Re: James assuary and Archeopteryx


Frank Sullivan wrote:
> jgrisham@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Noone Inparticular wrote:
> > > jgris...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > MitchAlsup@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > For 450 million years, dinosaurs proved themselves fit for survival.
> > >
> > > No. Dinosaurs were around for about 150 million years.
> >
> > 300 million years here, 300 million years there, eventually it adds up
> > to some real time.
> >
> > > > Then, there was an event that killed every living creature over 60
> > > > pounds.
> > >
> > > Where did you get this? You seem to be unaware that a great many small
> > > critters also died out during the KT extinction.
> >
> > Collateral Damage.
> >
> > > > Presumably, some dinosaurs had already been transitioning into
> > > > birds, prior to that event.
> > >
> > > Again, the evidence is clear that they did.
> > >
> > > > If, as evolution dictates the causation
> > > > remains a matter of random chance, then following the event, at least,
> > > > an equal number of mutations should have resulted in dinosaurs making a
> > > > comeback.
> > >
> > > What? This seems terribly confused, but I think you are suggesting that
> > > evolution predicts that any particular organism. But this is not true.
> >
> > No! It's the fact that evolution doesn't predict the further mutation
> > of any particular organism. A transitional organism by random chance
> > should mutate randomly. But, if this is a transitional with dinosaur
> > DNA in its genome, then it is equally or more likely to mutate with
> > what it has in its genome as it is to mutate into a new classification
> > of species. "Feathered dinosaur theory" dictates they didn't mutate
> > randomly, but transmutated into birds. That's far beyond random chance.
>
> Hello again.
>
> You have a few things wrong in this paragraph. The first thing you need
> to know is that Evolution is not random. Mutation is random. Mutation
> is how new traits arise, and therefore new traits arise randomly.
>
> However, Evolution includes not only mutation, but selection. There are
> many forms of selection, such as natural selection, group selection,
> sexual selection, artificial selection, etc. Through selection,
> organisms who have traits which are detrimental to its survival tend to
> be culled and pruned from the gene pool. If this happens before the
> organism has a chance to reproduce, its traits die with it.
>
> Note that selective pressures change with the environment. A white coat
> of fur is beneficial to the polar bear, who needs to blend in with his
> surroundings. If a brown bear were to be born with a white coat, it
> would be decidedly detrimental.
>
> So it really is a straw man to suggest that species evolve randomly. I
> don't think anyone, not even Charles Darwin, would have accept that as
> accurate. The evolution of organisms is guided by the pressures placed
> on those organisms by their environment. There is no reason to think --
> none at all -- that an organism who evolves briefly in one direction,
> will have as much chance of reversing direction as it has in moving
> onward in the new direction.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but I think it is important
to keep in mind that the word "random" is slippery. So if it is used to
mean "without a goal in mind", then you are exactly correct.

However, the history of life on earth is replete with "random" events
impacting evolution. In this sense of "random", meaning unpredictable
or contingent, species do evolve randomly. Asteroid strikes, storms
transporting lizards to an island, that sort of thing. Then there is
random genetic drift, arguably as important as selection in evolution.
In this sense the "random" means that alleles subject to drift change
in frequency in unselected ways.


>
> In fact, even if Evolution were totally random, there still would be
> absolutely no reason to think that. It's not as if evolution works in
> one dimension, as if along some bi-directional number line. There are
> an infinite number of directions that evolution can take. If a certain
> population evolves briefly in one direction, the probability that it
> will change course and reverse itself *exactly*, such that birdlike
> reptiles become dinosaurs again, is pretty much zero.
>
>
>
> > > If you were to rewind the clock of history there is little likelihood
> > > that any extant creature -including us- would evolve. There is NO goal
> > > in evolution. If I have got your point right, you are suggesting
> > > something that the theory of evolution does not predict.
> > >
> > > > Since, as we know, dinosaurs did not make a comeback,
> > >
> > > You kidding? How many species of birds do you suppose there are?
> >
> > You're talking about two different classifications of species. Show me
> > a 60 foot tall bird and I'll happily concede the point. Show me a
> > feathered crocodile. I'm not really that picky.
> >
> > > > the
> > > > feathered dinosaur model implies that something other than random
> > > > chance, dictated all of the future mutations (swans, condors, sparrows,
> > > > etc.). That's just not Evolution theory... that's damn close to
> > > > Intelligent Design Theory!
> > >
> > > What? Hold the phone! There's an ID theory!!!! Goodie! We've been
> > > waiting to hear it. Do tell......
> >
> > I didn't say it doesn't need work, but to start you have to throw out
> > random chance as causation. Then, you further prove that random chance
> > doesn't really exist, statistically and mathematically (See Dembski).
> > Then you observe that what was presumed to be random are actually
> > patterns (like the speciation of birds without speciation of feathered
> > lizards). You then hypothesize that these patterns indicate design and
> > predict that design can be found in everything. Since our own
> > intelligence allows us to design things, the further implication of
> > design is that it must be intelligent. Hop, Skip, Jump... Intelligent
> > Design.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Fortunately, in the 1980's when feathered dinosaur theory was being
> > > > argued, there was no ID, so they never really had to confront the
> > > > random chance problem... the two schools of evolution theory agreed to
> > > > disagree (Dawkins- "against feathers", Gould- "for feathers").
> > >
> > > What? What is this you're on about?
> >
> > There are three basic versions of Evolution theory being presented in
> > science classrooms in the United States named for their leading
> > proponents... Dawkins, Gould and Miller. Dawkins is "random chance"...
> > no ifs, ands or buts (Radical Conservative). Gould is "but feathered
> > dinosaurs are birds" (Intellectual Liberal). Miller is "let's not
> > mention our differences in public" (Centrist Conservative). Trouble
> > usually follows where Dawkins is taught because his attitude is
> > abrasive and some teachers like their science to be absolute and
> > undebatable (just like other people like their religion).
> >
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > It does not matter where archy came from if it can be independtly
> > > > > verified that it has the correct age, and embedded in rock of the
> > > > > correct age. The fact that several fossils exist also lead credibility
> > > > > to archy.
> > > >
> > > > If you fall in the Dawkins group, then archy is at best an anomoly or
> > > > one of many fakes (like Xing Xu's first specimen in China, after
> > > > proving fake he had no problem producing supposedly genuine specimens,
> > > > in mass)
> > >
> > > This is just plain silly. I suppose you won't provide us with any
> > > evidence to back up these spurious claims.
> >
> > I went through this here when it was in the news. It was documented in
> > articles all over the world. What really pissed me off was that after
> > he admitted the first one was a fake, he just started rolling out
> > another and another. Whether it's just politically incorrect to call a
> > Chinese counterfeiter, a counterfeiter, or the science community is
> > gullible beyond belief, it seems to me that anyone that would openly
> > forge evidence once would have no qualms about forging evidence, again
> > and again.
> >
> > > > and random chance still rules the argument. If you fall in the
> > > > Gould "feathered dinosaurs" group, then random chance is falsified as
> > > > causation and you should prepare yourself to eventually fold ID into
> > > > your view of evolution.
> > >
> > > You are terribly confused.
> >
> > The more you know, the less certain you become.
> >
> >
> > JTG 1/19/06
> >
> > > > Don't worry, hopefully someone will tell you
> > > > what to think, when they think you need to know.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > JTG 1/18/06

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Addressing Scientific Reductionism
    ... such modular organization has been strongly ... theory of evolution the greatest thing since sliced whitebread. ... can't change any bit of code without affecting the entire organism. ... but that is not an argument using natural selection at the organism ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Addressing Scientific Reductionism
    ... such modular organization has been strongly ... theory of evolution the greatest thing since sliced whitebread. ... can't change any bit of code without affecting the entire organism. ... but that is not an argument using natural selection at the organism ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Addressing Scientific Reductionism
    ... such modular organization has been strongly ... theory of evolution the greatest thing since sliced whitebread. ... can't change any bit of code without affecting the entire organism. ... but that is not an argument using natural selection at the organism ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Human design and natural "design"
    ... >>> Nope, it is called selection. ... Evolution all the way down. ... >>environment to the organism to tell it how to adapt. ... The environment never determines which choice to generate. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: ID and the Difference Between Spheres and Cubes
    ... years is not long enough for random chance to produce life. ... selection working on it. ... You're right in noting that evolution does not work by sheer random ... way on genetic sequences that are beneficial right now. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading