The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Three: The Return of the KOing!

[Dionysius]

carlito
OK maybe not exactly before but alongside indeed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperCroc

65 million years is a long enough "gap" - isn't it?
And this croc isn't VERY much different from nowadays ones.

Sarcosuchus (IPA pronunciation: [ˌsα(r)ko'sukəs]), and meaning "flesh crocodile") is an extint genus of crocodile. It dates from the early Cretaceous of Africa, and is one of the largest giant crocodile-like reptiles that ever lived. It was almost twice as long as the largest modern crocodile, and weighed up to 10 times as much.

civ2, it may have escaped your notice, but that thing aint no crocodile.
the mistake is comparable to calling an ape a monkey.
as regards to other crocodiles, they just had a useful and adaptable body and stuck with it.

 

[civ2]

TLC
By all means 65m years is the least they suggest.

Dionysius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodile
OK.

 

[The Last Conformist]

TLC
By all means 65m years is the least they suggest.

Sigh. No, the least they suggest is about 100 Mya.

 

[carlosMM]

civ2, first of all, 110 Mio a is quite different from 155 Mio a (which you would need for 'before' dionsaurs).

Second, Sarcosuchus is quite different in its anatomy from modern crocodiles.

Compare these drawings of the skull boney with recent crocodilians and see for yourself....

sorry, but if you think that Sarcosuchus is living today, then you are just too ignorant to understand basic anatomy


You are correctt hat there were crocodiles in dinosaur times, but they were significantly different from todays species

 

[Souron]

My my...
Gravity is not a CONSTANT force but rather a permanent one - it is NOT constant through time as the very mass of all objects (including Earth) is constantly changing.
And g is also not constant because it changes with distance.
The changes are veeeery small - but it doesn't make it CONSTANT.
Also g at the equator and at poles is a bit different due to Earth's shape - it's not round but rather "geoidal".

How do you know?

My point is not to discuss facts here, but to establish what is the best way to come to conclutions about how the world works.

Now, nihilistic.
I can believe you and others about such things simply because they can be easily measured and the error dismissed.
As I said, any statement connected with (long and beyond humanity) time CAN'T be checked and [dis]proved.
Which leaves it in a state of theory until we discover a time machine.
There's no proof other then scientists' theories that those bones belonged to animals of some different species.
They might have been either mutations of the known species - or the extinct ones.
BUT this doesn't mean the ones we have now EVOLVED from those!
They might be neighbours rather than relatives.
We can't check the very flow of evolution - again due to our time-related limitations.

A scientific theory is the highest degree of certainty possible in science. Evolution will never be more than a theory, because a scientific theory is the best there is. "Fact" is not a scientific term, but both laws and theories can be considered facts of equal validity.

carlito
OK maybe not exactly before but alongside indeed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperCroc

65 million years is a long enough "gap" - isn't it?
And this croc isn't VERY much different from nowadays ones.

You're breaking your own arguement here. The main reason that looks so simmilar to a crock is because the artist knew it's supposed to look like one. It's the bones that provide evidence to differences, not an artists rendition.

You are correct that some species evolved less significantly then other, but the corcodile is not the best example.

 

[civ2]

Souron
There are things that are too well-known to be considered falsificable.
And there are things that can't be checked - such things MUST be considered falsificable.
Also - a fact is an event that really took place and there are witnesses of it.
Theories and "laws" can't be facts because they do not mean events.
The "theory of gravity" is not a fact - Newton's apple (and any similar falling objects) is a fact.
You an rely on facts (at least you can prove/disprove them) - but you can't rely on theories.
The number of guys "creating and proving" a theory has no significanse.
It's much like we see in the US courts where 12 people must make a decision.
But it's obvious that most of them are not capable of judging REALLY unbias.
That's the human nature - to be bias.
And in both cases the biased mind makes all it takes to "prove" something he/she wants to "prove".

I liked the word CORCODILE.

 

[The Last Conformist]

There are things that are too well-known to be considered falsificable.
And there are things that can't be checked - such things MUST be considered falsificable.

Impressive. I couldn't got it more wrong even if I had a whole staff of experts of wrongness to help me.

 

[Souron]

And how can you PROVE the thing you can't check?
An unprovable thing doesn't have to be disproved!

Theories are not proven they are "verified". That is, when a scientist comes up with a theory, that theory has to make experimentally testable predictions, that contradict previous theory or explain a phenomina that was previously though to be random.

With paleantology, archeology, history, and other sciences studing the past, this is not always possible. But sometimes it is. For example, Darwin explained how finches on different islands of the Galapagos, grew to be so simmilar, yet with addapations to the specific climate of there islands. This conclution was generalised to all other animals. For example it has been found that turtles on the islands show much more destinct adaptaition, but are still internally very simmilar.

Still, verification is an example of how the scientific method is not just a elietist ploy by scientists to get recognition, but actually a reliable system that ensures scientific results are accurate.

Also, besides verification through further experimentation, initial observation can be used to support a theory too. In Darwin's example, darwin observed something he found odd, and built a theory to explain it. To this day, darwin's theory of evolution is the best explanation to why Galapagos finches are so simmilar, but yet different from island to island.

 

[civ2]

The error is in the very GENERALIZATION.
Adaptation CAN be checked (by comparing and by experiments with fast-living beings).
This has nothing to do with evolution!
Adaptation doesn't create new form of higher rank than species.
Thus the rest of the evolutionary theory is uncheckable.
Adaptation is based on "recombination" - like selecting out eg. "the tall" over "the short" - but this won't make a "short" "faster" or a "long" into the "longer".
First one is a NEW parameter and second one is an upgrade of a current feature.
Both can't be made by adaptation only.
See somewhere my post about a desert-planted tree.
That's adaptation - not evolution.
Conclusion - adaptation can't prove evolution.

 

[Souron]

Souron
There are things that are too well-known to be considered falsificable.
And there are things that can't be checked - such things MUST be considered falsificable.

The only things that cannot be checked are those things that do not interact with anything that we interact. For example, if something exists trillions of light years away, and the univerce is only a few billion year old, then that thing cannot be checked. There is also an "Uncertainty Principle" that prevents some natural phenomina from being fully described.

Everything else leaves a mark on the world. And we can observe that mark.

Now sometimes we have to guess what made that mark. For example if there is a bloody handprint on a wall we can assume that it was made by a human. Is there 100% proof that it was made by a human? no, it could have been made by a vulcan who beamed in, left a handprint, and beamed out. But surely that is not the best explanation. That's what paleantology seaks to do, find the most likely explanations for handprints, footprints, and even bones found in the earth.

Also - a fact is an event that really took place and there are witnesses of it.

So if I kill somebody in my own house, with no wittnesses, it'd didn't really happen because there are no wittnesses.

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there, does it make a sound? Of course it does.

"Theories and "laws" can't be facts because they do not mean events.
The "theory of gravity" is not a fact - Newton's apple (and any similar falling objects) is a fact.
You an rely on facts (at least you can prove/disprove them) - but you can't rely on theories.

You have an interesting definition of a fact. So according to you a fact is an event that happened. A law is an event that tends to happen. And a theory is something that explains the facts and laws, answering the question "Why?".

How do you prove that Newton whatched an apple fall from a tree? or was it that it hit him on the head?
That's not a very verifiable fact, is it?

The world works in exactly one way. That is there is only one right way to describe it. Either evolution is right or some alternative theory is right. Science has a method for determining which of to theories is right. Back to the bloody handprint example: It is possible to discount the possibility that vulcans beamed in and left the hand print, because there has never been any other example of vulcans existing exept is Star Treck. Simmilarly science discounts convoluted theories that are convoluted when there is a much simpler explanation of things.

The number of guys "creating and proving" a theory has no significanse.

I agree, exept that a experiments are supposed to be repeatable. So the more people repeat experiments proposed by a theory and get positive results, the more likely the theory is true.

Furthermore, a mass of people is not likely to conspire, but a sometimes individuals do lie, or fudge results to better suit there data.

But this is not really relivant to evolution. Evolution has a lot of supporters, and there isn't a single qualified scientist argueing against it on scientific grounds.


It's much like we see in the US courts where 12 people must make a decision.
But it's obvious that most of them are not capable of judging REALLY unbias.
That's the human nature - to be bias.
And in both cases the biased mind makes all it takes to "prove" something he/she wants to "prove".[/QUOTE]

 

[Truronian]

Civ2:

Archeologists find a fossil.
Biologists notice similarities between the fossil and, say, cats
They then come up with an evolutionary paths by which these former evolved into the latter
They thus have many intermediate species which can act as a check
A few months later, archeologists discover a fossil that matches one of the hypothesised intermediate species.
Understand evolution now?

 

[Che Guava]

The error is in the very GENERALIZATION.

Civ2, the whole idea of coming up with theories, laws, etc is to make broad generalizations about the world we live in, then put them to scrutiny until we find the ones that stick.

What you seem to be interested in is pre-newton 'Aristotle-ian science' (IIR the term correctly... ) which basically states that everything is completetly different from everything else, and that no rules can be applied. YOu can see how far that got people.

Adaptation CAN be checked (by comparing and by experiments with fast-living beings).
This has nothing to do with evolution!
Adaptation doesn't create new form of higher rank than species.
Thus the rest of the evolutionary theory is uncheckable.

What are you saying exactly here? Are you saying that adaptation can lead to speciation, just not the creation of new genera, families, phyla etc? Or just that speciation doesn't occur? And yes, you can observe speciation in the lab with bacteria....

Adaptation is based on "recombination" - like selecting out eg. "the tall" over "the short" - but this won't make a "short" "faster" or a "long" into the "longer". First one is a NEW parameter and second one is an upgrade of a current feature.
Both can't be made by adaptation only.

You talk in riddles, sir. Are you saying that selection only happens one trait at a time? If only the world were so simple, i could be done my thesis by now

And why cant you adapt to be longer...?

See somewhere my post about a desert-planted tree.
That's adaptation - not evolution.
Conclusion - adaptation can't prove evolution

No one says that it does! Selection and mutation do, and they are both very real.

 

[The Last Conformist]

And yes, you can observe speciation in the lab with bacteria.

With insects too, as it happens.

 

[Souron]

The error is in the very GENERALIZATION.
Adaptation CAN be checked (by comparing and by experiments with fast-living beings).

So only finches can evolve and only on the Galapagos islands? Generalising to all animals is not a big streach. Generalising to all time is one of the basic assumptions of science: that any phenominon can be reproduced, given the right conditions, irrelivant of where, when, why, and a few other conditions.

This has nothing to do with evolution!
Adaptation doesn't create new form of higher rank than species.

What is a species anyways? It's just an arbitrairy distiction between animals. Darwin later showed how he could bread from ordinary pigeons compleatly different looking birds. If darwin could do it by artificial selection, working with a small number of birds, it is not a large streach to say that the same process can occur in the wild, albiet slower.

Thus the rest of the evolutionary theory is uncheckable.
Adaptation is based on "recombination" - like selecting out eg. "the tall" over "the short" - but this won't make a "short" "faster" or a "long" into the "longer".
First one is a NEW parameter and second one is an upgrade of a current feature.
Both can't be made by adaptation only.

Long into longer is fairly simmple, given how polygenic traits work. Because there are so may genetic factors that effect how long or tall an animal's body is, it's fairy simmple adaptation to have the longer animals survive and make there ofspring even longer.

Short into faster, is not what happens. More likely there is a set of genes that determine how fast an animal can run. Slower animals die, and their slow genes get eliminated from the gene pool.

