Midget-Sasquatch

Joined

• started 18 topics
• posted 1,723 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Midget-Sasquatch

• 
  63

  Evolution of Man

  by bavman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  here's a question for all you who have been studying evoluition much longer than me.

  i have read in a few places that man has all but stopped evolving.

  is this what is really being taught by science and why?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  I can't help but feel like he's pointing to a current man, saying that there are only x mutations that could be made in a given amount of time, and the dilemma is that not enough time has passed to do that. But doesn't this require knowing the starting point?

  You've got their line of reasoning down pat. And I agree with you, to throw around specific figures you have to a have a specific starting point. Without the DNA of the human-chimp ancestor we really can't empirically say just how many mutations occurred to result in modern man. To compare humans and chimps you'd also have to figure that chimps have diverged from that shared ancestor as well. By how much? Once we've got all the genomes of humans and chimps sequenced we'll get a better idea.

  Methinks the YECers are saying: We'll choose a starting point of 10 million years ago. So we're giving the process nearly double the time you evolutionists say passed from the human chimpanzee split. But even with all that time the limit is still a puny 1,667 substitutions. In your face Darwin!

  Haldane did that theoretical model in the late 50s before the boom in good DNA data. They like to have things both ways. Evolution is too slow for humans to apes but its totally possible to have that massive burst of speciation in the shorter time from the Flood.
• 
  63

  Evolution of Man

  by bavman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  here's a question for all you who have been studying evoluition much longer than me.

  i have read in a few places that man has all but stopped evolving.

  is this what is really being taught by science and why?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  I don't think that ReMine made the claim that all the substitutions would have to be single nucleotide substitutions. I believe in his book (my copy is on loan) that he discussed the other types possible (including insertions, deletions, etc.).

  Yes, you're right there because just today, I was talking with a YEC'er and he brought up Haldane's Dilemma. Well, I asked about the allele or single nucleotide thingy and he said that Remine for illustrative purposes broke up the maximum 1667 substitutions, into rough groups something like 1500 of them would be point mutations, then 100 another kind of mutation, etc. So I'll amend my opinion: He's not entirely dogmatic about the numbers. But I still think he's willingly choosing to overlook a well known fact about single nucleotide substitutions that I believe has a bearing on his argument.

  However, keep in mind that a gene substitution can involve only a single nucleotide difference and ReMine states that according to evolutionists that substitutions in genearl are "typically" single nucleotides, not whole new genes.

  Its true that most mutations are point mutations. So it would seem logical to also say that most beneficial mutations are of this sort then. But are they really?

  As far as I know, single nucleotide substitutions are mostly neutral so there'd be nothing for selection to work on. There are also some point mutations that are deleterious and even fewer that are beneficial. It doesn't seem like it would be the main source for beneficial mutations. Its not impossible, but there's other info to consider.

  I've read that a number of new genes beneficial mutations are found to be duplicates of other genes, modified over time by deletions, insertions, etc. to have a new function. Now that takes multiple nucleotide substitutions. Thats why I don't think Remine can go with even a rough figure of 1500 nucleotides plus any remainder. But all of this is really useless number wrangling, because the Haldane model itself is an unproven theoretical model.
• 
  23

  Evidence for evolution, Installment 6: The bible requires it

  by seattleniceguy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  happy sunday, everyone!

  this week we will be breaking from our normal tack of examining scientific evidence, and instead consider the issue from a different perspective.

  now, when you consider the number of animal species in the world today, it is clear that there are literally millions more species than could ever have fit into noah's ark.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Evolutionists imply that if you accept the former that you must therefore accept the later (some also imply that if you reject the later then you must also rejct the former).

  I haven't ever heard someone be so "all-or-nothing" on those positions. Being dogmatic is seldom persuasive. But I have heard a more reasonable variant of the unbracketed thought - that there's solid evidence for microevolution which make changes on the macroscopic level plausible/likely over larger periods of time.
• 
  10

  Centre or fringe?

  by Narkissos in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as jws we were weekly told about making "jehovah," "the kingdom," "spiritual" or "theocratic interests" the centre of our lives.

  many of us bought into it and really tried hard to do so.

  committing oneself to full-time service was thought of as a natural way of "putting kingdom's interests first" and focusing on what was "most important".. forget a moment about the specific wt crap.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  I think "spiritual things" are strongly based and experienced in our emotions - with our reasoning just making sense of it, and maybe even keeping us in check. So maybe trying to focus on the spiritual, is like someone trying to focus on being more "spontaneous". You're bringing in too much of one kind of faculty and end up stifling the one that counts.

  Personally, I've tried to do "what is right" and to be charitable, but everytime its my rational side moving me to do it its not very satisfying. It sort of sounds selfish, because how I feel shouldn't be the reason why I do it. But all I'm saying with regards to this discussion, is that the other times where I felt I should do something and did it without focussing too much on this or that point (so as not to make it more rational than it needs be), I felt like I was closing in on the "spiritual" state to be in.
• 
  63

  Evolution of Man

  by bavman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  here's a question for all you who have been studying evoluition much longer than me.

  i have read in a few places that man has all but stopped evolving.

  is this what is really being taught by science and why?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Well it looks like Haldane was using alleles as the basic units. Mutations to alleles can involve more than one nucleotide substitution (point mutations). So its sort of misleading and disingenous for Remine to say the model puts a theoretical limit of about 1,667 nucleotide substitutions in a 10 million year stretch. The number of nucleotide changes with each mutation event is different, so he shouldn't be so dogmatic about the number.

