Evolution works in mysterious ways

Matthew Faithfull

"The platypus genome is extremely important, because it is the missing link in our understanding of how we and other mammals first evolved," Err no, the missing link in our understanding is that we didn't evolve, first last or otherwise. We are though de-evolving and at a rate that makes arbitrary numbers like 170 million a complete joke. :rolleyes:

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

Stan Shannon

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

We are though de-evolving and at a rate that makes arbitrary numbers like 170 million a complete joke.

I will have to admit that the evidence for that is overwhelming! :laugh:

Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization

Oakman

"we didn't evolve, first last or otherwise" was his a priori. You agree with that, too?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Stan Shannon

Did I include it?

Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization

soap brain

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

Err no, the missing link in our understanding is that we didn't evolve, first last or otherwise.

Have any reason for saying so that I don't have to accept on faith?

Drawing on my fine command of language, I said nothing.

Matthew Faithfull

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

Have any reason for saying so

Yes but probably not one you'd accept. We've been around this debate before, I dismiss evolution as the pile of crap it is. Zepp and others loose their rag and post streams of unsubstantiated random abuse, I laugh, you post links to lots of evidence for de-evolution misdiagnosed as evidence for evolution, proving my point but not seeing it and everyone goes away none the wiser. I can only suggest that you look for yourself, you're more capable than me in math and shouldn't have any problem demoshing the paper thin arguments of idiots like Richard Dawkins. The more you look the less evolution and more de-evolution you will see.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

soap brain

What is this 'de-evolution' thing you keep talking about?

Drawing on my fine command of language, I said nothing.

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

Did I include it?

Just checking. Remember, when you eat crackers in bed, you wake up with crumbs

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Matthew Faithfull

Like evolution but the other way around, species breaking up, loosing genetic information over time, becoming over adapted, over specialized to their environments, less flexible and more vulnerable to environmental change. Think of it as entroy applied to population genetics and you'll see that not only is it inevitable but it's obvious, accounts for all the genuine 'evidence' purported to demonstrate evolution, operates effectively over much shorter time scales and also absolutely rules out the evolution of higher organisms from lower ones.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

R Giskard Reventlov

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

I dismiss evolution as the pile of crap it is

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

post streams of unsubstantiated random abuse

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

paper thin arguments of idiots like Richard Dawkins

Oh please enlighten us oh un-evolved one: just what is it that makes us all wrong and you so right? You see, it's very difficult to believe anything that someone who has an irrational faith in a fantasy being says. You do see that, don't you?

me, me, me

Matthew Faithfull

digital man wrote:

You see, it's very difficult to believe anything that someone who has an irrational faith in a fantasy being says. You do see that, don't you?

Of course but then I don't so what's your point?

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

soap brain

I can see two immediate problems with what you're saying: I) Your definition of 'de-evolution', I think, actually IS evolution, albeit a sketchily defined one. Who says that evolution necessarily leads to the ability to survive a rapid change in the environment? The dodo was very well adapted to its little island, but then humans came and buggered them over and now they're all dead. It happens. II) You're probably falling into a common trap of equating entropy with disorder. In fact, your definition of 'disorder' is probably just what you find 'aesthetically displeasing'. Entropy is the measure of the unavailability of a closed system's energy to do work, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that it increases over time until it reaches equilibrium. The fact is, organisms CAN decrease their entropy because the Earth isn't a closed system - it includes the Sun. The law refers to the overall entropy, and although the organisms can seemingly defy it, the Sun more than makes up for it in how much energy it gives off.

Drawing on my fine command of language, I said nothing.

Oakman

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

I think, actually IS evolution

Of course it is. Evolution is a word that describes genetic changes in a species. Only the un- and ill- informed think that it implies moving from lower to higher or vice versa.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

soap brain

Yeah, I was pretty sure, but I didn't want to assert anything too strongly if I wasn't 100%.

Drawing on my fine command of language, I said nothing.

Christian Graus

I'm curious to know if platypus DNA proves evolution to anyone who doesn't already believe in evolution ?

Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )

Matthew Faithfull

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

Your definition of 'de-evolution', I think, actually IS evolution

That's part of the problem but can easily be solved because it is clearly impossible by this mechanism to evolve a mammal from a bacterium. You cannot do that by loosing information, by specializing, or what is known as 'natural slection'. No mechanism == impossible. Evolution was proposed as an explanation for the existence of observed species, not as some para-theoretical self validating mental framework. It fails to provide the explanation and is therefore so much historical junk science.

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

You're probably falling into a common trap of equating entropy with disorder

No I'm not, I'm equating information entropy with energy entropy, the rules are same. The unavailability of a genomes information to do work increases over time until it reaches equilibrium. The law refers to a population overall and over time not any specific individual. There is no equivalent of the Sun, no external highly ordered or highly powered source from which to derive function which maintaining the second law.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

Matthew Faithfull

Oakman wrote:

Evolution is a word that describes genetic changes in a species.

:laugh: Is that the 4th or 5th redefinition since it was proposed as an explanation for the existence of observed species, higher and lower. If what you say is correct then it has become meaningless and all conclusions based on said 'theory' are invalid. As I said, junk science.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

73Zeppelin

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

Zepp and others loose their rag and post streams of unsubstantiated random abuse,

Stuff it, you tool! :laugh:

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

Yes but probably not one you'd accept. We've been around this debate before, I dismiss evolution as the pile of crap it is. Zepp and others loose their rag and post streams of unsubstantiated random abuse, I laugh, you post links to lots of evidence for de-evolution misdiagnosed as evidence for evolution, proving my point but not seeing it and everyone goes away none the wiser. I can only suggest that you look for yourself, you're more capable than me in math and shouldn't have any problem demoshing the paper thin arguments of idiots like Richard Dawkins. The more you look the less evolution and more de-evolution you will see.

You're so crazy it's, well, crazy!

Matthew Faithfull

Anyone capable of drawing reasoned conclusions from analysing platypus DNA would surely be smart enough to realize that you cannot 'prove' anything scientifically, only falsify propositions. If you mean really mean 'convince' then no, evolution is no more capable of explaining platypus DNA than it is of explaining mouse DNA so it wouldn't convince anyone but a dupe.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

Oakman

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

If what you say is correct then it has become meaningless and all conclusions based on said 'theory' are invalid.

Because you and your creationist friends have consistently misunderstood the Theory of Evolution (or worse, consistently misrepresented it, lying in the name of your god) does not mean that evolutionary biologists are responsible for your lack of understanding or explaining to you how you became deluded. You dug yourself into the hole, it is up to you to get out.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface