Blowing Up Darwin

[pknopp]

There was nothing vague there. You are rolling up into a little ball.

When someone says "just a theory", it is quite safe to assume they know less than nothing about how science works.

And that's what you did. It was an egregious error.

Please say something.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Please say something.

I did. And it caused.you to roll up into a little ball.

Hey, did you know electricity is just a theory? You should have no problem sticking forks into electrical sockets, then. Right?

Okay, big boy time. The ancestors of wolves are well documented going back millions of years.

Hesperocyon lived from 40 mya until about 30 mya.

In your competing "theory", where did Hesperocyon come from? Where did they go?

 

[pknopp]

I did. And it caused.you to roll up into a little ball.

Hey, did you know electricity is just a theory?

no it isnt. The entire aspect of it can be explained by science.

You should have no problem sticking forks into electrical sockets, then. Right?

Okay, big boy time. The ancestors of wolves are well documented going back millions of years.

Hesperocyon lived from 40 mya until about 30 mya.

In your competing "theory", where did Hesperocyon come from? Where did they go?

It was a canid just like what we have today.

Where did it come from? No idea. You seem to know.

 

[scruffy]

How did I mock 'experts?' Dr. Tour is an expert and has had many discussions with other experts. Just because he does not comport with YOUR opinion is not 'mocking.'

A polymerase is an enzyme with DNA polymerase and RNA polymerase assemble DNA and RNA molecules. The question I have is why? Why do these enzymes act the way they do? All you have done is explain their function while accusing me of denigrating and mocking. Frankly your posts smack of 'it's my way or the highway' you are not interested in my opinion on the subject and obviously know nothing about Dr. Tour's extensive research. I offered a link a long time ago where you could have educated yourself about Tour's theories and have heard 0 from you. Apparently you are content to wear blinders.

Like I said, I don't place much stock in other peoples' opinions.

I place stock in research I can do myself. Experiments I can replicate. I've worked with functional MRI both in hospitals and in the lab. I lived through the time frame when people didn't know why the dyes were failing. MRI is an expensive procedure and it causes discomfort. It is incumbent on practitioners to know their tradecraft.

It just so happens that in this case the root cause was traced back to an intron. And during those experiments we learned a lot more than just dye failure.

You can correct me if I'm wrong, but Dr Tour has never been near an MRI machine. I only talk about the stuff I know about. I don't spout other peoples' opinions unless I've done the research myself. I know a lot about viruses, especially brain viruses. I used to work in a P4;facility with brain viruses.

Why would I want to talk about Dr Tour's opinions? He doesn't do the work I do, we're not in the same field. I can tell you about dynamics and viruses because I study brains. Have, since long before neural networks became a thing. If you want to discuss machine learning, I can talk about that too. I know about brain evolution, I can tell you about the hippocampus of every organism north of a goldfish. In detail! So, in this study, I have to know about cell biology too. I'll bet you a hundred bucks right now that I know more about cell biology than Dr Tour does. You can give us 5 minutes on national television if you want, we'll find out.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

no it isnt. The entire aspect of it can be explained by science.

That's exactly what a Scientific theory is. It's an explanation.

You just admitted my point.

It was a canid just like what we have today.

No, it was demonstratically different than the canines we have today. And it demonstrated intermediate traits between the next canid ancestor in line and the ones that came before them.

Have you noticed that you have to be corrected every time you say something?

Where did it come from? No idea. You seem to know.

I and the entire global scientific community know that it evolved from an earlier species. Because to adopt the embarrassing and childish belief that they simply popped into existence 40 mya would be laughable.

 

[pknopp]

That's exactly what a Scientific theory is. It's an explanation.

A possible explanation that hasn't been proven. Electricity has.

You just admitted my point.



No, it was demonstratically different than the canines we have today. And it demonstrated intermediate traits between the next canid ancestor in line and the ones that came before them.

Have you noticed that you have to be corrected every time you say something?

I and the entire global scientific community know that it evolved from an earlier species. Because to adopt the embarrassing and childish belief that they simply popped into existence 40 mya would be laughable.

It came from a canid. I'm not pretending to know what I can not prove.

 

[Foxfyre]

I wasn't quoting you.

You admitted evolution changes the genetics of populations over time.

Right?

You're not wriggling out from under this with the dimestore troll tactics you use in other sections of the board. Those don't work, when discussing science.

No.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A possible explanation that hasn't been proven.

100% wrong.

First, proof is for mathematics, not science. So there's another elementary error on your part.

Theory is the highest status a scientific explanation can attain.

The Theory of General Relativity... ever hear of it?

It's a fact.

It came from a canid.

Correct! It evolved from an earlier, different species of canid.

But, go back far enough, and there were no canids. Where did the "first canid" come from?

Did it magically poof into existence?

Or did it evolve from earlier species that were not canids?

Or do you have a third possibility?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No.

You certainly did.

Creatures over time do evolve.

That's what this statement means. How do you imagine they evolve, if not for changes in the genetic code?

Would you like to start over? Stop trying to slither out of it.

 

[pknopp]

100% wrong.

