Scientific Regress

[Incorrigible1]

 

In the case of humans, proponents espouse that there must be continual improvement of the species.

Evolution isn't necessarily "improvement" or advancement of a species, but merely change that improves an individual's (and thus the species') chances at survival.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Everything you see in nature is made of DNA, if other life forms where made of marshmallows you would have a point.

Changes in DNA lead to different physical expression in animals, those changes occur through time.

Those that are beneficial allow the organism to survive, those that don't lead to poorer outcomes.

The way that DNA changes is also logical.

 

There is no conflict between observation and actuality.

[FarArcher]

Evolution does work on every species it is not limited or selective. In fact it works like clockwork to an extent accurate predictions on the date of divergence between two species can be calculated based upon the number of changes in nucleotides.

The coelcanth may be morphologically similar to fossils but it will have evolved a radically different genome. There are silent mutations which change out a nucleotide without changing the translated amino acid. Changing out amino acids through mutation may also not alter the structure or function of the protein.

The coelecanth did not drastically evolve morpholohically because it successfully filled a niche. Any mutations which altered the shape or function been selected against and out competed off or evolved to fill another niche that didnt directly compete with the coelecanth. There are several species that have not changed morphologically for millions years.

Put down whatever nonsense anti evolution pamphlet you got from the zealot factory and pick up a college, or at least high school or middle school, biology textbook. There has been over 150 years of scholarship in biology all pointing to the same conclusion. Why people think a few flawed examples and faulty logic they make up trumps that i dont know. Wake up and get with the 21st century.

 

Odd.

 

This hidden, silent mutatation of nucleodites you suggest seems to be so hidden, and so silent, that it was insufficient for 99.5% of the world's species that went extinct.  It didn't work for 99.5%.  I'd say, that's probably a major failure as a mechanism, or maybe there's a .5% chance another mechanism is in place.

 

If I understand this correctly, the coelecanth changed out nucleotides, with radical genomes, but it didn't change morphologically, and is identical to the fossil.   

 

Now you suggest that the coelecanth found his little haven - geologically and environmentally - which was apparently a consistent environment as no changes were needed.

 

Which brings up catastrophic geology.  The world is not the same as it was 60,000,000 years ago.  We've had the Paleogen Period hallmarked by mass extinctions, the Neogene Period hallmarked with mass extinctions, and the current Quaternary Period hallmarked by mass extinctions.  Yet, during all this series of mass extinctions due to catastrophic geology, this particular fish never changed a thing.  Could it be that maybe it just lucked out, and the coelecanth's contemporaries just perchance went extinct?  Sixty million years is a long time - to do nothing different. Through major changes in the environment all around the world.

 

In fact, 60 million years is a long time to demonstrate this evolutionary mechanism, that oddly, is so fast and so radical as to take us from a 3 foot ape to where we are today - jumping forward in great advances and leaps across species, and creating entire new species while simultaneously coexisting with species we're supposed to come from.

 

I can imagine a modern man sitting around the fire with a Neanderthal, Denisovan, and a h. Erectus, having a beer while chewing on an h.floresciensis, and arguing over who had the uglier, meaner women.  

 

I have nothing to do with anti-evolution pamphlets, and of course that's a clever argument - because it's so very scientific.

 

Maybe you should pick up some textbooks.  I've seen the results of 150 years of scholarship, and it's embarrassing.  How about that Piltdown man?  That was solid science there for a few years.  Like the Nebraska man.  Remember the "Flipperpithecus?"

 

For this theory to work, there has to be good evidence of transitional forms between species.  Period.

 

And there aren't ANY.

 

Mis-identification of h. Erectus into four separate species does not constitute transitional forms.

 

What was it Darwin himself said?  "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed that could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

 

Darwin said it, not me.

[Guest DWA]

Faenor's ability to use science as anti-science continues to fascinate.     

 

As to coelacanth, however:  it doesn't particularly challenge anyone's notions of evolution.  It's more than possible, in fact it *happened*, that it hasn't changed, in all likelihood because nothing has selected against that form.  Sharks have changed little if any in that time, either.

Edited May 2, 2016 by DWA

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Shamanistically you could "will" a change (in shamanistic theory).

However that is not the domain of science, since it is not a concrete reproducible process.

Or creation by a higher power.

 

In the realm of science you need to use the coin of that realm.

 

If wishing something into existence becomes reproducable then it will join that domain.

 

Kind if like quantum physics.

[JDL]

 

 

In the case of humans, proponents espouse that there must be continual improvement of the species.

Evolution isn't necessarily "improvement" or advancement of a species, but merely change that improves an individual's (and thus the species') chances at survival.

 

 

I don't disagree.  In fact, I agree.

 

Nature is dynamic.  Biology responds.  Evolution, though, is not, first and foremost, about improvement.  It is about survival. 

 

 

Edited May 2, 2016 by JDL

[Faenor]

Evolution does work on every species it is not limited or selective. In fact it works like clockwork to an extent accurate predictions on the date of divergence between two species can be calculated based upon the number of changes in nucleotides.

The coelcanth may be morphologically similar to fossils but it will have evolved a radically different genome. There are silent mutations which change out a nucleotide without changing the translated amino acid. Changing out amino acids through mutation may also not alter the structure or function of the protein.

The coelecanth did not drastically evolve morpholohically because it successfully filled a niche. Any mutations which altered the shape or function been selected against and out competed off or evolved to fill another niche that didnt directly compete with the coelecanth. There are several species that have not changed morphologically for millions years.

Put down whatever nonsense anti evolution pamphlet you got from the zealot factory and pick up a college, or at least high school or middle school, biology textbook. There has been over 150 years of scholarship in biology all pointing to the same conclusion. Why people think a few flawed examples and faulty logic they make up trumps that i dont know. Wake up and get with the 21st century.

 

Odd.

 

This hidden, silent mutatation of nucleodites you suggest seems to be so hidden, and so silent, that it was insufficient for 99.5% of the world's species that went extinct.  It didn't work for 99.5%.  I'd say, that's probably a major failure as a mechanism, or maybe there's a .5% chance another mechanism is in place.

 

If I understand this correctly, the coelecanth changed out nucleotides, with radical genomes, but it didn't change morphologically, and is identical to the fossil.   

 

Now you suggest that the coelecanth found his little haven - geologically and environmentally - which was apparently a consistent environment as no changes were needed.

 

Which brings up catastrophic geology.  The world is not the same as it was 60,000,000 years ago.  We've had the Paleogen Period hallmarked by mass extinctions, the Neogene Period hallmarked with mass extinctions, and the current Quaternary Period hallmarked by mass extinctions.  Yet, during all this series of mass extinctions due to catastrophic geology, this particular fish never changed a thing.  Could it be that maybe it just lucked out, and the coelecanth's contemporaries just perchance went extinct?  Sixty million years is a long time - to do nothing different. Through major changes in the environment all around the world.

 

In fact, 60 million years is a long time to demonstrate this evolutionary mechanism, that oddly, is so fast and so radical as to take us from a 3 foot ape to where we are today - jumping forward in great advances and leaps across species, and creating entire new species while simultaneously coexisting with species we're supposed to come from.

 

I can imagine a modern man sitting around the fire with a Neanderthal, Denisovan, and a h. Erectus, having a beer while chewing on an h.floresciensis, and arguing over who had the uglier, meaner women.  

 

I have nothing to do with anti-evolution pamphlets, and of course that's a clever argument - because it's so very scientific.

 

Maybe you should pick up some textbooks.  I've seen the results of 150 years of scholarship, and it's embarrassing.  How about that Piltdown man?  That was solid science there for a few years.  Like the Nebraska man.  Remember the "Flipperpithecus?"

 

For this theory to work, there has to be good evidence of transitional forms between species.  Period.

 

And there aren't ANY.

 

Mis-identification of h. Erectus into four separate species does not constitute transitional forms.

 

What was it Darwin himself said?  "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed that could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

 

Darwin said it, not me.

Silent mutations arent a mechanism they just happen. Everytime dna is replicated errors occour at a predictable rate. There several check mechanisms in place including on the replication machinery itself dna replicase. But errors are missed at a predictable rate. Every three nucleotides, once transcribed into rna, will represent an amino acid. There are 20 something basic amino acids and 64 combinations of nucleotide triplets. For example CTT and CTC can both translate into leucine. A mutation occoured with no change to the amino acid or protein.

The only simililarity we know the coelencath shares with its fossil ancestors is some gross morphology. Same for several other species

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil

Read this it puts the silly antievolution coelencath to rest.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.201200145/abstract

Evolution is only a theory in the same sense gravity is a theory. is it 100% known exactly how gravity operates? no. Do two seperate bodies apply force upon each other proportional to their respective mass, and do objects fall when you drop them? yes

There is essentially no debate on whether evolution occours or not just stubborn individuals rdfusing to leave old world philosophies behind.

All the work in biology for the last 150+ points to the same conclusion. All life is evolving. It has been observed directly in the lab in controlled experiments

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3461117/

Scientists can altera species purposfully changing its genome. How didvthey figurevthst out magic? No they observed it working, evolution, and figured out some of the agents and mechanisms which cause change.

Evolution doesnt require trsnsitional species it forks like river channels. Its all just a series of forks and dead ends. The chimpanzee is in sense just as evolved as we are.

There is no dogma and no one protecting what is essentially modern biology. If you want to consider evolution a belief of dogma your going to have to lump all science, medicine, engineering in there as well. There are obviously a lot of people who dont orcant understsnd it so choose to fall back on easier systems.

Im sorry guys scientists dont take bigfoot seriously but its very bizarre all the anti science/scientist sentiment seen around. Oh what you took infant mortality from 50 to 99% and lengthened our lives and gave us hand held comouters. but your obviously flawed and wrong becayse you cant accept our belief and flimsy bigfoot evidence. come on guys

[Guest Crowlogic]

Oh so there were odd giant skulls/bones that were dumped at sea?  Really?  By whom, and when?  Sounds to me like another footer conspiracy explaining why the beast isn't on the roster of reality.  And yet after that post claiming this another poster chimes right in and reinforces that tale with an auto conspiracy slant that oh yeah it's done all the time.  And it is precisely this stuff that keeps bigfootism forever in the back room.  I doubt there is a conspiracy and I doubt removing conspiracy from the bigfoot matrix is going to have any material effect.  It may give the advocates a balm to soothe the scrapes of endless failure but it's neither causing or adding to the failure rate.  Think for a moment kids there isn't enough to bigfoot to have a conspiracy about in the first place.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Crowlogic

[FarArcher]

Crow, there are scores of newspaper reports including accompanying photos of finds of what can loosely be termed "giants" bones, skull, etc., and many were sent to the logical destination for further examination - the Smithsonian.

 

In just one find, there may have been plural individuals - sent to the Smithsonian.

 

I don't know how much more widespread documentation you would require - from multiple discoveries, from multiple locations here in the States - but one thing is certain - the Smithsonian claims they don't have the bone, the skeletons, nor the skulls.

 

Some were reported to be really big humans, others were reported to be more like a primitive with large protruding eyebrows and significantly sloping forehead.  Doesn't matter - they don't exist.  Any longer.

 

If you'll play the Devil's advocate just for this one moment - why would the Smithsonian conceal a quantity of such remains?

 

 

 

Faenor?  Think about what you just said.  Scientists can alter species purposefully by changing its genome.

 

That, my friend, is Third-Party Genetic Engineering.  Not natural.

 

Not one species has ever jumped to another species.  This evolution only addresses minor adaptations within a species.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Perhaps this sums it up best.  

 

http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/giantcoverup.asp

[Incorrigible1]

^^^Boom.

[WSA]

Not boom so much. The Snopes article only addresses the particular photo making the rounds on the internet, which was/is most decidedly a hoax, and the alleged motivation of the Smithsonian to suppress evolutionary theories? How in the world do you determine the motive, even if you presume the skeletons existed?  The broader question deserves, I believe, an "undetermined" label. 

 

The photos of these skeletons exist in the archives of many local papers. I saw one published just recently in my town. Judging the scale of some of these remains is inexact, I grant you. I guess though I don't find it at all improbable that gigantism existed, or that it might have been too adaptively extravagant to survive if it did. This would be only a ho-hum finding, if truthful, based on the collective experience of man on earth, as has been confirmed for us, over, and over, and over, and over... 

[Faenor]

Faenor?  Think about what you just said.  Scientists can alter species purposefully by changing its genome.

 

That, my friend, is Third-Party Genetic Engineering.  Not natural.

 

Not one species has ever jumped to another species.  This evolution only addresses minor adaptations within a species.

Yes and those scientists learned how by studying and replicating mechanisms employed by bacteria and viruses. These plasmids and viruses convert and change dna on their own in nature.

Its nice that you know not one species has ever jumped to another species. Maybe you can share where you gained this knowledge.

The thousands upon thousands of scientists from every culture for over 100 years have concluded that speciation does in fact occur. What do you have that invalidates those conclusions. Surely it must be more than what you think or were told.

If minor adaptations and minor changes in the genome of a species can and have been observed to change in a short period of time what do you think would happen if these minor adaptations and changes continued to occur for a much longer period 10-100K years?

[Faenor]

Faenor's ability to use science as anti-science continues to fascinate.     

 

As to coelacanth, however:  it doesn't particularly challenge anyone's notions of evolution.  It's more than possible, in fact it *happened*, that it hasn't changed, in all likelihood because nothing has selected against that form.  Sharks have changed little if any in that time, either.

Its always good to get the input from self appointed scientist DWA.

[JDL]

We've covered this extensively in other threads.  Powell, the first head of the Smithsonian's Bureau of Ethnology, unabashedly advocated the suppression of a significant amount of anthropological data in his first annual report.  The Powell Doctrine continued to hold sway in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. 

 

Why?  Powell's true purpose was to legitimize Manifest Destiny, which was in full swing, and anthropologists, based on their finds in Eastern Indian Mounds, were reaching a consensus that there had been extensive communication between the Old and New Worlds prior to Columbus, something the Smithsonian now acknowledges.  There was also a growing belief that certain "lost tribes of antiquity", as Powell put it, had migrated to the New World.  Any view that any Native American tribes were descendants of Old World settlers had the potential to legitimize their prior claim to lands that were being taken away from them and to jeopardize Manifest Destiny.  There was also a movement in the West at that time that held that a certain historical person from Israel had appeared to Native Americans.  Again, this jeopardized Manifest Destiny.

 

If anyone actually reads Powell's report, it is glaringly obvious that he had an agenda which included the suppression of certain finds.

 

Were giant skeletons acquired by the Smithsonian?  Many contemporary accounts so claim.  If so, were they destroyed?  Who can say?  But there is plenty of smoke to suggest that there was a "fire".  Personally, I hope that nothing was destroyed.  That there is an archive someplace where any such skeletons remain preserved and forgotten.  It's easier to "dispose" of evidence by disposing of records of it, or mislabeling it, than it is to actually dispose of it.