  An interesting detail that few creationists talk about is that the mathematical model assumes an unchanging population size. How realistic has that been for our species?

  Remember that Haldane wrote that theoretical model in the late 50s, without all the genetic sequencing evidence we have today, and himself said that it would likely need "drastic revision". I'd rather look at empirical evidence when I've got it, instead of just a model.
• 
  63

  Evolution of Man

  by bavman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  here's a question for all you who have been studying evoluition much longer than me.

  i have read in a few places that man has all but stopped evolving.

  is this what is really being taught by science and why?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  I have a few questions on Haldane's model for calculating the "cost of natural selection" and the specific interpretations/ number crunching being bandied about by creationists to refute evolution.

  What is the exact nature of the units called beneficial substitutions in Haldane's model? Aren't they alleles (as usual in population genetics models)? Or did he specify nucleotide subtitutions (point mutations)?

  I ask that because its one thing to say the model's theoretical limit is one allele substition per 300 generations, and quite another to say 1 point mutation every 300 generations. You can have a number of nucleotide differences happen at one mutation event (e.g. transposition or inversions), and change one allele or more. Mind you thats not extremely common. Point mutations are the most common type of mutations as I uderstand it, but they're mostly neutral. They have no effect on the resulting phenotype - meaning nothing for selection to work on. Neutral mutations as I understand it are fixed mostly by non-selective factors. So can creationists legitimately say the theoretical limit is 1,667 nucleotide substitutions, and so question the large nucleotide difference between modern humans and modern apes? Or is Haldane talking about alleles (which would make more sense to me)?
• 
  43

  Attention all you wacky evolutionists!

  by AlmostAtheist in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  evolution versus creation has been beat to death lately, this isn't another debate thread.

  i wanted to showcase a hugely funny site i found when researching creationists' views.

  note that i don't believe this site in any way depicts the beliefs of most creationists.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  

  
• 
  63

  Evolution of Man

  by bavman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  here's a question for all you who have been studying evoluition much longer than me.

  i have read in a few places that man has all but stopped evolving.

  is this what is really being taught by science and why?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  I'd say that the process of evolution is universal , because descent with modification, apparently happens amidst all living things. But evolution isn't teleological, in that all life inherently is progressing in a particular direction.

  So to your implied question of what makes some species chosen ones, so to speak, and others left behind, especially when you've got similar organisms in the same environment: How does this sound to you?

  Like already mentioned, mutations are random. Different ones happen in different species as well as among individuals within a species. Also, there can me many niches within the same local environment.

  But since you don't see fishes generally needing digits or limbs like tetrapods to keep passing on their genes, there's no real pressure to take on those changes. A certain mutation may only be advantageous in a particular niche within an environment, and only individuals with the suitable mutations could exploit it. This could bring about a different subpopulation.
• 
  63

  Evolution of Man

  by bavman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  here's a question for all you who have been studying evoluition much longer than me.

  i have read in a few places that man has all but stopped evolving.

  is this what is really being taught by science and why?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Q,

  AlanF gave you a thorough list of discovered fossils.

  Just contrasting Australopithecus Afarensis to humans and other apes will definitely show it to be a decent transitional form. I also suggest reading up on and trying to find photos of Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus and comparing them with archaic humans. A nice trend in increasing cranial capacity and other skull changes can be seen. If you can find one, take a look at a close up picture of the skull of Turkana Boy (a young H. Erectus). The skull is a nice blend of human and simian.

  There are even some skulls found that are debated as to whether they are H. Erectus or H Heidelbergensis and are good candidates for transitional forms between those two. Some examples of these that I know of are Tautavel Man and Petralona (some even classify this one as neanderthal).
• 
  109

  Evidence for evolution, Installment 5: Lake Tanganyika, etc

  by seattleniceguy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey gang!

  i apologize for my absence of a few weeks.

  i have been very busy with work lately, and i hate to write something that i haven't been able to research properly, so i haven't posted anything in this series for three weeks now.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Tijkmo

  Not that Abbadon needs anyone to speak out for him (as I'm sure you've learned ), but if you focus less on style and more on the substance you'll see just how much there can be to learn from his postings. He's made me rethink the basis of my own position on one or two things in the past while lurking through some threads. If you go back and reread all his postings, you can see how all the facts he mentions aren't to flaunt, but they either clarify, validate, or add depth to what he's saying.

  but the main problem i have with evolution is the start...evidence of adaption i accept...but how did it start from nothing...as simply put in laymans terms please...god always existing as a counter argument is not good enough reasoning

  So I guess panspermia is out of the question? Darn, I sorta fancy the notion of being martian.

  Abiogenesis is what to look into then. There are many scenarios thought up about how life started, but really no solid evidence that favours one over another. One hypothesis thats currently in vogue has life starting off as self-replicating RNA. How it switched over to DNA though, is where its still very sketchy as far as I know.