First, proof is for mathematics, not science. So there's another elementary error on your part.

Theory is the highest status a scientific explanation can attain.

The Theory of General Relativity... ever hear of it?

It's a fact.



Correct! It evolved from an earlier, different species of canid.

But, go back far enough, and there were no canids. Where did the "first canid" come from?

Did it magically poof into existence?

Or did it evolve from earlier species that were not canids?

Or do you have a third possibility?

Prove it.

 

[scruffy]

This is the average human height since 1900.

Anyone want to argue that this is adaptation?

Or maybe that it's due to an enhanced standard of living in the industrialized countries?

Question: why did it start flattening out around 1970 or so?

 

[pknopp]

This is the average human height since 1900.

View attachment 1052543

Anyone want to argue that this is adaptation?

Or maybe that it's due to an enhanced standard of living in the industrialized countries?

Question: why did it start flattening out around 1970 or so?

I'm not sure anyone argued against adaptation.

Getting tan is a simple example of adaptation.

 

[Leo123]

Like I said, I don't place much stock in other peoples' opinions.

I place stock in research I can do myself. Experiments I can replicate. I've worked with functional MRI both in hospitals and in the lab. I lived through the time frame when people didn't know why the dyes were failing. MRI is an expensive procedure and it causes discomfort. It is incumbent on practitioners to know their tradecraft.

It just so happens that in this case the root cause was traced back to an intron. And during those experiments we learned a lot more than just dye failure.

You can correct me if I'm wrong, but Dr Tour has never been near an MRI machine. I only talk about the stuff I know about. I don't spout other peoples' opinions unless I've done the research myself. I know a lot about viruses, especially brain viruses. I used to work in a P4;facility with brain viruses.

Why would I want to talk about Dr Tour's opinions? He doesn't do the work I do, we're not in the same field. I can tell you about dynamics and viruses because I study brains. Have, since long before neural networks became a thing. If you want to discuss machine learning, I can talk about that too. I know about brain evolution, I can tell you about the hippocampus of every organism north of a goldfish. In detail! So, in this study, I have to know about cell biology too. I'll bet you a hundred bucks right now that I know more about cell biology than Dr Tour does. You can give us 5 minutes on national television if you want, we'll find out.

We were not talking about your personal experience we (I thought) were discussing the origin of life and how it relates to Darwin. How does an MRI machine relate to that? What do dyes have to do with that? So, to be clear, you have 0 experience in the field of genetics and the origin of life. Guess we're done. You could have said that before.

 

[Leo123]

This is the average human height since 1900.

View attachment 1052543

Anyone want to argue that this is adaptation?

Or maybe that it's due to an enhanced standard of living in the industrialized countries?

Question: why did it start flattening out around 1970 or so?

Yes, better nutrition and sanitary conditions. Women, back then, lost as much as 2/3 of their infants as well. Flattening could be due to natural growth limits.

 

[scruffy]

We were not talking about your personal experience we (I thought) were discussing the origin of life and how it relates to Darwin. How does an MRI machine relate to that? What do dyes have to do with that? So, to be clear, you have 0 experience in the field of genetics and the origin of life. Guess we're done. You could have said that before.

You're being quite the asshole today.

You sound more and more like an idiot leftard.

Slinging howler monkeys shit will get you nowhere, boy.

Straighten up or this discussion is over. I don't have time to waste on bullshit.

 

[Leo123]

You're being quite the asshole today.

You sound more and more like an idiot leftard.

Slinging howler monkeys shit will get you nowhere, boy.

Straighten up or this discussion is over. I don't have time to waste on bullshit.

You’re off topic.

 

[scruffy]

You’re off topic.

And you can't wrap your mind around the topic.

"How does an MRI machine relate to that?"

It takes pictures of molecules, dumbass.

Your hero Tour can't wrap his mind around the topic either. The incessant demand for "proof" is nothing more than an excuse for a failure to understand the subject matter.

The subject matter is EVIDENCE, not proof. There is plenty of of evidence for biological evolution. MILLIONS of pieces of evidence. And not even one shred of evidence for a God of creation. Not one. Not even a single piece.

The modern theory of biological evolution deals with molecules. Not fossils. The fossil record is incomplete and will ALWAYS be incomplete, because much of it has been destroyed - by things like extinction events, and even by simpler things like primitive organisms being eaten, their molecules being recycled into more modern life forms. Which will provide a permanent and utterly ridiculous excuse for dumbass creationists to keep demanding "proof" and bleating about gaps in the end to end timeline.

The subject matter for evolution is MOLECULES. Big long complex ones being formed from simpler ones. And incorporating metal ions that serve as catalysts. That's it, that's all. The proof will come from our ability to create synthetic life forms in the laboratory, which has already happened and will continue to happen in ever increasing detail. This study requires detailed knowledge of the paramagnetic molecule called WATER, and how it arranges itself around cell membranes and DNA.

The best and irrefutable evidence for evolution is our ability to USE it for engineering purposes. Please do not speak to me about the fossil record ever again. If you want to know why a frog is a frog, ask me about Hox genes and Tbox transcription factors. I can do the same thing with a pin that a mutated Hox gene can do in vivo, I can make a frog grow arms where its eyes are supposed to be. I have done this myself, multiple times, I've seen the evidence with my own two eyes. The experiment is now standard practice in college level embryology courses.

If Darwin or anyone else has seen a frog with arms on its head he would have called it a different species. But it's not. It's just a mutated frog. It can survive, and reproduce, and mate with other frogs. If you want to argue evolution, learn about Hox genes and what they do and why they're important.

My patience grows thin with the misunderstanding and complete lack of understanding shown by people like your pal Dr Tour. He should be ashamed of himself, as a chemist he should know better.

The current state of the art in evolution research is the study of the development of shape, in embryology and across species. Some people study the segmentation of worms, others study the development of limbs. We already understand why some digits are webbed and others aren't. It has to do with programmed cell death. Death is an essential part of evolution, life wouldn't work without it. The focus on creation is getting to be increasingly brainless, because it misses 2/3 of the picture.

I study brain development, which is the MOST intricate part of evolution. Nerves migrate along chemical gradients,then sprout to find their targets, then 3/4 of the synapses die off to achieve the required function. The electrical communication between nerve cells is only 1/10 of the picture. We have technology today that can eject exactly two calcium ions into a synapse. Not 1 or 3, but exactly two. Why two? Because that's how many bind with a single receptor subunit, a receptor being a membrane protein that's locked into place by the cytoskeleton. Don't talk to me about fossils, I don't care and I don't want to hear it. No one cares about any goddamn fossils. Someday soon we'll be able to create an arbitrary life form at will. Then if a fossil is important enough we can recreate the organism and study it. Meanwhile harping on gaps is a complete waste of time and it only serves as evidence of ignorance.

Indeed. "What does an MRI have to do with that?" Sorry but that's a very ignorant question. Evolution is biophysics, not fossils. Ordinary MRI takes pictures of water molecules, but there is phosphate MRI too, that takes pictures of biological energy. A 7;Tesla MRI in a human takes 20 minutes in the hospital, but it only takes 6 seconds in a Petri dish. You can take a beating heart out of a frog, put it in a Petri dish, and before it dies you can map every single water molecule in it. Pretty soon we'll be able to watch live movies of the water during development. Why does water matter? Because sometimes it's required for genetic reactions, and sometimes it gets in the way. A chemist like Tour should know all about hydrolysis, but apparently he has no clue how it's used in living cells. It MATTERS for evolution, because hydrolysis and lack of hydrolysis can both cause mutations. The 70S ribosome has several thousand amino acids that do nothing but manage hydrolysis. It has a built in repair mechanism that corrects hydrolysis errors. And you're asking why we want to take pictures of water. Because you think evolution is about gaps in the fossil record. (Why else would you demand to see one species turning into another?)

Please, cut the crap and get with the program. We'll figure this stuff out with or without you. And you should learn to ask intelligent questions, that way you'll get intelligent answers.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Why the Royal Society Meeting Mattered, in a Nutshell​

That such a thoroughly mainstream scientific organization should now at last acknowledge problems with the received neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is also obviously notable.

the proceedings confirmed something ID advocates, including Stephen Meyer and others, have been saying for years.

Consider, for example, Meyer’s provocative claim in the Prologue to Darwin’s Doubt:

The technical literature in biology is now replete with world-class biologists routinely expressing doubts about various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory, and especially about its central tenet, namely the alleged creative power of the natural selection and mutation mechanism.
Nevertheless, popular defenses of the theory continue apace, rarely if ever acknowledging the growing body of critical scientific opinion about the standing of the theory. Rarely has there been such a great disparity between the popular perception of a theory and its actual standing in the relevant peer-reviewed science literature."

Why the Royal Society Meeting Mattered, in a Nutshell | Evolution News

The proceedings confirmed something that advocates of intelligent design, including Stephen Meyer and others, have been saying for years.

evolutionnews.org

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

100% wrong.

First, proof is for mathematics, not science. So there's another elementary error on your part.

Precisely so you are in no position to make statements about the world and insist they are true. Yet you are on record for saying "there cannot be evidence of supernatural nonsense, axiomatically" but as you've just acknowledged this statement cannot be proven, therefore it could be false.

Theory is the highest status a scientific explanation can attain.

The Theory of General Relativity... ever hear of it?

It's a fact.

It's a theory not a fact, I studied the subject so feel free to ask me questions.

Correct! It evolved from an earlier, different species of canid.

But, go back far enough, and there were no canids. Where did the "first canid" come from?

Did it magically poof into existence?

Or did it evolve from earlier species that were not canids?

Or do you have a third possibility?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You're being quite the asshole today.

You sound more and more like an idiot leftard.

You've fallen into the magat trap I see, merrily abusing people with whom you disagree and dragging your fantasy political beliefs into a discussion about science.

Slinging howler monkeys shit will get you nowhere, boy.

Straighten up or this discussion is over. I don't have time to waste on bullshit.

Stick to the topic woman.