Forum Tools
Forums |  Register |  Login |  My Profile |  Inbox |  Address Book |  My Subscription |  My Forums 

Photo Gallery |  Member List |  Search |  Calendars |  FAQ |  TOS |  Disclaimer |  Ticket List |  Log Out | 

RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins >> RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong
Jump to post #:
Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong - 8/27/2008 9:23:55 PM   
Veritas

 

Posts: 519
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

That being said, this plant seems more than extravagant for what it does; rather than create an organism whose ability to survive is enhanced through modification, we see again an organism that is limited by it's unique capabilities, and so less likely to evolve further. We see this happen regularly in nature, and natural selection acting as a limiting factor rather than one capable of producing species more likely to survive than their predecessors.

A species does not look ahead to plan further evolution. While it might not seem like an intelligent design, evolution can only work with what traits it has. It's not like there is an intelligence behind evolution. Evolution cannot plan for the future. Venus Fly Trap may well be an evolutionary dead end.

I've noticed that creationists often criticize evolution by saying selection alone is not adequate or because mutation alone is not an adequate explanation. You are right that selection alone is limiting, but selection does not act alone. Mutations add genetic information, and selection picks the beneficial traits. Evolution makes no sense until you consider both mutation and selection and how they act in concert.
Post #: 76
RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong - 8/28/2008 9:57:00 AM   
DanJames


Posts: 677
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Veritas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

That being said, this plant seems more than extravagant for what it does; rather than create an organism whose ability to survive is enhanced through modification, we see again an organism that is limited by it's unique capabilities, and so less likely to evolve further. We see this happen regularly in nature, and natural selection acting as a limiting factor rather than one capable of producing species more likely to survive than their predecessors.

A species does not look ahead to plan further evolution. While it might not seem like an intelligent design, evolution can only work with what traits it has. It's not like there is an intelligence behind evolution. Evolution cannot plan for the future. Venus Fly Trap may well be an evolutionary dead end.

I've noticed that creationists often criticize evolution by saying selection alone is not adequate or because mutation alone is not an adequate explanation. You are right that selection alone is limiting, but selection does not act alone. Mutations add genetic information, and selection picks the beneficial traits. Evolution makes no sense until you consider both mutation and selection and how they act in concert.

Well that's just the thing. I didn't learn in my genetics class, a single method by which mutations can add genetic information. I learned a great many ways that the information can be damaged. There are some similarities between venus fly trap digestive glands and the glands that serve other perposes in other plants. What is the method by which these glands can be modified to both excrete digestive fluids and absorb nutrients? From what sources is the information added? At best, a substance that is already being produced would have to be modified (broken) and the plant would happen to be lucky enough to have these glands present in its capturing leaves.
Post #: 77
RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong - 8/28/2008 10:31:10 AM   
essentialsaltes


Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames
Well that's just the thing. I didn't learn in my genetics class, a single method by which mutations can add genetic information.


Apart from large-scale deletions, mutations add information to the gene pool, from the perspective of information science. Curiously, one way of quantifying information is called 'entropy' and it bears a mathematical resemblance to thermodynamical entropy.

quote:

I learned a great many ways that the information can be damaged.


Certainly mutations modify the information. The selection process will weed out modifications that are damaging to the creature's fitness, but others will be neutral or beneficial and will survive, adding to the total information in that species' gene pool.

quote:

There are some similarities between venus fly trap digestive glands and the glands that serve other perposes in other plants. What is the method by which these glands can be modified to both excrete digestive fluids and absorb nutrients?


This is certainly a good question, and is one that researchers can at least attempt to address through comparative genomics or whatever else biologists do. Apparently, we don't have an answer yet, but the stumbling block is not 'information'. Changes in the gene pool result in a pool with more information than a hypothetical static gene pool of plants with identical gene pools.

_____________________________

"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."

-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
Post #: 78
RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong - 8/28/2008 11:12:28 AM   
Jhud


Posts: 7843
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
quote:

A species does not look ahead to plan further evolution. While it might not seem like an intelligent design, evolution can only work with what traits it has. It's not like there is an intelligence behind evolution. Evolution cannot plan for the future. Venus Fly Trap may well be an evolutionary dead end.

I've noticed that creationists often criticize evolution by saying selection alone is not adequate or because mutation alone is not an adequate explanation. You are right that selection alone is limiting, but selection does not act alone. Mutations add genetic information, and selection picks the beneficial traits. Evolution makes no sense until you consider both mutation and selection and how they act in concert.



See? Here I am again - mutations really have no significant power to add the significant complex information neccesary to create something like a snap trap in a fly trap, and there is absolutely no evidence that it does, but of course I can't explore this further because it would appear to be off-topic.

_____________________________

Jack

It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
Post #: 79
RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong - 8/28/2008 12:18:54 PM   
DanJames


Posts: 677
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

A species does not look ahead to plan further evolution. While it might not seem like an intelligent design, evolution can only work with what traits it has. It's not like there is an intelligence behind evolution. Evolution cannot plan for the future. Venus Fly Trap may well be an evolutionary dead end.

I've noticed that creationists often criticize evolution by saying selection alone is not adequate or because mutation alone is not an adequate explanation. You are right that selection alone is limiting, but selection does not act alone. Mutations add genetic information, and selection picks the beneficial traits. Evolution makes no sense until you consider both mutation and selection and how they act in concert.



See? Here I am again - mutations really have no significant power to add the significant complex information neccesary to create something like a snap trap in a fly trap, and there is absolutely no evidence that it does, but of course I can't explore this further because it would appear to be off-topic.


Careful, Jack. At least we are staying on topic. Also, I think you're wrong. Grasses already have bulliform cells which close leaves by evacuating the cells when the leaves begin to become dry. Why couldn't these simply evolve the ability to do this faster, i.e. fast enough to catch a fly (which humans appear to not have evolved... we'll get there, though)?
Post #: 80
RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong - 8/28/2008 12:35:28 PM   
Jhud


Posts: 7843
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
quote:

Careful, Jack. At least we are staying on topic. Also, I think you're wrong. Grasses already have bulliform cells which close leaves by evacuating the cells when the leaves begin to become dry. Why couldn't these simply evolve the ability to do this faster, i.e. fast enough to catch a fly (which humans appear to not have evolved... we'll get there, though)?


Well, I can see how over time if there were very slow flieshung around on grass blades until those blades dried out and wrapped themselves around the flies, which would create a source of nutrition in poor nutrition soils. Eventually, as flies evolved to move faster, the blades would evolve a faster response as well, eventually evolving strutures that caused such movement in response to the presence of an insect. Sound plausible, given several million years of evolution.

_____________________________

Jack

It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
Post #: 81
RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong - 8/28/2008 12:39:11 PM   
DanJames


Posts: 677
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames
Well that's just the thing. I didn't learn in my genetics class, a single method by which mutations can add genetic information.


Apart from large-scale deletions, mutations add information to the gene pool, from the perspective of information science. Curiously, one way of quantifying information is called 'entropy' and it bears a mathematical resemblance to thermodynamical entropy.

you know, they actually said something like that in the class. "Mutations add information", and they then went on to list a thousand ways that information is damaged and possibly repaired, but never gave a mechanism for information to be added. Information is certainly regulated so that bulliform cells can be evacuated more explosively, or information can be damaged so a gland that would be producing a nectar is never turned off, thus producing a nectary (I made that up, I know of no such case). But in all cases information had to already be present in order for the damage or regulation to happen. Information is never added for natural selection to act on. If my nectary situation were to happen, the plant would loose the function of that gland, and we would have a generation of plants with less information, but perhaps, to the benefit of that plant.
quote:


quote:

I learned a great many ways that the information can be damaged.


Certainly mutations modify the information. The selection process will weed out modifications that are damaging to the creature's fitness, but others will be neutral or beneficial and will survive, adding to the total information in that species' gene pool.

Let's not mince words. Unless the change occurs in a regulation zone, the information is damaged. Causing the DNA to code for another amino acid may cause the protein to look or behave differently, but this has an uncanny tendency to cause it to act more poorly to some degree. It would seem, at least in all the examples that I know of, that the protein is coded for in the DNA exactly how it should be to do the job that it was intended to in the best way possible.
quote:

quote:

There are some similarities between venus fly trap digestive glands and the glands that serve other purposes in other plants. What is the method by which these glands can be modified to both excrete digestive fluids and absorb nutrients?


This is certainly a good question, and is one that researchers can at least attempt to address through comparative genomics or whatever else biologists do. Apparently, we don't have an answer yet, but the stumbling block is not 'information'. Changes in the gene pool result in a pool with more information than a hypothetical static gene pool of plants with identical gene pools.

As I hope to have demonstrated, nothing results in a pool with more information. A diploid organism heterozygous for a mutation has one copy of a good gene and one copy of a busted gene. The deciding factor for natural selection is whether or not the creature can cope with the busted gene. Information has been taken away, and the proteins coded for in that busted gene are no longer serving their function.
Post #: 82
RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong - 8/29/2008 1:50:17 PM   
DanJames


Posts: 677
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Careful, Jack. At least we are staying on topic. Also, I think you're wrong. Grasses already have bulliform cells which close leaves by evacuating the cells when the leaves begin to become dry. Why couldn't these simply evolve the ability to do this faster, i.e. fast enough to catch a fly (which humans appear to not have evolved... we'll get there, though)?


Well, I can see how over time if there were very slow flieshung around on grass blades until those blades dried out and wrapped themselves around the flies, which would create a source of nutrition in poor nutrition soils. Eventually, as flies evolved to move faster, the blades would evolve a faster response as well, eventually evolving strutures that caused such movement in response to the presence of an insect. Sound plausible, given several million years of evolution.

Well, you don't have to make settled science sound so unscientific, you know. I suppose there are much more fascinating and complex plants that could be brought up that do really cool things, forming strange and creative symbiotic relationships with insects. Evolutionary history for plants is something for which I doubt we'll ever have a good story.
Post #: 83
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins >> RE: More Proof Darwin Was Wrong
Jump to post #:
Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts



  Forum Tools
Forums |  Register |  Login |  My Profile |  Inbox |  Address Book |  My Subscription |  My Forums 

Photo Gallery |  Member List |  Search |  Calendars |  FAQ |  TOS |  Disclaimer |  Ticket List |  Log Out | 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI