Rich Hughes says the ToE should be disconfirmed!
According to Rich Hughes the theory of evolution (ToE) should be disconfirmed:
We do not observe gradual changes through time.
That was one of the reasons for punctuated equilibrium.
So is the ToE disconfirmed or is Richie Hughes just full of shit?
If the ToE is true we should observe evidence of gradual changes in life through time. If we don't observe gradual changes through time the ToE is at risk of disconfirmation.
We do not observe gradual changes through time.
That was one of the reasons for punctuated equilibrium.
So is the ToE disconfirmed or is Richie Hughes just full of shit?
posted by Joe G @ 9:29 AM
41 Comments:
At 10:05 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Actually Joe, we do observe gradual changes through time for life. Punctuated equilibrium may be a phenomena for some species, but at bigger level of 'life' we can see constant change.
It's patently obvious that life started small and simple and got more complex as time went on. We have great indicators, like ERVs, that show us our common ancestry with other apes.
So don't put words in my mouth, which I didn't say. I know you like putting things in peoples mouths, but try to resist.
And the false dichotomy at the end is pure creationist-style dishonesty. well done.
At 10:25 AM,
Joe G said…
No Rich, we do not observe gradual changes.
That said "evolution" does NOT have a direction. Nor does the theory of evolution say there is one. That means that this:
It's patently obvious that life started small and simple and got more complex as time went on.
Is based on total ignorance of the theory.
We have great indicators, like ERVs, that show us our common ancestry with other apes.
Only if you aleady believe in common ancestry.
CA is not the only explanation for similarities.
And ERVs could be a devolved form of left-over animal DNA/ RNA.
Just as prions are left-overs.
So don't put words in my mouth, which I didn't say.
OK.
YOU said:
If we don't observe gradual changes through time the ToE is at risk of disconfirmation.
We do not.
That has been an issue for a long time.
Cetacean evolution- huge leaps to connect land mammals to whales.
That is just one example.
Bats nothing leading to them- just bats- a little different but still a bat.
As a matter of fact the alleged "tree of life" is no longer considered a valid PoV.
The majority of the fossil record (95% +) is of marine invertebrates.
In that vast majority the ONLY gradual change observed is slight variations in a handful of organisms.
And then there's that Cambrian thingy.
So there you have it Richie.
Present that peer-reviewed documentation of gradual changes through time or admit that the ToE is at risk of being disconfirmed just as YOU said.
Or continue to prove you are nothing but a stroke artest.
At 10:41 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Changes" does not have a direction, Joe. It's not a vector.
Let's talk about ERVs, joe.
we share LTR fragments with other apes and exactly the same places genomically. And we if take the fragments, we can stich-'em-together and get a functioning retro virus.
Do you doubt any of this?
At 10:45 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"If we don't observe gradual changes through time the ToE is at risk of disconfirmation." - we do see this for life Joe.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibits/historyoflife.php
At 4:43 PM,
Kristine said…
"The model of punctuated equilibria does not maintain that nothing occurs gradually at any level of evolution. It is a theory about speciation and its deployment in the fossil record. It claims that an important pattern, continuous at higher levels—the 'classic' macroevolutionary trend—is a consequence of punctuation in the evolution of species. It does not deny that allopatric speciation occurs gradually in ecological time (though it might not—see Carson, 1975), but only asserts that this scale is a geological microsecond."
Gould and Eldredge. (1977). "Invalid claims of gradualism made at the wrong scale." p.121.
At 5:45 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"We do not observe gradual changes through time" - This is patently untrue and uniformed.
At 7:25 AM,
Joe G said…
"We do not observe gradual changes through time"
- This is patently untrue and uniformed.
I listed examples.
There isn't any evidence of gradual change in the allged evolution of bats from non-bats:
Evo of bats is a mystery
The evolutionary origin of chiropterans is still somewhat of a mystery, because the fossil record of bats is scant.
There isn't any gradual change observed from single-celled to multi-celled to metazoans.
Nothing.
At 7:27 AM,
Joe G said…
Geez Richie,
There wasn't anything at the site UC Berkley- that supports your claim.
At 7:48 AM,
Joe G said…
"Changes" does not have a direction, Joe.
Yet YOU said:
It's patently obvious that life started small and simple and got more complex as time went on.
You would not have said that if you knew about the theory.
That is because the theory doesn't expect it.
Let's talk about ERVs, joe.
Start with their ORIGINS.
Where did they come from?
How did they come to be in existence?
we share LTR fragments with other apes and exactly the same places genomically.
That isn't evidence for common descent.
Genetic similarities can be explained by convergence and/ or common design.
And we if take the fragments, we can stich-'em-together and get a functioning retro virus.
Yup we can get a functioning virus without doing that- just by taking synthesized components and putting them together.
Those parts never had anything to do with being a virus.
Do you understand what that means?
Ya see Richie, if universal common descent were refuted tomorrow because we had a genetic breakthough that demonstrated such transformations are not possible- those DNA sequences would still be there.
However your explanation for them would be invalid. Which would mean there is another explanation- the REAL explanation.
Ya see Richie, what no one can do is demonstrate that the transformations required are even possible.
At 7:49 AM,
Joe G said…
Kristine,
Someone should tell Dawkins about PE.
He dedicates a chapter to destroying it (an attempt anyway) in his book "The Blind Watchmaker", because it gores against gradualism- according to him.
At 8:12 AM,
Joe G said…
Also one of the reasons for PE was the observation of stasis- no change.
Now Richie wants to talk about humans- there isn't any evidence of gradual change from non-human to human.
Just another small handfull of speculations.
So where is this gradual change observed?
It isn't observed in the fossil record.
And it isn't observed in living organisms.
Present that peer-reviewed documentation of gradual changes through time or admit that the ToE is at risk of being disconfirmed just as YOU said.
Or continue to prove you are nothing but a stroke artest.
Still waiting...
At 8:20 AM,
Joe G said…
Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life:
Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste.
At 9:37 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
ERVs are confirmation of Humans and other apes sharing a common ancestor. How else would we share common virus fragments?
Single celled life clearly predates megafauna - I didn't give evolution a direction, I said life has become more complex, which it has.
Thanks, Cakeboy. Get your CSI up on UD!
At 10:21 AM,
Joe G said…
ERVs are confirmation of Humans and other apes sharing a common ancestor.
Great- science by assertion.
How else would we share common virus fragments?
Answer the questions you intellectual coward:
Where did they come from?
How did they come to be in existence?
Ya see Richie there isn't any genetic data which would demonstrate the changes required are even possible.
IOW there isn't any way to "calculate the evolution" of anything.
Single celled life clearly predates megafauna
Even if true that doesn't say anything about gradual change.
And to date there isn't any evidence that single-celled organisms can "evolve" into megafauna.
Just a speculation based on the assumption.
I didn't give evolution a direction, I said life has become more complex, which it has.
So you just said it because it is meaningless?
Present that peer-reviewed documentation of gradual changes through time or admit that the ToE is at risk of being disconfirmed just as YOU said.
Or continue to prove you are nothing but a stroke artest.
chirp, chirp stroker...
At 10:23 AM,
Kristine said…
Joe, if Dawkins devoted a chapter to PE, I don't have to tell him about it, do I? As a matter of fact, he and I had a discussion about it. It's not the devastation of ToE that creationists think it is. Sorry, but you're harkening back to the old "equal time for creation science" arguments, and as much as I miss the 1970s, I really don't relish this dredged up again.
At 10:36 AM,
Joe G said…
Kristine,
Do you even understand what is being discussed?
PE was one explanation for the fact we do not see gradual change over time.
We see quite a bit of stasis.
That goes against what Richie said.
That plus many, many other facts that Richie cannot admit to.
At 10:49 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Where did they come from?
How did they come to be in existence?"
You mean LTR ERVs?
from Retroviruses.
How did they come to be in existence? Are we talking abiogenesis Joe?
At 11:20 AM,
Joe G said…
from Retroviruses.
Duh- and where did they come from?
Are they the left-overs of a dying ape?
That would mean not all the sequences that "look like" ERVs are actually ERVs.
Ya see to be used as evidence for common descent there has to be some genetic evidence that such a transformation is possible.
There isn't any because we just don't know what makes a chimp a chimp and what makes a human a human.
Ya see Richie there isn't any genetic data which would demonstrate the changes required are even possible.
IOW there isn't any way to "calculate the evolution" of anything.
Present that peer-reviewed documentation of gradual changes through time or admit that the ToE is at risk of being disconfirmed just as YOU said.
Or continue to prove you are nothing but a stroke artist.
chirp, chirp stroker...
At 11:39 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Okay, Joe wants to move the goalposts all the way back to abiogenesis. Fine, but we'll take ERVs as proof of evolution and common ancestry.
Abiogenesis: I don't know, neither do you. Science has some conjectures at the moment.
PLEASE NOTE, IDISTS: "DON'T KNOW" <> DESIGN.
At 11:46 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
http://www.jstor.org/pss/4450173
"... The major anatomical, skel- etal and dental evolutionary changes through time
are well-documented and supported by multiple fossil specimens. ... "
That was hard. not.
At 3:00 PM,
Kristine said…
Do you even understand what is being discussed?
Oh, yes I do, Hon. PE is the explanation for why we do not see consistent gradualism only. We see gradualism (what you're calling "stasis" does not exist - mutations continue to occur, all individual animals are genetic individuals, even if no speciation is occuring) and then more rapid change, perhaps in response to increased selective pressure, but this relatively more rapid change is still very gradual in terms of geologic time. Just as if you push a shopping cart along a sidewalk and then down a slight incline, you're going to see a brief acceleration - but you're still gradually pushing the shopping cart along the entire stretch of sidewalk, not leaping any "gaps."
At 3:52 PM,
Joe G said…
Okay, Joe wants to move the goalposts all the way back to abiogenesis.
No, not at all.
Ya see I don't think viruses arose at the beginning.
I think they arose just how I said.
And until you know their origins you don't know what they are in any organism.
Fine, but we'll take ERVs as proof of evolution and common ancestry.
Science by declaration again.
Is that all you have?
Then you don't have anything and you certainly don't have anything pertaining to gradaualism.
"... The major anatomical, skel- etal and dental evolutionary changes through time
are well-documented and supported by multiple fossil specimens. ... "
More science by declaration.
And still nothing for bats.
Cetacean evolution is spotty at best.
Noithing from single-cell to multi-cell to metazoan.
Teeth can be changed by diet alone.
Geez Rich you will believe anything.
And still nothing about gradual changes....
At 3:55 PM,
Joe G said…
Kristine,
There isn't any evidence that would demonstrate any amount of genetic change can account for the differences observed betwen organisms.
There isn't any evidence for cumulative selection leading to new body plans and new protein machinery.
Nothing.
So stick that in your evidence pipe, hon.
At 4:09 PM,
Kristine said…
Joe G, you just show me how to "stick it in my evidence pipe." I would really love to see if you can find it.
At 4:17 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Goalposts still moving - Just go to the end and ask for a comprehensive theory of everything, Cakeboy.
At 5:18 PM,
Joe G said…
What goalposts are moving beater-boy?
Just because you think that ERVs are evidence for common ancestry doesn't make it so.
Just go to the end and ask for a comprehensive theory of everything,
You don't have anything but a narrative.
Calculate the evoltion beater-boy
Show us this gradualism
Where is it?
Not in the fossil record
The MAJORITY- VAST majority of the fossil record is of marine inverts- gradualism is missing.
Come on beater-boy I am still waiting for the evidence for gradualism
At 5:24 PM,
Joe G said…
Yes Kristine I am sure that "evidence" is a new concept to you.
At 5:33 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
You asked for peer reviewed evidence and I gave it to you.
Here's a few more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
Poor Cakeboy, but at least your stupidity got you some traffic here, eh?
At 5:37 PM,
Joe G said…
Goalpost moving-
The goalposts were set in position pertaing to GRADUALISM.
Richie beater-boy then introduced ERVs as evidence for common ancestry between humans and apes.
That has NOTHING to do with gradualism and does NOT support any premise of gradualism.
So who the fuck is moving the goalposts?
Richie beater-boy.
He had to. The original placement was unreachable.
At 5:44 PM,
Joe G said…
You asked for peer reviewed evidence and I gave it to you.
Peer-reviewed evidence for gradualism.
That is what I asked for.
You didn't provide that.
GRADUALISM you freakin moron.
Evidence for common descent can also be used as evidence for common design and/ or convergence.
This isn't any genetic data which would demonstrate the changes required are even possible.
Ya see retardo beater-boy, there is this peer-reviewed paper tat tried to refute Behe's "Edge of Evolution".
What it did, however, was refute the theory of evolution.
It showed that cumulative selection is a pipe-dream and there isn't enough time to account for all the cumulative selection that had to have occurred.
Heck you chumps can't even demonstrate a bacterial flagellum can evolve from a population that never had one.
At 5:48 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
It shows gradual changes through time. If a mouse and an elephant had the same ERVs, we'd have an issue, but the evidence supports the slow stepwise progress of the tree of life.*
*Although technically the mangrove of live as ERVS provide lateral gene transfer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradualism
"Gradualism is the belief that changes occur, or ought to occur, slowly in the form of gradual steps (see also incrementalism)"
"Geology and biology
In the natural sciences, gradualism is a theory which holds that profound change is the cumulative product of slow but continuous processes, often contrasted with catastrophism. The theory was proposed in 1795 by James Hutton, a Scottish geologist, and was later incorporated into Charles Lyell's theory of uniformitarianism. Tenets from both theories were applied to biology and formed the basis of early evolutionary theory.
Charles Darwin was influenced by Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology, which explained both uniformitarian methodology and theory. Using methodological uniformitarianism, which states that one cannot make an appeal to any force or phenomenon which cannot presently be observed (see catastrophism), Darwin theorized that the evolutionary process must occur gradually, not in saltations, since saltations are not presently observed, and extreme deviations from the usual phenotypic variation would be more likely to be selected against.
Gradualism is often confused with the concept of phyletic gradualism, a term coined by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge to contrast with their concept of Punctuated equilibrium, which is gradualist itself (but accepts that saltation can occur, even though it is not a necessary mechanism nor the main point)."
At 5:49 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Evidence for common descent can also be used as evidence for common design and/ or convergence.
"
Show me how ERVs support that thesis. Please.
Thanks, Cakeboy.
At 5:53 PM,
Kristine said…
Well, some information genius obviously didn't get the double entendre.
At 6:21 PM,
Kristine said…
So much evidence, so little time.
At 8:41 AM,
Joe G said…
Show me how ERVs support that thesis.
Show me the genetic data which demonstrates the transformations required are even possible.
Thanks.
Then show me the calculation that proves thne transformations were gradual.
Thanks.
At 8:44 AM,
Joe G said…
Richie on ERVs:
It shows gradual changes through time.
How do ERVs show gradualism?
"Gradualism is the belief that changes occur, or ought to occur, slowly in the form of gradual steps (see also incrementalism)"
And yet there isn't ANY evidence for a gradual change from land mammal to whale.
There isn't a gradual change from single-cell top multi-cell to metazoan.
And there isn't any gradual change from non-bats to bats.
IOW gradualism is NOT observed in life through time.
At 8:56 AM,
Joe G said…
Another article for Richie to ignore:
Waiting for two mutations: with applications to regulatory sequence evolution and the limits of Darwinian evolution.:
Abstract:
Results of Nowak and collaborators concerning the onset of cancer due to the inactivation of tumor suppressor genes give the distribution of the time until some individual in a population has experienced two prespecified mutations and the time until this mutant phenotype becomes fixed in the population. In this article we apply these results to obtain insights into regulatory sequence evolution in Drosophila and humans. In particular, we examine the waiting time for a pair of mutations, the first of which inactivates an existing transcription factor binding site and the second of which creates a new one. Consistent with recent experimental observations for Drosophila, we find that a few million years is sufficient, but for humans with a much smaller effective population size, this type of change would take > 100 million years. In addition, we use these results to expose flaws in some of Michael Behe's arguments concerning mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution.
Two mutations would take over 100 million years for humans.
Dr Doug Axe weighs in
Furthermore, returning to the first question, it seems that even humble binding-site conversions are typically beyond the reach of Darwinian evolution. Durrett and Schmidt conclude that “this type of change would take >100 million years” in a human line [1], which is problematic in view of the fact that the entire history of primates is thought to be shorter than that [3].
And Dr Behe weighs in
At 9:15 AM,
Joe G said…
Kristine,
You are posting in the wrong thread.
You linked to cakes and this is not a cake thread.
At 7:00 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
We definatley see gradual cha nges in teh complexity of life, Joe. Megafauna did not come first. Life started simple and got more complicated.
At 7:36 AM,
Joe G said…
We definatley see gradual cha nges in teh complexity of life, Joe.
We do?
Where are those gradual chganges pertaining to single-cell to multi-cell to metazoan?
And why doesn't the theory of evolution say anything about observing gradual changes in the complexity of life?
Evolution doesn't have a direction.
Organisms can also become more simple.
It all depends on what happens and what gets selected.
Also I take it you don't understand the significance of the "Two Mutation..." paper.
You don't have anything except a bald assertion.
At 7:54 AM,
Joe G said…
Can evolution make things less complicated?:
“We do think there is a tendency to look at evolution as progressive,” he said. “We prefer to think of evolution as backwards, sideways, and occasionally forward.”
Post a Comment
<< Home