipating the way it should, and that tends to stagnate entropy, but does not stop it completely.
To illustrate my point: the solar radiation that hits the earth should be absorbed and reflected away based upon earth's albedo. The earth should reach an energy equilibrium with this radiation, get to a certain temperature, and stay there, and all further energy income be offset by an equal energy radiation in the form of reflection and heat dissipation into space. Plants, however, soak up this energy, and use it to photosynthesize sugars. This is the first step in energy storage by life. These plants can then either be eaten and stored in an animal as fat, or be fossilized and the energy further refined to be stored as coal or oil. Because plants are doing this, there is a continual absorption of energy above and beyond the albedo-based energy equilibrium that should be maintained.
Life is altering the energy dissipation rate of the universe. Not by much, but the alteration is there. That is what I meant.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
Listen, FL2. And listen well...
I do not know if you are having trouble understanding plain English...I told you I was not arguing with you or anyone.
I merely gave you that link to illustrate what I was talking about. Obviously it is not my site...I thought you might find it interesting.
Why would I desire to win some argument or contest that only exists in your head? Calm your self down, boy.
There is no contest or argument between us...I post for fun, not to prove some crusading battle...You, however are far too serious.
I do not post to beat down people's opinion. I have more interesting things to do than engage in the pointless rants you and allan are fond of.
I have stated already that I respect your opinion, now you respect mine. OK?
I laugh at these mildly childish contests on the threads, and like to get some debates going.
But your delusion about "kid gloves" being off? What the heck are you talking about? I am not in an argument with you.
Your comments about me "parroting" others would be offensive to others, but since I like your sardonic wit, I will let you off this time, my son. (Say some of your prayers for penance)
Stop treating my post like attacks on you, they are not.
I never said "I am right, you are wrong, FL2". Get over it.
This tit-for-tat nonsense stops now.
And I stick to my original stance. But I'll edit it a little for you.
"I find the evolution theory the most convincing and real."
Happy, Fearless one?
(Maybe I should have said that in the first place)
Sheesh, let's move on!
Magnus
Diplocat
Entropy exists in both open and closed systems, it is the ultimate 'result' of everything. The earth is in a temporary open system because of the energy released from the sun, wihout which there can be no life, because no energy can be infused to create order out of chaos. Nature prefers disorder to order, but a surplus of energy can delay and even reverse that process of decay.