New genes can also be created, because most of an animal's genetic code serves absolutely no purpose. It creates proteins that fall apart or do nothing. If an animals DNA was modified just slightly, but in the right way, it is possible that it would aquire a new trait. DNA mutation is not hard to come by.

Conclusion - adaptation can't prove evolution.

Adaptation is evolution happening slowly. Evolution is significant adaptation.

 

[civ2]

Selection and mutation are the tools of adaptation.
First comes mutation and then by selection we have adaptation.
I mean if we have a colony of birds in a forest full of fruits their beaks and digestion will "change" accordingly - but if they don't possess the ability to eat those fruits (say poisonous) - then they WON'T adapt to them.
They'll just starve and that's all.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

But a mutation can arise in certain birds that allows them to digest the poison. This has happened with clownfish and the like who came up with mutations to survive in their environment (in the case of clownfish, sea anemones that are poisonous to others).

 

[El_Machinae]

Edit: humans too. People mutated to be able to consume milk in their adult years.

With insects too, as it happens.

To a population that can breed within itself, but can no longer breed with the wild-type?

If so, do you have a source? That would be a nail in the coffin.

 

[The Last Conformist]

To a population that can breed within itself, but can no longer breed with the wild-type?

If so, do you have a source? That would be a nail in the coffin.

Can't find the thing I was thinking of in a hurry, but here's a big pile of nails: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Section 5.3.1 has an instance of insects speciating in the lab.

 

[warpus]

I mean if we have a colony of birds in a forest full of fruits their beaks and digestion will "change" accordingly - but if they don't possess the ability to eat those fruits (say poisonous) - then they WON'T adapt to them.
They'll just starve and that's all.

But say that 1 bird, by a random mutation that happened when it was being born, is able to digest the 'poison' without dying, and is able to extract nutrients from it.

This bird is far more likely to survive in this scenario, and far more likely to pass on the gene that allows it to digest that particular fruit.

A couple generations later this might be a trait of that species - the ability to digest that particular fruit.

 

[Souron]

Selection and mutation are the tools of adaptation.
First comes mutation and then by selection we have adaptation.

Exactly.

But It's not just beaks. The color might change to enable them to hide better from preditors. Now the birds with the original would still be around, for a little bit, but more of them would die than the new colored birds. And perhalps claws might change to allow them to better grip the branches. And other attributes might change too. In no time you get a compleatly different bird.

This is directional selection. But there are also disruptive selection. That's when instead of it being prudent for all birds to grow longer beaks, the best beaks are either long beaks, or short beaks, but not medium sized beaks. After a time you will have no medium sized beaked birds. As before other adaptaions might happen to the birds. The big beaked birds might grow bigger wings, while the small beaked birds, might grow smaller to avoid perditors better. Eventually the adaptations become so different that the two birds are not of the same species.

The last kind of selection is stabilizing selection. This bassically makes the other two types of selections more extreme. It happends durring ecological change that makes survival harder, and therefore the defining traits of a species more important. For example if there was a shortage of berries, the birds with the best beaks would get them all, making more good beaked birds in the next generation. When coupled with directional or disruptive selection, this makes adaptation happen faster.

I mean if we have a colony of birds in a forest full of fruits their beaks and digestion will "change" accordingly - but if they don't possess the ability to eat those fruits (say poisonous) - then they WON'T adapt to them.
They'll just starve and that's all.

This is extinction. I happend when a species cannot adapt fast enough to a changing enviroment. Normally berries don't sudenly become poisonous. In fact berries generally evolve to be more tasty for the birds. But if all the birds were to die, something would need to take their place; there is a lot of uneaten fruit, and an animal that could feed off it would feast like a king indead. So perhalps some rodent, with a natual emunity to the poison, starts eating the fruit. So you got disruptive selection happening with rodents.

These four phenomina basically explain how evolution works.

Edit: a slight technical note: Adaptation is when a single or small number animal survives in a changed enviroment. Selection is when a large group changes over several generation. With bacteria the two words are practially the same thing, but with animals it might be clearer to make the distinction. This post talks about natural selection.