Darwin

[The_Squid]

Good video. Very succinct.

[cybercoma]

9:08 --> betsy has been taught and explained evolution so many times that her posts can no longer be understood as unintentional misunderstandings. It's time we consider what she's doing as intentional misrepresentation. That unfortunately means that no matter how many times you explain it to her, she will continue to do what she does.

[cybercoma]

I hope she watches this video also

[GostHacked]

Fantastic clip cybercoma. Very good explanation and even rethinks my use of agnosticism. Atheist it is.

[kimmy]

The replies I got from some skirted around that - and tried to validate their opinion with colorful insults -

You got your answer repeatedly, from me as well as others. Think of the "colorful insults" as a bonus.

BTW, what you term "colorful insults" were really just an accurate assessment of your knowledge of this subject, and of your lack of discernment in choosing your sources of information. (this Carl Gallups character is particularly sad, even by your standards. What are you going to bring us next? Kurt "Crocoduck" Cameron and Ray "Banana-Man" Comfort?)

-k

[Sleipnir]

I'm surprise betsy hasn't said anything since this morning

[cybercoma]

Fantastic clip cybercoma. Very good explanation and even rethinks my use of agnosticism. Atheist it is.

I'm glad you got something out of it. It explains what I've been trying to explain for months far better than I could.

[cybercoma]

You got your answer repeatedly, from me as well as others. Think of the "colorful insults" as a bonus.

BTW, what you term "colorful insults" were really just an accurate assessment of your knowledge of this subject, and of your lack of discernment in choosing your sources of information. (this Carl Gallups character is particularly sad, even by your standards. What are you going to bring us next? Kurt "Crocoduck" Cameron and Ray "Banana-Man" Comfort?)

-k

As an aside, it's funny you should bring up ol' Crocoduck. Seems Angus T. Jones has become a Seventh Day Adventist and was trashing Two and a Half Men in a new video, saying "If you watchTwo and a Half Men, please stop . . . I don’t want to be on it. Please stop watching it and filling your head with filth." While the sentiment is surely spot on, what the heck is it with child stars and religious conversions?

[betsy]

Well said. What's worse, is that many of the creationist authors Betsy quotes know that their arguments are fallacious. I guess they're using the ends justify the means logic to rationalize their dishonesty.

Which ones? Be specific!

[betsy]

name='cybercoma' timestamp='1353942026' post='856834']

The replies haven't skirted around that. You simply cannot grasp the idea that they evolved into an exclusive relationship; they weren't created in an exclusive relationship. Survival of the Fittest is not about competition. It's about those animals most adaptable to the environment passing on their genes. If a mutually beneficial relationship developed between two species, then the ones that took advantage of that relationship would be more likely to survive, procreating wildly, and choking out the food supply of the others, such that they become extinct. Take on a few thousand years of the most suited animals for the environment, the one's with the strongest gene match for the environment, passing on their genes, while the others either die out or their populations simply shrink to near insignificance, and you get an exclusive relationship that develops over many generations. All your bold-face, underlined, and italicized fonts are meaningless, when you plainly refuse to even try to understand the process that you are criticizing. It's like having a 7-year old who's learning their times tables criticizing someone for doing differential calculus wrong. You don't understand the process that you're criticizing, therefore you don't understand the responses that have been given. Everything you bring up in your post has been addressed many times in this thread already by several different posters. Either learn about the things that you are criticizing, so you can actually make an intelligent argument, or risk continuing to look like you are completely in the dark, swinging at imaginary enemies that aren't even there.

You say survival of the fittest is not about competition???? Well according to Darwin, it is!

Darwin’s Theory of evolution is based on 5 main observations and assumption drawn upon them. They are:

1. Variation: There is Variation in appearence and abilities every species.
   
2. Competition: Organisms Compete for limited resources, such as food.
   
3. Offspring: The product of reproduction
   
4. Genetics: Organisms pass genetic traits on to their offspring.
   
5. Natural Selection: Those organisms with the most beneficial traits
   are more likely to survive and reproduce.
   

http://y11evolution....ral Selection

So much for all your hot air!

Edited November 27, 2012 by betsy

[jbg]

Fantastic clip cybercoma. Very good explanation and even rethinks my use of agnosticism. Atheist it is.

One doesn't have to be agnostic or atheist to believe that literal Creationism is hooey and bunk. Even that fanatic nut William Jennings Bryan, who represented the State of Tennessee in the Scopes "Monkey" trial conceded that the days referenced in the Creation story did not refer to twenty-four hour days. The time period could have been eons, which would have given plenty of time for evolution to occur.

[betsy]

Betsy, it appears that your knowledge of evolution comes from Christian apologist articles. You seem to confuse evolution with some of the mechanisms for change. You also seem to blend it with unrelated theories like abiogenesis. I stumbled across

which sorts out many of the misconceptions you have recited. Use the knowledge to better frame your points on the subject. It may even help you to evaluate the credibility of some of the articles you quote.

Pardon me?

You were the one to mention abiogenesis in the topic, The Bible.

Diversification of life: Evolution

Origin of life on earth: Abiogenesis is plausible

The Earth: Coalescing star dust

This Universe: The Big Bang

Prior to this Universe: I don't know, we may never know.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18914&st=1785

I'm not the one confused, as you can see.

[Mighty AC]

You don't even realize that you are proving my point. Watch the video Betsy. Learn a little bit about what you are attempting to refute. It is always wise to know thy enemy.

[betsy]

Not if creatures A and B had evolved into that symbiotic relationship, which was Lynn Margulis's point about mitochondria in eukaryote cells. The mitochondria began as a fully functioning, separate organism, but found the cooperative relationship working as the energy converting power plant within a more complex cell to be a better option. Symbiosis explained an evolutionary adaptation through cooperation, rather than competition - the constant focus of most biologists.

But there are lots of questions on that too! Still on the issue about the exclusive symbiosis between two creatures for their survival and existence.

]Symbiosis and endosymbiosis[/b]

A popular theory often cited in reference to the origin of intracellular organelles is the principle of endosymbiosis. This hypothesis proposes that chloroplasts and mitochondria began as freeliving aerobic prokaryotic ancestors which were engulfed by an ancient prokaryotic cell. These endosymbionts eventually became the intracellular organelles, which then apparently lost many of their own genes to the nuclei of their hosts. However, how such a stable relationship between ingested aerobic invaders and an anaerobic host was possible -- and why some specific genes and not others should be transferred to the host’s nucleus -- has yet to be documented. It seems highly unlikely that the cell conveniently developed the transport pathways to return the organelle proteins back to the relevant organelle. With no mechanism by which the pathway could be formed, the organelles would become obsolete once the transfer of genes to the nucleus was initiated. Furthermore, the organelles would likely cease to function because they would not confer a selection advantage.

An insight into how many genes were lost to the host nucleus may be derived from the fact that the cytosol synthesises for the mitochondria the following proteins: aminoacyl-tRNA synthases; DNA replication enzymes; RNA polymerase; soluble enzymes of the citric acid cycle etc. It is clear that, since proteins are made at two independent sites, nuclear-coded proteins must be imported into mitochondria and chloroplasts. The principle difficulty lies in the fact that imported proteins have to cross subcompartments to get into both organelles as the organelles possess double membranes. Here is where chaperones are required to bind the polypeptide chains just as they emerge through spacial pores into the mitochondrial matrix. A similar process operates in the importing of proteins into the chloroplast. Because platn cells possess both chloroplasts and mitochondria, two different kinds of signal peptides are also required to send proteins to the correct addresses.

The immensely sophisticated transport arrangements raises the question as to how they arose and what selective advantages there would have been in relation to the original endosymbionts to share genomes with the nucleus of the host cell. As if this is not difficult enough, a further logistical problem is created by the fact that all of the host cell’s fatty acids and a number of amino acids are made by enzymes in the chloroplast stroma. We have now a transfer in reverse. Of course endosymbiosis could only take place when cells with highly developed metabolic systems were in existence.

http://www.allabouts...g/symbiosis.htm

It is indeed very much debated.

From, "A Critique on the endosymbiotic theory"

All evolutionary theories must offer an explanation in mechanistic terms of how it should or could have happened in order to be tested. The difficult thing with the endosymbiotic theory is that it proposes no real mechanism and most textbooks show the simplistic picture of a cell that swallows another cell that becomes a mitochondrion. Unfortunately, it is not so simple as that. There is a difference between the process of endosymbiosis and its incorporation in the germline, necessitating genetic changes. What were those changes? What was the host? Was it a fusion, was it engulfment, how did the mitochondrion get its second membrane, how did two genomes in one cell integrate and coordinate? The theory is also strongly teleological, illustrated by the widely used term "˜enslavement'. But how do you enslave another cell, how do you replace its proteins and genes without affecting existing functions? The existence of obligate bacterial endosymbionts in some present eukaryotes is often presented as a substitute for a mechanism, but they remain bacteria and give not rise to new organelles. So, before we can speak of the endosymbiotic as a testable scientific theory, we need a mechanistic scenario which is lacking at the moment.

In order for an evolutionary theory to be considered a scientific fact or a valid scientific theory, there are some basic requirements. First, it is necessary to have a reasonably detailed mechanism that explains the basic steps in the endosymbiotic scenario. Second, this mechanism should be placed in the context of current Darwinian evolutionary theory and should contain no fundamental problems or falsifications. Third, a substantial body of empirical evidence that directly supports this scenario should be present. Fourth, no credible or logically sound alternatives should exist. If these criteria are not met, the endosymbiotic theory cannot be considered to be a scientific fact that has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Remarkably, the endosymbiotic theory fails all points.

http://telicthoughts...f-mitochondria/

So, this is being added to one of those magical scenarios that's been embraced as facts by some?

Edited November 27, 2012 by betsy

[cybercoma]

You say survival of the fittest is not about competition???? Well according to Darwin, it is!

http://y11evolution....ral Selection

So much for all your hot air!

Please stop posting things that you don't understand. All of those points tell you exactly what I said. The animals that are the best suited for the environment are the ones that survive. In any case, that is a minute point to the main point in that post that addresses your arguments: species develop into symbiotic relationships. Edited November 27, 2012 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Oh and watch the video, betsy. It will answer all of your questions.

[Sleipnir]

But there are lots of questions on that too! Still on the issue about the exclusive symbiosis between two creatures for their survival and existence.

http://www.allabouts...g/symbiosis.htm

It is indeed very much debated.

http://telicthoughts...f-mitochondria/

So, this is being added to one of those magical scenarios that's been embraced as facts by some?

To be honest betsy, you don't know what you're talking about in the area of biological evolution. Have you actually done any research on this topic, or are you just trying to incite an argument? The reason why I'm saying this is because you keep ignoring counter-claims against your claims.

[Sleipnir]

By the way, survival of the fittest in evolutionary terms is refer to organisms that can produce the most number of viable offsprings.

[The_Squid]

Watch the video Betsy...

[WIP]

But there are lots of questions on that too! Still on the issue about the exclusive symbiosis between two creatures for their survival and existence.

http://www.allabouts...g/symbiosis.htm

It is indeed very much debated.

What's not being debated by real scientists is that evolutionary changes to plants and animals has led to the present diversity of life on Earth. As I mentioned previously, there were evolutionary theories prior to Darwin that started because of the need for a theory to explain diversity -- especially the geographic diversity of life....and having all of the animals walk out of a boat two-by-two couldn't do the job any more!

Aside from the obvious motivation to adhere to religious tradition, the main reason why creationist thinking still persists, is the same reason why belief in spirits, ghosts and enchanted objects still persist: they appeal to our natural intuitions of essentialism...which in the case of plants and animals and people, would lead us to expect that every person and living creature has their own unique inner essence that is timeless and unchanging. And, there is also the natural intuition of assuming that the way things are at present, that's the way things always have been. Critical thinking trumps intuition when it comes to gaining real insight.

Back to your agenda-driven source which is so highly motivated to try to knock down or discourage interest in any evolutionary theory; I want to focus on this part of the underlined portion, because they apply the common appeal to ignorance -- something yet to be documented is implied to mean cannot be proven. And notice the choice of adjectives to try to cast a sense of doubt:

and why some specific genes and not others should be transferred to the host’s nucleus -- has yet to be documented. It seems highly unlikely that the cell conveniently developed the transport pathways to return the organelle proteins back to the relevant organelle

So, this is being added to one of those magical scenarios that's been embraced as facts by some? http://telicthoughts...f-mitochondria/

I haven't read the whole piece, but this statement early on jumped out at me because of the attempt to narrowly frame the debate to try to win an argument. Similar to the common refrain from I.D. theory about the enormous probabilities against a DNA molecule arising from random chemical interactions in amino acids.

'All evolutionary theories must offer an explanation in mechanistic terms of how it should or could have happened in order to be tested."

What they are demanding right from the outset is a reductionist explanation, which may or may not even be applicable. The point behind symbiotic theory, multilevel selection theories of E.O. Wilson and David Sloan Wilson is that they are looking for means to transfer information that aren't completely reducible to little mechanistic parts. Among entomologists like the Wilsons, the complex social behaviour and planning displayed by colony insects cannot be explained in reductionist terms, due to the obvious intellectual limitations of an ant, bee or termite's brains. But, yet they somehow divide up labour, perform coordinated actions without any central organization in charge of them. Somehow, it all works together, and most of the reasons why are still a mystery. And, the debates between Sloan Wilson and Neo-Darwinists like Richard Dawkins get way too technical for me to get anything out of them, but the dispute is largely because of colony behaviour that Wilson cannot accept genes as the sole mechanism of evolutionary change. Some of explanations are of emergent phenomena....similar to how a few simple rules enable a giant flock of birds to fly together without bumping in to one-another, and to turn almost in unison - before an actual command to turn could be communicated through the flock....but, just as in explaining how mind arises from brain function, not everyone is satisfied by reductionist explanations! So, you can't pretend every scientist is Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, and that there are no other theories besides creationism.

Edited November 27, 2012 by WIP

[wyly]

Among entomologists like the Wilsons, the complex social behaviour and planning displayed by colony insects cannot be explained in reductionist terms, due to the obvious intellectual limitations of an ant, bee or termite's brains. But, yet they somehow divide up labour, perform coordinated actions without any central organization in charge of them. Somehow, it all works together, and most of the reasons why are still a mystery. And, the debates between Sloan Wilson and Neo-Darwinists like Richard Dawkins get way too technical for me to get anything out of them, but the dispute is largely because of colony behaviour that Wilson cannot accept genes as the sole mechanism of evolutionary change. Some of explanations are of emergent phenomena....similar to how a few simple rules enable a giant flock of birds to fly together without bumping in to one-another, and to turn almost in unison - before an actual command to turn could be communicated through the flock....but, just as in explaining how mind arises from brain function, not everyone is satisfied by reductionist explanations! So, you can't pretend every scientist is Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, and that there are no other theories besides creationism.

i saw an interesting documentary on plants...how plants display animal behaviour without brains...I never though of plants as being capable of displaying behaviour but apparently they do...

[Sleipnir]

i saw an interesting documentary on plants...how plants display animal behaviour without brains...I never though of plants as being capable of displaying behaviour but apparently they do...

All living organisms display some sort of behaviour - just not in the traditional sense of what we call 'behaviours' in animals.

[cybercoma]

Excuse me, but evolution is just a theory. The real reason there's biodiversity is that Noah gathered up two of every animal and put them on the ark.

[dre]

How can two separate creatures - that exclusively rely on each other for their existence - existed at the very exact time?

They had to - since one cannot exist without the other. So, what's the answer to that?

If you really have to ask that question then you dont even have a basic working knowledge of the theory you spend all this time attacking.

[Mighty AC]

Excuse me, but evolution is just a theory. The real reason there's biodiversity is that Noah gathered up two of every animal and put them on the ark.

"Omnipotent God chooses not to use his power to simply forgive humankind, but instead implements a solution which requires that he impregnate a teen girl in order to give birth to himself so he can have himself slaughtered to save human beings from the Hell that he created. He then decides to communicate his scheme through conflicting accounts penned decades later by anonymous authors and subjectively handed down by flawed translators who can’t even agree on the interpretation of 'virgin.'" - Seth Andrews.

I guess that's why they have to get 'em young. I mean that they have to indoctrinate them young, not in the RCC sense of get 'em young. I guess that's also why they are waging a war on education too. Texas Republicans Seek to Ban Critical Thinking in Public Schools

"Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakeable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time." - Dawkins