Milken

The whole, "When was Jesus born" has been 100% refuted by yours truly in the philo and religion section. It's also not very relevant, however, Genesis is very much so.

The article about about the Evolution/Genesis differences is very interesting, some of those I was completely unware of. One interesting insight is Genesis says there's light before there's a sun which seems completely ridiculous but our physics model is clear, there were a lot of photons present at big bang.

Are there people with black eyes? Most people have dark brown eyes. I've never seen any black eyes, but if there are I imagine their skin is black, literally.

Skye already explained that there would be a random walk in complexity' date=' bounded at the low end. I though you agreed with that. Who is saying that evolution [i']only[/i] results in or occurs from deletions?

Yes sir, I definitely do agree. I use trend as an observation of what has already happened. It has no "power". The random walk in complexity produced a forward trend. Sorry, I feel like a philospher.

Once again I apologize for my misleading phrases, stated more clearly in the responce to Hal.

Creationists do all the time, they say that variation causes a decrease in information, denying any additive mutation being beneficial, as they are all bad things, therefore (macro) evolution cannot occur. Another specious (excuse the pun) argument picked up on by Milken

Thank you for almost giving me a compliment = ). I'm not denying that additions exist, only stating that evolution can not occur as we know it without additions causing novell function.

But if you understood all the posts that were made about this you would see that this is wrong. Looseing base paires does not equate to loosing infomation or complexity. Genes can influence other genes' date=' and all sorts of other interelatedness can happen.

[/quote']

 

Loosing information(defined as base pairs) doesn't equate with loosing information = ). Maybe you mean function, we all should agree that a vast majority of observable mutations are negative, 1/100,000(Huxley's commonly accepted figure, only one is beneficial) or 1/1,000,000(Dawkins, only one is beneficial) both ofcourse are speculation.

 

You say the deletion of base pairs doesn't cause equate with a loss of information or complexity, we can pretend it doesn't and say some are neutral(which they are, supposedly). What I'm probaly ignorant of is the studies showing clear deletions of base pairs giving rise to novell function or producing vertical evolution to a higher taxaa.

Well, the problem is simply that your definition does not match the actual termini used to describe evolution. And they were in fact misleading.

I agree, the illusion is misleading.

There are for instance bacteria that have adapted to parasitic life-styles and in that process eliminated a lot of its own core genome (a more dramatic examples are probabl plastids and mitochondria). In your definition this would be accounted as "backward" or at least as de-evolution. However the process is clearly evolution and not the reversal of it.

As such your definitions are simply not suited or accurate enough to describe this. Sorry.

I agree 100% that it's possible for information in a genome to be removed and provide an adaptation as we've observed in bacteria. Is this the norm, or the exception, especially for all species? The surmisation (<-- word check) is based on the accumalative, overall trend of mutations that remove information for the genome. The observation is not local, but global. If it were local, your analysis is perfect and the idea falsified.

Evolution as defined is undirected, without purpose, or goal. The accumalative overall trend at some point has to add information(novel function) in order for evolution to happen with the variety of species we have today. This is the assumed positive, "forward trend" of evolution. It had to have happened.

In my opinion, an accumalative, overall trend of removing informtion will NEVER result in the variety of species we have today. It's not possible because information is not being added (novell function). It's agreed, as I think I did earlier, it's possible to lose information and adpat. How does the prokaryote to eukaryote to multicell to softbody etc chain go without adding information? There'd only be bacteria here.

Understandibly those who think evolution is perfectly reasonalble and is as factual as gravity call all change evolution and de-evolution is "taking a shot" at the all explaining ToE. With all due respect to the omnipotent ToE, even my idea of, devolution falls into evolution because evolution does not specify a direction.

The tailbone houses the sacrum which makes the upper and lower body "one piece", adds balance, you also use you're tailbone in retaining "bodily fluid".

I've said this atleast 3-4 times. I'm in no way, shape or form, no matter what it appears to be, or look. Evolution is NOTsuppose to be directed, all the randomness eventually leads to things that "work", I call this moving forward. I swear I've stated this a zillion times. It's very much like Gould's example.

Also, I've made a . . . . mistake, I admit. I erroneously used deleterious for deletion. When I orignally used deletion, in defining the "coined" (yes I'm aware it's not scientifically defined) term de-evolution, it was intended to be for the deletion of base pairs(information in the genome, individual cell). Hypothetically, if an organism continues to get mutations that delete information, I call de-evolution. An organism with a smaller genome will not evolve vertically (to an organism requiring more information) by mutations that delete information.

It is finished, I'm not re-explaining this 100 more times. Feel free to disagree. To reiterate what I'll have to again anyway, Skye's post is very similar to my feelings or you could say the illusion of moving forward if you want. For some reason, no amount of verbage makes my point clear, and it's definitely my fault.

If you need 180, he probaly means from all animals combined, or maybe ones in the past that used to be considered vestigal but now we know the function. In the humans the tailbone is very much needed and used. I'm not an expert but I'm not familiar with no where near that amount.

"Better adapted" is not the same as "forward." A trait can be an advantage, a disadvantage or neither; it all depends on the circumstances of the environment. If you use it in the sense of "whichever way I move is forward" then it's true (and trivially so) but that's a strange, and not particularly useful, definition of "forward."

Better adapted is essentially what I'm calling forward.

 

"Survival of the fittest" is a very rough description and really not a good way to paraphrase "heritable variations lead to differential reproductive success." It's not a tautology.

I don't think it is now, but it was, same with homology.

lucky that no-one trys to explain planetgenesis with the ToE then.

Plants are tough on the theory of evolution.

on the contrary' date=' the initial premises of evolution are entirely justified.

 

the earth, the universe, and life exist, therefore they must at some point have been created. otherwize they wouldnt be here. quid pro quo.[/quote']

 

Most evolutionist are not theistic, they're humanists or atheists. The original theory has definitely switched if that's your stance because it was not intened to be as you're stating. The premise you state may be inserted though, here I agree. If evolution was more substatiated I could go for you're premise.

 

 

i'll state again that ToE conserns itself with HOW ALLELE FREQUENCIES CHANGE OVER TIME' date=' including where new alleles come from, and, by extention, such things as speciation and adaptation/'improvement' over time.[/quote']

 

If this is all the ToE says, it's not even a theory because pre-Darwinain's belived in adaptation.

 

 

ToE does not make any comments on where the first life or earth came from. using a theory that relys upon the assumption that the creation of life/the earth somehow happened at some point to explain the creation of first life/the earth would be' date=' well, silly.[/quote']

 

There are many who belive just this, the majority actually.

 

hence -- and i really want to hammer this home -- the ToE can 'plug in' to either abiogenesis theory' date=' green-men-from-marz theory, or divine creation theory, as long as none of them are incompatable by saying, for example, that first life was created last tuesday. when, clearly, it wasnt.[/quote']

 

Evolution has evolved into this.

 

speaking of ToE 'plugging in' to other theories -- science has many theories that explain where first life/the earth etc may have come from. the fact that none of these theories are the ToE doesnt majickally invalidate the ToE.

 

Many hypothesis' date=' not theories

 

very well, and in agreance with empirical evidence

 

So well that most paleontologists don't accept evolution. = ) So well that many of the opponents of ToE weren't objecting for religous reasons but were anatomist, paleontologist, etc. The scientists with the most expertise with empirical evidence.

 

 

sorry' date=' i couldnt resist

 

if they fit in with observable evidence and make sence, then they wouldnt be supernatural.[/quote']

 

LOL, not offended Actually it's a slight mistake on my part. Natural science excludes the supernatural not evolution but it's basically the same people.

Evolution is a theory that states that animals change over time.

This is a very SOFT stance. Well, I'm an evolutionist. Everyone agrees with evolution if this is all it says, the orignal theory has been greatly watered down.

Trolling means you are attempting to anger me to get a response.

It's established, I've never trolled!

really? iirc, steller evolution is well understood, considering we can see systems begin. we've seen systems(including planets) form.[/url]

LOL, yeah right, stellar evolution, I'm open, got a link I'll read about as well as any legitamate physicists, cosmo, etc representing it.

how so? you are different from your parents. you are even more different from their parents. you are even more different from their parents. you are even more different from their parents. you are even more different from their parents. you are even more different from their parents. etc.

I'll check the Origin of Species for this section.

that's just like saying economics is rediculous because it assumes humans already exist.

