19th December 2005, 11:04 PM
(This post was last modified: 20th December 2005, 1:50 AM by Dark Jaguar.)
First, I didn't express myself correctly. What I meant is I didn't do research on your various claims because I already did research on the nature of evolution. Your claims contradict those and I can't for the life of me find ANYTHING that leads to what you claim.
Tell me, what should I read? You say "I am not your teacher", but if that's the case then why the heck did you even open your mouth to begin with? If you are going to make a claim you better be prepaired to back it up. I ask, perhaps not as kindly as I could, for you to tell me what I can look at. You have provided nothing but excuses. What am I supposed to think?
Everything I've read says one thing about evolution. Mutation is the main provider of new genes and natural selection is the means by which any existing genes are, well, selected.
Every single flaw you think you find isn't really a flaw. Why aren't there a billion types of everything? Why should there be? Natural selection is going to weed out a LOT of stuff, and MOST species are simply not going to be preserved. Humanity has only been around for an eyeblink. What changes do you really expect there to be? Mutation, and it's not so random as all that (it's rare), is not going to provide all possiblities. You keep acting as though evolution is claiming something it's not.
But anyway, I just thought I'd clear one thing up. Sorry, but yeah, bringing up those old technical arguments has nothing to do with this one. Why did I bring it up? Well, this is Tendo City? Well really I was just getting annoyed with your utter refusal to even take a look at anything I provide you online.
I already posted information on optical disks. Here's a link for you.
http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/russell.html
Clearly there are only two levels of height to be found. Have you ever watched a single documentary on how they form CDs? It's very revealing. All data on a computer is either 1 or 0. It's amazing how much you can store, even "simultaneous" sounds in a massive orchastra, when there are only large strings of 1's and 0's.
And regarding light guns, I've discussed that before too. Again, you are partially right. SOME light guns need a CRT screen to work correctly.
Unfortunatly the only link I have is one to howstuffworks and directly lifted text at Wikipedia stating the same thing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_gun
Still, it's pretty concise.
The guns detect light, not electrons. Light is NOT made of electrons. That is clear when you realize that electrons have MASS, and nothing with a mass greater than 0 can ever reach the speed of light (which by definition light travels at). Light however has a mass of 0, and anything with 0 mass will immediatly go at the fastest possible speed. This is relativity here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation
Light is electromagnetic radiation. There is an electrical element, but it doesn't involve electrons. It is electrical force and magnetic force at right angles which constantly become each other over and over at a wavelength determined by the amount of energy in it. Light in some ways does behave like a particle, but it is totally without mass and is not an electron.
Some electrons may very well get past those phosphors, as static charge, but that's about it. They are scattered by all the charges of the matter in the air and thus can never dive into your eyes and thus you don't go blind watching TV too much (that's just an old wive's tale). Why would someone go pale watching it? Well, assuming that's actually true, maybe it's because they can't get a tan indoors? Sorry, but often the more mundane answers tend to suffice.
Back offtopic :D, only very specific light gun setups use the second method listed above. And, it doens't actually detect electrons. It detects the light. It merely uses the precalculated exact time when the phosphors will degrade and the position of the electron beam on the screen in order to tell where the light SHOULD be coming from. NES zappers don't work on that principle, and that's why I can play duck hunt on an LCD screen.
But anyway, it's clear you are confusing "theory" with whatever it is you are claiming. Evolution has come a long way since Darwin (for example, genetics is now involved), but seriously, involving something like "will" into it, trying to explain something that doesn't even need explaining, don't even try pulling stuff like that.
By the way, I AM willing to find the truth. Remember me? I USED to be a creationist until I decided to look into the issue and do research. I did a lot, a LOT of it. I eventually had to face the fact that evolution was inescapable, and it being a natural process unguided by intelligence was inescapable too.
Let me ask you something. Is part of this a need to defend a religious believe of yours? If this is religion, then simply admit it is as such and I'll leave it at that. I've no desire to get into a debate on religion.
On scientific grounds though, your offering is about as meaningless as any other form of intelligent design I've seen. It's not a theory. It's a hypothesis. Problem is, you haven't provided anything it can be tested with. A proper hypothesis can be falsified. What test do we perform where, if you are incorrect, the test will show that to be the case? If it can't be falsified, this is not science.
Okay, one other addition, ANOTHER link, and I'll basically be adding them for a while now as I do many searches on google.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...0_0/evo_18
To clarify your examples of things like an alligator, it is very interesting that some species go through a lot more changes than others with the same breeding rate. However, the alligator is pretty well adapted to it's environment. If that environment changes only slightly, it only needs to change very slightly. If that change is very rapid, evolution can't speed up. Why aren't there a million variations of everything? I said it before and I'll say it again, only the mutations themselves are random. The effect can be either major or minor. Anything that aids the creature in it's survival is kept, anything that doesn't is lost. Anything that does nothing tends to stay in a small subset.
There is also breeding, which shuffles DNA in a pretty random way as well. Well, half random. It will always pick half from one mate and half from the other, unless there's a mutation involved :D.
There's also population interbreeding, but that's almost an extension of the previous two methods in a sense (the sense that for those two previously seperated but still breedable populations had to develop those different genes somehow).
And by the way, why are humans so very identical? Why isn't there a non-human human? What do you think we are exactly? We're non-apish apes! Mutations being as they are mean that there isn't a straight line, there is a constant branching. Things that don't survive don't survive and the odds of us discovering their remains are pretty slim if they didn't last so long. Things that do survive do, and those branches are the ones we are more likely to see in the fossil records.
Why does will need to be involved? What causes the creature to mutate? Well, maybe it's something as simple as an error in DNA replication? DNA does not self correct perfectly, namely because in species that do self correct perfectly (let's assume a species that asexually reproduces), the ability to evolve is drastically cut down to radiation, meaning any change they aren't able to survive in, no matter how slowly this change occurs, will outright eliminate the species when it finally reaches lethal levels unless a much MUCH smaller chance of radiation based mutation occurs that is beneficial.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
Again, it's random mutation as well as mixing of previously seperate populations and sexual reproduction randomly shuffling sets of DNA together.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/exhibiti...es/180.asp This one even has a stuck up british woman telling it to like "like it is".
Now then, I've provided a large number of sources indicating this IS the current scientific view. Currently, there are no scientists in disagreement here (don't bother mentioning non-biologists, as their opinions are worth about as much as ours on the subject).
The next step is providing evidence that this explanation is correct.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/ev...berg.shtml
Here's an experiment for you. Try it yourself, though I must confess it's not like it's EASY to perform.
Of course there is the possibility that they misinterpretted their findings. :D
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/ev...ndom.shtml
You have the second hypothesis, that the lice shampoo actually was what CAUSED the mutations.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution4.htm
Yeah, I linked to howstuffworks again... But, I'm just making it clear you ARE the one making the new hypothesis here.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2...120505.php
Here's a recent discovery. Evolution IS incomplete. Holes, as you put it. However, gaps in knowledge shouldn't be taken as a sign to throw the whole thing out. Do you toss out the ENTIRE theory of relativity because it doesn't work at the quantum level? Do you toss out the ENTIRE concept of gravity because of gaps in knowledge about what occurs inside the horizen of a black hole? No, you fill in those gaps with more knowledge! If that knowledge contradicts the existing theory, you either modify that theory or you throw it out completely. Simple as that.
Gaps don't mean the theory is wrong. Evidence it is wrong mean the theory is wrong.
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comme...evolution/
Here's a lovely explanation of a particular mutation that I wish I didn't suffer from (I'm a cat remember?). Why would any intelligent design, cell based or otherwise, lead to this? No, it only makes sense if the mutation was random but "not harmful" as judged by environment. Since cats don't eat sweet things, the ancestor's lack of this ability would not have affected it's life. By chance, since a neutral mutation is pretty much now on the whims of fate, this was what got passed on to all future species. Also, and this is part of what makes a hypothesis a hypothesis. After testing a number of cat species and noting the same error, we can make a TESTABLE PREDICTION (say that in a 1950's educational video style when important words appear on screen when the narrator talks) that other cat species not yet tested will also have the same defect. We can test this and see whether or not we are correct. That's science right there, and it is wonderous that we are actually lucky enough to be capable of doing that.
Well, you may wonder why we don't splinter off in a million neutral mutation directions. Perhaps you forget ONE other thing. Some species have sex. They have to have certain features to allow this. Similar genetic code, for example, so they can't splinter off all that well. What about the asexual creatures? Guess what? They do exactly what you predict in that less bounded situation. They DO splinter off in a lot of different mutational directions. In fact, when it comes to single celled creatures, "species" as a concept falls apart pretty quickly. It's hard to define a species when, almost by the generation, each new creature has a new genetic code, and seperate cultures can develop pretty differently. Spread this out over a long period of time and you have the vast variations of bacteria we have today.
lazy, you are smart, and I'm not just saying that to lull you into a false sense of security or to brainwash you. I'm basically saying science, at it's basic level, doesn't really need all that much mental power. You impress me very often with the insight you have. Every sarcastic comment you make seems to have some deeper meaning, and when I think I've figured it out (and I'm never sure), I tend to laugh. However, you really seem to have never been taught critical thinking skills. Those are learned skills which a lot of people don't have. They are skills which lead to being willing to find out the truth, not just willing to further your own hypothesis whether the evidence agrees with it or not.
So please, I've done my part here. I can't find anything trying to state your idea. I've found a few nonsense sites mind you, but they don't really show your specific version of intelligent design. No, it's the typical "christian" version of which I'm sure you don't agree with.
Tell me, what should I read? You say "I am not your teacher", but if that's the case then why the heck did you even open your mouth to begin with? If you are going to make a claim you better be prepaired to back it up. I ask, perhaps not as kindly as I could, for you to tell me what I can look at. You have provided nothing but excuses. What am I supposed to think?
Everything I've read says one thing about evolution. Mutation is the main provider of new genes and natural selection is the means by which any existing genes are, well, selected.
Every single flaw you think you find isn't really a flaw. Why aren't there a billion types of everything? Why should there be? Natural selection is going to weed out a LOT of stuff, and MOST species are simply not going to be preserved. Humanity has only been around for an eyeblink. What changes do you really expect there to be? Mutation, and it's not so random as all that (it's rare), is not going to provide all possiblities. You keep acting as though evolution is claiming something it's not.
But anyway, I just thought I'd clear one thing up. Sorry, but yeah, bringing up those old technical arguments has nothing to do with this one. Why did I bring it up? Well, this is Tendo City? Well really I was just getting annoyed with your utter refusal to even take a look at anything I provide you online.
I already posted information on optical disks. Here's a link for you.
http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/russell.html
Quote:Russell envisioned a system that would record and replay sounds without physical contact between its parts; and he saw that the best way to achieve such a system was to use light. Russell was familiar with digital data recording, in punch card or magnetic tape form. He saw that if he could represent the the binary 0 and 1 with dark and light, a device could read sounds or indeed any information at all without ever wearing out. If he could make the binary code compact enough, Russell saw that he could store not only symphonies, but entire encyclopedias on a small piece of film.
Battelle let Russell pursue the project, and after years of work, Russell succeeded in inventing the first digital-to-optical recording and playback system (patented in 1970). He had found a way to record onto a photosensitive platter in tiny "bits" of light and dark, each one micron in diameter; a laser read the binary patterns, and a computer converted the data into an electronic signal --- which it was then comparatively simple to convert into an audible or visible transmission.
Clearly there are only two levels of height to be found. Have you ever watched a single documentary on how they form CDs? It's very revealing. All data on a computer is either 1 or 0. It's amazing how much you can store, even "simultaneous" sounds in a massive orchastra, when there are only large strings of 1's and 0's.
And regarding light guns, I've discussed that before too. Again, you are partially right. SOME light guns need a CRT screen to work correctly.
Unfortunatly the only link I have is one to howstuffworks and directly lifted text at Wikipedia stating the same thing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_gun
Still, it's pretty concise.
Quote:How light guns work
The "light gun" is so named because it uses light as its method of detecting where on screen you are targeting. The name leads one to believe that the gun itself emits a beam of light, but in fact all light guns actually receive light through a photoreceptor diode in the gun barrel. The diode uses light reception to do its targeting, in conjunction with a timed mechanism between the trigger of the gun and some rather smart graphics programming.
There are two versions of this technique that are commonly used, but the concept is the same: when you pull the trigger of the gun, the screen is blanked out to black, and the diode begins reception. All or part of the screen is painted white in a way that allows the computer to judge where the gun is pointing, based on when the diode detects light. The user of the light gun notices little or nothing, because the period in which the screen is blank is very short.
[edit]
Method one
The first detection method, used by the Zapper, involves drawing each target sequentially in white light after the screen blacks out. The computer knows that if the diode detects light as it is drawing a square (or after the screen refreshes), that is the target the gun is pointed at. Essentially, the diode tells the computer whether or not you hit something, and for n objects, the sequence of the drawing of the targets tell the computer which target you hit after 1 + ceil(log2(n)) refreshes (one refresh to determine if any target at all was hit and ceil(log2(n)) to do a binary search for the object that was hit).
An interesting side effect of this is that on poorly designed games, often a player can point the gun at a light bulb, pull the trigger and hit the first target every time. Better games account for this by not using the first target for anything.
The second method, used by the Super Nintendo Entertainment System's Super Scope and computer light pens is more elaborate but more accurate.
[edit]
Method two
The trick to this method lies in the nature of the cathode ray tube inside the video monitor (it does not work with LCD screens, projectors, etc.). The screen is drawn by a scanning electron beam that travels across the screen starting at the top until it hits the end, and then moves down to update the next line. This is done repeatedly until the entire screen is drawn, and appears instantaneous to the human eye as it is done very quickly.
