Emlin

On this day, Jesus the Christ rose from the dead.

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, George 47 said:

Rubbish there are numerous papers published on the evolution of the eye with estimates of how long it would take to evolve from a simple eye to a lens based system. The difference here is that the biologists have proposed theories and then modified them as newer and better ideas and evidence come together.

Well, I just had a look at a paper that purports to detail eye evolution and the evolution of opsins etc. in the National Review of Neuroscience: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3143066/  It makes very interesting reading.  Constantly it says, 'we suggest' or 'we assume' or even 'this evolved' (very much akin to God did it!).  Interestingly it referred to a base paper on this subject identical to the one Richard Dawkins referred to: Nilsson DE, Pelger S.  A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proc Biol. Sci. 1994; 256:53-58. [PubMed].i

The abstract of that study starts:

Quote

Theoretical considerations of eye design allow us to find routes along which the optical structures of eyes may have evolved. If selection constantly favours an increase in the amount of detectable spatial information, a light-sensitive patch will gradually turn into a focused lens eye through continuous small improvements of design.

(Emphasis mine)

You mention othe examples, but the one you specify of the moths is another interesting one. The peppered moth is, I presume, the case you refer to.  The moth has not changed its colour at all, it has always existed in two melanistic forms, a light one and a dark one. What the study into them tried to show was that the ratio of light ones to dark ones changed as pollution affected the colouration of trees in different areas, thus making the lighter ones stand out on a dark background and vice versa, and thus become fewer because of predation by birds. They then tried to attribute this to evolutionary pressure of survival of the fittest.

You evidently have not kept up to date with these matters, George, or you would know that the researchers falsified their results in order to prove their point, even to the point of literally sticking the moths on the trunks of trees to show how vulnerable they were. Of course, it is known that these moths never rest on the trunks of trees, but on the underside of leaves high up in the trees, where they are less vulnerable.

When scientists vie for funding there is always a tendency to want to prove ones research is valuable and therefore worth more investment. Unfortunately this leaves it open to exaggeration, and even, on occasion, fraud.

Edited by bohemian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Clubsport911 said:

New religion predicts end of world and later described this event as as "important". 

No, we did not predict the "end of the world" in 1975. We said it would be a fitting time for the system to end as it would coincide with what we understood to be 6000 years since the creation of Adam.  Others, particularly apostates, latched onto the "end of the world" scenario and still do so.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, bohemian said:

No, we did not predict the "end of the world" in 1975. We said it would be a fitting time for the system to end as it would coincide with what we understood to be 6000 years since the creation of Adam.  Others, particularly apostates, latched onto the "end of the world" scenario and still do so.    

Not a fan of Darwin then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
2 hours ago, bohemian said:

Well, I just had a look at a paper that purports to detail eye evolution and the evolution of opsins etc. in the National Review of Neuroscience: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3143066/  It makes very interesting reading.  Constantly it says, 'we suggest' or 'we assume' or even 'this evolved' (very much akin to God did it!).  Interestingly it referred to a base paper on this subject identical to the one Richard Dawkins referred to: Nilsson DE, Pelger S.  A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proc Biol. Sci. 1994; 256:53-58. [PubMed].i

The abstract of that study starts:

(Emphasis mine)

You mention othe examples, but the one you specify of the moths is another interesting one. The peppered moth is, I presume, the case you refer to.  The moth has not changed its colour at all, it has always existed in two melanistic forms, a light one and a dark one. What the study into them tried to show was that the ratio of light ones to dark ones changed as pollution affected the colouration of trees in different areas, thus making the lighter ones stand out on a dark background and vice versa, and thus become fewer because of predation by birds. They then tried to attribute this to evolutionary pressure of survival of the fittest.

You evidently have not kept up to date with these matters, George, or you would know that the researchers falsified their results in order to prove their point, even to the point of literally sticking the moths on the trunks of trees to show how vulnerable they were. Of course, it is known that these moths never rest on the trunks of trees, but on the underside of leaves high up in the trees, where they are less vulnerable.

When scientists vie for funding there is always a tendency to want to prove ones research is valuable and therefore worth more investment. Unfortunately this leaves it open to exaggeration, and even, on occasion, fraud.

The scientific caution expressed here should not be misinterpreted, as you are doing. The publication is very clear. It is supporting evolution and reassuring the reader that despite Darwin's caution about the evolution of the eye they support it and have provided evidence that can be tested. Once tested and verified would you accept evolution over creation? Over 70% of scientists working in this field accept evolution as fact. There are over 175 references in the review. An excellent review and great evidence for evolution. Thanks for the ammunition.  data.

I tell you what let me look up other reference that shows the eye evolved (I could start with the 176 references quoted in this paper) and you provide any references from any major bioscience publication that shows your interpretation of God made it is credible.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
3 hours ago, bohemian said:

You mention othe examples, but the one you specify of the moths is another interesting one. The peppered moth is, I presume, the case you refer to.  The moth has not changed its colour at all, it has always existed in two melanistic forms, a light one and a dark one. What the study into them tried to show was that the ratio of light ones to dark ones changed as pollution affected the colouration of trees in different areas, thus making the lighter ones stand out on a dark background and vice versa, and thus become fewer because of predation by birds. They then tried to attribute this to evolutionary pressure of survival of the fittest.

You evidently have not kept up to date with these matters, George, or you would know that the researchers falsified their results in order to prove their point, even to the point of literally sticking the moths on the trunks of trees to show how vulnerable they were. Of course, it is known that these moths never rest on the trunks of trees, but on the underside of leaves high up in the trees, where they are less vulnerable.

When scientists vie for funding there is always a tendency to want to prove ones research is valuable and therefore worth more investment. Unfortunately this leaves it open to exaggeration, and even, on occasion, fraud.

4

Hmmmmm. Not quite true. To quote Wiki:

The criticism became a major argument for creationists. Michael Majerus was the principal defender. His seven-year experiment beginning in 2001, the most elaborate of its kind in population biology, the results of which were published posthumously in 2012, vindicated Kettlewell's work in great detail. This restored peppered moth evolution as "the most direct evidence", and "one of the clearest and most easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action".[7]

Who is out of date???

And bio-resistant bacteria is another example.

I know how science works. Fraud is very rare and part of the reason for peer review. Whereas the 'make it up as you go along' has been very prevalent in God believers. 6 days for creation is probably more suited to Goat Herders and should not be believed even if other parts of the Bible are taken literally.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks so much for taking up the cudgel on this George, but theists have special pleading, a zillion logical fallacies, (gaps, ignorance, teliological and many many more). I gave up on debating this time because I failed to get (as predicted) any sense of precisely what evidence it might take to change this theists mind and admit they got it all wrong (as science does all the time with fresh evidence) and why the "blessed Jehovah" stands by and fails to act on infant mortality. 

Showered in prayer from hopeful parents, under his gods watch, millions of children under 5 die each year. Inaction is either because Jehovah chooses not to, or cannot.

Using logic, critical thinking and reason will not get this theist across the line because... "it says so in his story book"

(Good luck with the evolution argument, you could try the pharyngeal nerve in a giraffe next...🦒🦒)

Edited by Clubsport911

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator

The sad part is that Kettlewell had put together an experiment to test whether observations on the peppered moths could be proven as an example of evolution to avoid predation. He designed the largest study of this subject and then reported his results. 

He was then subjected to a separate review that stated there were issues with his work, followed by another reviewer that questioned what he thought was written. They were both dismissed because their reviews were factually incorrect and they had misinterpreted Kettlewell's data. This assessment of the criticism finished by stating there was no resemblance between the original paper and the critical reviews.

This was then followed by an horrendous press report in the Telegraph that accused Kettlewell of fraud. Followed by another fatuous press report also accusing Kettlewell of fraud. He must have felt like shit. Here he was with a lot of evidence for his argument about peppered moths and in the popular press, he was being vilified and accused of fraud.

Of course the creationists jumped on the original 2 reviews and they became much quoted as was the drivel written in the press reports.

Afterwards  Majerus carried out an experiment (published in 2012} with a much larger population of peppered moths, which  vindicated the original Kettlewell work. At last there was acceptance that despite some issues with Kettlewells original work his basic findings were correct . His work had shown a modern case of evolution and was one of the most powerful pieces of evidence.

That is the reality of what happended.

A great piece of evidence (with issues) for evolution was turned on its head by accusing the scientist involved of fraud and inventing results. At last after Majerus's evidence this work has been accepted as great evidence for evolution.

And yes he did glue a pepper moth to a tree trunk, to illustrate the creatures written about. It is done in a lot of papers and a lot of TV programmes are filmed in the wild and Bristol Studios. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for that update on that research, George. I was not aware of the more recent Majerus study.  I am still unconvinced that it is evidence for evolution, though I can see the effect of environmental factors on the camouflage of the moth.  What is the moth evolving into? If geneticists have been able to identify to within a short period in the 19thcentury when the mutation took place (I assume in populations of the moth in the industrial north of England), what accounts for the similar distributions of the two forms in Detroit?  Was that an identical mutation?  Or was this melanistic version of the moth always a latent form?  Or have the two forms always existed side-by-side, with increased predation of a particular form accounting for the relative densities of population?  The moth is common throughout Europe and Asia it seems, so have similar effects been found elsewhere?

It seems to me a case of variation within the species being selected (by natural selection) for survival, but that the situation reverses and the other form becomes common again in response to environmental change. No net evolution has taken place, as I see it.  

Obviously you are much more informed on the scientific aspects than I am, and my questioning is sincere, I assure you.

I must apologise for taking so long to reply, but real life goes on, as you know.

Edited by bohemian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
2 hours ago, bohemian said:

Thank you for that update on that research, George. I was not aware of the more recent Majerus study.  I am still unconvinced that it is evidence for evolution, though I can see the effect of environmental factors on the camouflage of the moth.  What is the moth evolving into? If geneticists have been able to identify to within a short period in the 19thcentury when the mutation took place (I assume in populations of the moth in the industrial north of England), what accounts for the similar distributions of the two forms in Detroit?  Was that an identical mutation?  Or was this melanistic version of the moth always a latent form?  Or have the two forms always existed side-by-side, with increased predation of a particular form accounting for the relative densities of population?  The moth is common throughout Europe and Asia it seems, so have similar effects been found elsewhere?

It seems to me a case of variation within the species being selected (by natural selection) for survival, but that the situation reverses and the other form becomes common again in response to environmental change. No net evolution has taken place, as I see it.  

Obviously you are much more informed on the scientific aspects than I am, and my questioning is sincere, I assure you.

I must apologise for taking so long to reply, but real life goes on, as you know.

Hey no problem and I did not mean to get too excited but felt a bit for Kettlewell as I am now a retired scientific type.  Ironically the moths have started to revert back to their original white with black spots colourings. Sadly their population numbers have declined by nearly 70%. And yes there are reports of similar changes in Europe and Asia but I can't remember where the references are.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bohemian said:

What is the moth evolving into?

Evolution takes...... ages... and then some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.