No' date=' evolution was designed with the intent to explain the existence of life on the planet naturalistically, without the need for a designer. That's why I think it's ridiculous, but don't take the statement too far.

which supernatural explainations fit the evidence? of those, which ones fit it better than evolution?

As a natural explaination, evolution is great.

be sure to check out this and this.

The first this was a link Bascule posted on the Evolution Pro Con thread. Similarity doesn't prove common descent. Chimps are linked with humans in amino acid sequencing, physically linked with gorillas, and DNA sequencing is ambiguous. Humans have lysozyme's like chickens and not primates.

The second link was too much information.

Could the earth itself be considered the first living organism?

Highly interesting question but I say no. If it is, then evolution's explaining power is bordering on refutation. They have NO explaination of how the earth naturally came into existence. The inital premise of Evolution is ridiculous, it's a naturalistic explaination that assumes the entire universe, earth, and the first organism was already here, then it "explains" everything else. Then has the nerve to exclude ALL supernatural explainations no matter how much it fits the evidence.

That requires that you define forward as whatever is alive at the time' date=' and then it's a tautology. It's an artificial distinction.

 

 

 

You need to explain what a "deletion" is, as well as "information," which you have not yet done.[/quote']

 

Forward, new organisms/species evolved. As these new species evolved, it's due to natural selection, which is suppose to make a species better adapted, forward. I guess.

 

I'm shocked you asked me the later, see Steph's above.

 

Tautology, is a trademark of evolutionary thought.

See some homology - similarity due to common descent

and natural selection - when survival of the fittest is the ones who survived

Do you believe in the TofE?

Actually you did say (or at least indicated) that it did have a direction' date=' that is that evolution increases complexity.[/quote']

 

I said trend, for me it's an observation after the fact. Yes it had a direction because we can look back and observe it, but the direction was not goal oriented. Guess I did not explain make the distinction clear.

 

There have been many examples of transgenic animals. They have moved genes from one organism into another organism. Once common gene that has been inserted into other animals (a transgene) is the Fluresent Gene found in many gellyfish. It has been inserted into mice' date=' bacteria (yes this is a a eukaryote gene in a prokaryote and it still works as intended without change), and other organisms. One of the first transgenic oprganisms was a bacteria engineered to produce human insulin (eukaryote to prokaryote again). If you know anyone with diabeties they rely on this transgenic organism to provide their medication (insulin).

 

 

If you use the IDers concept of complexity then I would say a definite No.

 

In that case you'd also be aruging there are more "irreducible complexities" in bacteria than in humans.

 

And that is why it doesn't make sense to you (also it is not a good idea to wnat it to make sense to you as it will likely make you blind to any problems that it has). Either wanting it to make sense or not wanting it to make sense is closing your mind to what could be the truth. Keep an open mind and allow your self to see it from the other perspective. This is healthy.

 

The explaination made sense to me but because I'm more of a critic of evolution, in the back of my mind, I want someone to disagree with my logic.

It is possible' date=' but if you are right then there would be a better way of presenting your argument.

 

If you are trying to disprove someones elses argument and use a logical falacy then you counter argument is not likely to do what you intended it to. If you use a strawman as a counter argument then what you are realy saying is either: "I can twist your words so that they mean something else" or "I don't understand the point you are manking" (at best). Neither of these actually can be a counter argument.[/quote']

 

I agree.

 

You can get the illusion that it is moveing towards more complex organisms' date=' but it is an illusion casue by our onw hubris byplasing more importance on organisms that we perceive as more complex (and in what way complex, there are many different ways that an organism can be considdered complex).[/quote']

 

An illusion is a good way to put it. I'm not saying evolution is directed or has a purpose.

 

The is a slight trend in the graph to more complex creatures in modern times' date=' but this is a very small trend and can be explained by a selection pressures caused by biodiversity (and it is less than this alone should give, so there must be some pressures to simplify).[/quote']

 

Yes, complex, like death, if I may borrow, is a nebulous concept. Maybe specified complexity like IDers use is better.

 

Umm' date=' they work very similar, and we do know how most coding DNA works in a eukaryote. We have been manipulating eukaryote DNA for a few decades now. Ever heard of transgenic animals. All animals are eukaryotes and we do know how their DNA works.[/quote']

 

Well I guess this is more recent then at a biochemical level I knew the difference between what we knew for the pro and euk was a pretty good distance. Ofcourse, I've NEVER heard of transgenic animals?

 

Sorry it was ment as a joke. My appologies if you took it the wrong way.

 

No' date=' I thought it was a joke but even if it wasn't, IT'S TRUE! There isn't much I take personally, especially online.

 

Actually complexity can mean more than just intelegence.

 

A little sarcasm. .

 

But that was the way you were using the word' date=' unless you were just making a joke.[/quote']

 

Yeah, I was joking. Maybe my perspective is slanted but as you learn about evolution it comes across as a subliminal marketing strategy, every time the oppurtunity arises, a nuiance is called some kind of evolution or selection. For example, this microevolution, now macroevolution, here's an example of regular evolution, but wait we have co-evolution, be patient, here's convergent evolution, mosaic evolution, phyletic evolution, and the all important, speciational evoltion, and that's about it. Thus, this is the power and facts of evolution. Goodness!

He should feel that he's wrong, because he is, but being wrong doesn't make you an idiot. I don't see the virtue in encouraging sloppiness in making a point, when rigor is what is required. Logical fallacies undermine any argument; even if the conclusion is correct the position is invalid and easily dismissed.

I agree they, damage an arguement, guess it's more for debaters. I'd like to think I can see the validity of an arguement regardless of fallacies.

If your premise that evolution goes forward' date=' from simple to complex, we have bacteria, et. al, on the bottom and humans on the top, and one must conclude that bacteria have not evolved, since they are simple. How do you reconcile this? [/quote']

 

Okay, let me try again. Evolution has gone forward not so much that it goes forward as if it's directed. It APPEARS to have gone forward observing the past as a historical process. The previous post did answer the question but I'm glad you made your point clear for me. Here:

 

1)We have a trillion bacteria 2)One starts to evolve and reproduces the new type 3)The other trillion - 1 are still reproducing bacteria

 

It's crazy because I asked the same question awhile back and this is the answer I gave myself. = ) In an odd way, I don't want it to make sense.

 

 

When a Cist or IDer asks the question' date=' it's usually not rhetorical. And evolution, as defined by those groups (i.e according to their strawman) hasn't taken place. [/quote']

 

Granted it's highly probable.

 

A deleterious mutation is still an allele that is in the genome. What' date=' exactly is "lost"? Deleterious is only definable in context of the local environment and selection pressure. It's not an absolute.[/quote']

 

Okay, so a deleterious mutation is just turning it "off" because of the environment it's in?

 

Skye wasn't agreeing with your position. ("Most of life' date=' especially the successful life, has stayed very small. If your job is to replicate, then having much less to replicate makes the task that much easier. Consequently some organisms show signs that they have been simplified, including their genome, in order to become reproductive masters.[/i']") That some life will become more complex is inevitable; since there is a minimal level of complexity for replication, there will be a random walk away from that boundary. IOW, some complexity will arise. But the bulk of life remains simple, i.e. near the lower end of the complexity scale. That is not the same as saying that evolution is from simple to complex.

 

Really, he states how I feel. My arguement is not that evolution is suppose to be directed or goal oriented. It's a very subtle difference, my arguement is just a hair different.

 

You have assumed that the motion is supposed to be in one direction. But evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population — it doesn't give a direction. You have made an assumption about "information" in the alleles' date=' but have not defined what that is, and your use of it seems to presuppose that "better adapted" means "more information," and that isn't the case. An organism can lose features and be better adapted (e.g. blind fish, that once had eyes, but live in environs where there is no light)[/quote']

 

No, evolution is not a straight line process nor linear but goes in various directions and yes sometimes deletions can benefit in animal at least in theory. Not that better adapted means more information but I was under the assumption animals with more information were more "complex", which I hate to even define.

 

 

Like calling me Swanspot?

 

Accident, I rarely check for typing erros.

A logical falacy means that the arugment presented is false, it says nothing about weather you are right or wrong.

Swanspot and I almost agree on something here. Ad hominen doesn't mean the arguement is false neither does finding a biased for an arguement, etc. I can Strawman someone and my overall stance can still be correct. It's possible.

A lot of the problems with your posts is that they stem from incorect or outdated (ie new measurements and tests have show it to be incorrect) infomation about the subject. If you start with an incorect premise' date=' no matter how impecable your logic, you will come to the wrong conclusions.[/quote']

 

I agree with the last sentence and I'm open to the possibility of my own lack of information.

 

Only because that is how we constructed it from our own hubris. It should be that all living organisms' date=' no matter how complex or simple should be at the top and the organisms that they decended from are lower down on the structure (it would be better to imagine it as a pitchfork kind of structure rather than a bush or tree).[/quote']

 

The tree is also a purposed function of time, so I trend is the norm.

 

The reason that the organisms that we have decended from seen to be more simple is that we don't know much about them and their detains (fossils) have been distorted by time and pressure. So we can only make crude assumptions on the actual physiological shape of these creatures (they seem to be badly moddled out of clay ).

 

We know some of how DNA works in a prokaryote' date=' but not in a eukaryote. In comparison it's not as close. So I ASSUME a eukaryote is more complex. It's agreed we lack a lot of information.

 

If you use the size of the DNA molecule as a measure of an organisms complexity and height on the Evolutionary Tree, then humans can not be at the top of that ladder. The human genome is actualy quite short compared to other organisms. Mamals are usually shorter than other organisms too, but we position them higher on the evolutionary ladder, simpley because we are mammals too. Many bacteria have larger genomes than humans, they also out number us and have a greater biomass too, so by these metrics, bacteria clearly are more superior to humans.

 

Complexity is relative, I agree. Also, bacteria have never been extinct or close to it, they're the fittest, I guess.

 

Ok. You are crazy

 

I can't get upset because it's true.

 

 

Actually some bacteria are more complex than us' date='but on the whole I would say that they are of equal complexity. They are able to perform feats that we can not, live in environemnts that we can not, perform nearly all the functions that our bodies can (even make decissions with out a brain) all in a single cell. That sounds like a prety complex organism to me. We need to distribute these tasks amoung many simpiler cells, and even then they can still do things that we can't.[/quote']

 

I agree they're complex. They should write a book so we can understand them(j/k).

 

A common and incorrect use of the term evolution. Many people use the term evolution to mean a change. Evolution' date=' in the scientific sense has a very spoecific meaning, which these uses that you stated are incorect useages. It would be like useing the term "Programming" to mean pluging a computer in and turning it on.[/quote']

 

LOL, I know alot of "programmers". I don't think evolution is just change, that's a dictionary definition.

A logical falacy means that the arugment presented is false, it says nothing about weather you are right or wrong.

Swanspot and I almost agree on something here. Ad hominen doesn't mean the arguement is false neither does finding a biased for an arguement, etc. I can Strawman someone and my overall stance can still be correct. It's possible.

A lot of the problems with your posts is that they stem from incorect or outdated (ie new measurements and tests have show it to be incorrect) infomation about the subject. If you start with an incorect premise' date=' no matter how impecable your logic, you will come to the wrong conclusions.[/quote']

 

I agree with the last sentence and I'm open to the possibility of my own lack of information.

 

Only because that is how we constructed it from our own hubris. It should be that all living organisms' date=' no matter how complex or simple should be at the top and the organisms that they decended from are lower down on the structure (it would be better to imagine it as a pitchfork kind of structure rather than a bush or tree).[/quote']

 

The tree is also a purposed function of time, so I trend is the norm.

 

The reason that the organisms that we have decended from seen to be more simple is that we don't know much about them and their detains (fossils) have been distorted by time and pressure. So we can only make crude assumptions on the actual physiological shape of these creatures (they seem to be badly moddled out of clay ).

 

We know some of how DNA works in a prokaryote' date=' but not in a eukaryote. In comparison it's not as close. So I ASSUME a eukaryote is more complex. It's agreed we lack a lot of information.

 

If you use the size of the DNA molecule as a measure of an organisms complexity and height on the Evolutionary Tree, then humans can not be at the top of that ladder. The human genome is actualy quite short compared to other organisms. Mamals are usually shorter than other organisms too, but we position them higher on the evolutionary ladder, simpley because we are mammals too. Many bacteria have larger genomes than humans, they also out number us and have a greater biomass too, so by these metrics, bacteria clearly are more superior to humans.

 

Complexity is relative, I agree. Also, bacteria have never been extinct or close to it, they're the fittest, I guess.

 

Ok. You are crazy

 

I can't get upset because it's true.

 

 

Actually some bacteria are more complex than us' date='but on the whole I would say that they are of equal complexity. They are able to perform feats that we can not, live in environemnts that we can not, perform nearly all the functions that our bodies can (even make decissions with out a brain) all in a single cell. That sounds like a prety complex organism to me. We need to distribute these tasks amoung many simpiler cells, and even then they can still do things that we can't.[/quote']

 

I agree they're complex. They should write a book so we can understand them(j/k).

 

A common and incorrect use of the term evolution. Many people use the term evolution to mean a change. Evolution' date=' in the scientific sense has a very spoecific meaning, which these uses that you stated are incorect useages. It would be like useing the term "Programming" to mean pluging a computer in and turning it on.[/quote']

 

LOL, I know alot of "programmers". I don't think evolution is just change, that's a dictionary definition.

A logical falacy means that the arugment presented is false, it says nothing about weather you are right or wrong.

Swanspot and I almost agree on something here. Ad hominen doesn't mean the arguement is false neither does finding a biased for an arguement, etc. I can Strawman someone and my overall stance can still be correct. It's possible.

A lot of the problems with your posts is that they stem from incorect or outdated (ie new measurements and tests have show it to be incorrect) infomation about the subject. If you start with an incorect premise' date=' no matter how impecable your logic, you will come to the wrong conclusions.[/quote']

 

I agree with the last sentence and I'm open to the possibility of my own lack of information.

 

Only because that is how we constructed it from our own hubris. It should be that all living organisms' date=' no matter how complex or simple should be at the top and the organisms that they decended from are lower down on the structure (it would be better to imagine it as a pitchfork kind of structure rather than a bush or tree).[/quote']

 

The tree is also a purposed function of time, so I trend is the norm.

 

The reason that the organisms that we have decended from seen to be more simple is that we don't know much about them and their detains (fossils) have been distorted by time and pressure. So we can only make crude assumptions on the actual physiological shape of these creatures (they seem to be badly moddled out of clay ).

 

We know some of how DNA works in a prokaryote' date=' but not in a eukaryote. In comparison it's not as close. So I ASSUME a eukaryote is more complex. It's agreed we lack a lot of information.

 

If you use the size of the DNA molecule as a measure of an organisms complexity and height on the Evolutionary Tree, then humans can not be at the top of that ladder. The human genome is actualy quite short compared to other organisms. Mamals are usually shorter than other organisms too, but we position them higher on the evolutionary ladder, simpley because we are mammals too. Many bacteria have larger genomes than humans, they also out number us and have a greater biomass too, so by these metrics, bacteria clearly are more superior to humans.

 

Complexity is relative, I agree. Also, bacteria have never been extinct or close to it, they're the fittest, I guess.

 

Ok. You are crazy

 

I can't get upset because it's true.

 

 

Actually some bacteria are more complex than us' date='but on the whole I would say that they are of equal complexity. They are able to perform feats that we can not, live in environemnts that we can not, perform nearly all the functions that our bodies can (even make decissions with out a brain) all in a single cell. That sounds like a prety complex organism to me. We need to distribute these tasks amoung many simpiler cells, and even then they can still do things that we can't.[/quote']

 

I agree they're complex. They should write a book so we can understand them(j/k).

 

A common and incorrect use of the term evolution. Many people use the term evolution to mean a change. Evolution' date=' in the scientific sense has a very spoecific meaning, which these uses that you stated are incorect useages. It would be like useing the term "Programming" to mean pluging a computer in and turning it on.[/quote']

 

LOL, I know alot of "programmers". I don't think evolution is just change, that's a dictionary definition.

You miss the point here. Pointing out logical fallacies is not about your argument being right, it's about the other argument being invalid/unsupported.

I agree my focus is more on whether it's right. Honestly didn't like your inital tone(strawman, trollish, ad hominen) and I was just encouraging Bill Nye Guy, that's all. I don't want him to feel like he's an idiot or wrong because he may have commited a logical fallacy.

I didn't object to your use of "trend." If you reread what I wrote' date=' you'll see I objected to your use of "forward."[/quote']

 

Guess I misunderstood this:

 

simple to complex? No' date=' not necessarily.

forward? No, that's an arbitrary distinction, and the root of your misunderstanding. Evolution has no overall "direction." That is dictated solely by the environment at the time.[/quote']

 

 

Then why are there still bacteria? Are they unchanged (unevolved)' date=' and do we outnumber them?[/quote']

 

I don't even know the point of you asking this. How is this a contradiction to what was mentioned? The survival of a species is a complex phenotypic relationship. An animal or organism's niche ofter overlaps with other animals. The root of your misunderstanding is assuming all the bacteria have died because some evolved, some bacteria died, some evolved, and as some evolved there were aleady innumerous one's unevolved.

Wow, pretty good for an ignorant lay person, who doesn't understand evolution (but honestly isn't "sold" on it). Honestly, the first question is one many Cist or IDers pose as a reason evolution never happened in the first place.

Now, if my interpretation of natural selection is wrong, then their are plently of leading evolutionist who are also inferior to your wisdom, like Ernst Mayr for one.

 

 

If species had a trend of only deleterious mutations they wouldn't survive. But what is deleterious or neutral in one environment can be advantageous in another' date=' and vice-versa. And again, your use of a direction is arbitrarily defined. [/quote']

 

You've misrepresented my arguement (I won't do it) I specifically stated it ". . . adding information to the genome of surviving animals" so survival was part of the function.

IF all surviving species had an overall trend of deleterious mutations(taking from the genome), the trend is backward, hence de-evolution. IF there were only deletions as mutations, we wouldn't be here. The only thing for you to disagree with is the phrase "de-evolution".

 

Furthermore, read Sky's post, he's saying much of my position through Gould as far as trend and complexity. Also take keen notice to the BIG star for Biology. The same drunk man starts stumbling backward is the equivalent of an overall trend of mutational deletions, de-evolution.

 

 

Strawman.

 

Only if you can't take a joke.

I believe we need a "big bang" between the two sides so one can discredit the other so badly one will become widley accepted publicly. Teaching both in school is a start and maybe an end. Evolution being so superior should completely refute and become widely accepted. Currently, C and ID are hidden from laymen view.

Bill Nye Guy,

Don't worry about those logical fallacies, especially people who point them out all the time as if they're right because they pointed out a logical fallacy. As if I can point out enough logical fallacies and be right.

Others,

If I make a phylogetic hierarchy of animals it's suppose to end up as a bush or tree right? The more complex animals of each kind tend to be higher. What's at the bottom? What's at the top? No ToE does not have a purpose or a goal. Yes I am able to identify a pattern or trend after it's happened, as stated earlier. Ofcourse, Natural selection does not have a goal or purpose, I assume that's what Swan thought I meant by trend.

Natural selection is chance and neccesity(survival o f) as a result the better adapted will live in given environment. Anyone's phylogetic tree has a simple to complex trend, not goal or purpose. Natural selection did not have humans in mind when the first bacteria was here but now that it's happened, I surely feel more complex than a bacteria.

As an overall trend from the first organism until now, call me crazy, but I think evolution would have had a trend of adding information to the genome of surviving animals in order to get to where we are now.

I'm quite aware that all mutations are not deletions. IF all surviving species had an overall trend of deleterious mutations, the trend is backward, hence de-evolution. IF there were only deletions as mutations, we wouldn't be here.

I'm also aware of the trend for EVERYTHING to be evolution. People go to the store and get groceries, it's food evolution, eat all the food, it's food evoluton. Seven people go to the store at the same time, it's convergent food evolution.

Okay, I'm not declaring de-evolution as a scientific term. ToE went from simple to complex, hence more genetic information, how by mutation. The overall trend is suppose to be forward. I understand some exceptions as evolution is not linear. If mutations continue to occur that are deletions(not all are), how would an organism ever progress forward like evolution suggests? I call it de-evolution.

As far as I'm concerned if millions of good mutations add information and it's evolution, don't shoot me for saying millions of bad mutations deleting information is de-evolution. . . .