When the player pulls the trigger, the game brightens the entire screen for a split second, and the computer (often assisted by the display circuitry) times how long it takes the electron beam to excite the phosphor at the location the gun is pointed at. It then calculates the targeted position based on the monitor's horizontal refresh rate (the fixed amount of time it takes the beam to get from the left to right side of the screen).
The guns detect light, not electrons. Light is NOT made of electrons. That is clear when you realize that electrons have MASS, and nothing with a mass greater than 0 can ever reach the speed of light (which by definition light travels at). Light however has a mass of 0, and anything with 0 mass will immediatly go at the fastest possible speed. This is relativity here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation
Light is electromagnetic radiation. There is an electrical element, but it doesn't involve electrons. It is electrical force and magnetic force at right angles which constantly become each other over and over at a wavelength determined by the amount of energy in it. Light in some ways does behave like a particle, but it is totally without mass and is not an electron.
Some electrons may very well get past those phosphors, as static charge, but that's about it. They are scattered by all the charges of the matter in the air and thus can never dive into your eyes and thus you don't go blind watching TV too much (that's just an old wive's tale). Why would someone go pale watching it? Well, assuming that's actually true, maybe it's because they can't get a tan indoors? Sorry, but often the more mundane answers tend to suffice.
Back offtopic :D, only very specific light gun setups use the second method listed above. And, it doens't actually detect electrons. It detects the light. It merely uses the precalculated exact time when the phosphors will degrade and the position of the electron beam on the screen in order to tell where the light SHOULD be coming from. NES zappers don't work on that principle, and that's why I can play duck hunt on an LCD screen.
But anyway, it's clear you are confusing "theory" with whatever it is you are claiming. Evolution has come a long way since Darwin (for example, genetics is now involved), but seriously, involving something like "will" into it, trying to explain something that doesn't even need explaining, don't even try pulling stuff like that.
By the way, I AM willing to find the truth. Remember me? I USED to be a creationist until I decided to look into the issue and do research. I did a lot, a LOT of it. I eventually had to face the fact that evolution was inescapable, and it being a natural process unguided by intelligence was inescapable too.
Let me ask you something. Is part of this a need to defend a religious believe of yours? If this is religion, then simply admit it is as such and I'll leave it at that. I've no desire to get into a debate on religion.
On scientific grounds though, your offering is about as meaningless as any other form of intelligent design I've seen. It's not a theory. It's a hypothesis. Problem is, you haven't provided anything it can be tested with. A proper hypothesis can be falsified. What test do we perform where, if you are incorrect, the test will show that to be the case? If it can't be falsified, this is not science.
Okay, one other addition, ANOTHER link, and I'll basically be adding them for a while now as I do many searches on google.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...0_0/evo_18
Quote:Mutations are random
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
To clarify your examples of things like an alligator, it is very interesting that some species go through a lot more changes than others with the same breeding rate. However, the alligator is pretty well adapted to it's environment. If that environment changes only slightly, it only needs to change very slightly. If that change is very rapid, evolution can't speed up. Why aren't there a million variations of everything? I said it before and I'll say it again, only the mutations themselves are random. The effect can be either major or minor. Anything that aids the creature in it's survival is kept, anything that doesn't is lost. Anything that does nothing tends to stay in a small subset.
There is also breeding, which shuffles DNA in a pretty random way as well. Well, half random. It will always pick half from one mate and half from the other, unless there's a mutation involved :D.
There's also population interbreeding, but that's almost an extension of the previous two methods in a sense (the sense that for those two previously seperated but still breedable populations had to develop those different genes somehow).
And by the way, why are humans so very identical? Why isn't there a non-human human? What do you think we are exactly? We're non-apish apes! Mutations being as they are mean that there isn't a straight line, there is a constant branching. Things that don't survive don't survive and the odds of us discovering their remains are pretty slim if they didn't last so long. Things that do survive do, and those branches are the ones we are more likely to see in the fossil records.
Why does will need to be involved? What causes the creature to mutate? Well, maybe it's something as simple as an error in DNA replication? DNA does not self correct perfectly, namely because in species that do self correct perfectly (let's assume a species that asexually reproduces), the ability to evolve is drastically cut down to radiation, meaning any change they aren't able to survive in, no matter how slowly this change occurs, will outright eliminate the species when it finally reaches lethal levels unless a much MUCH smaller chance of radiation based mutation occurs that is beneficial.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
Quote:"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)."
- Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12
Again, it's random mutation as well as mixing of previously seperate populations and sexual reproduction randomly shuffling sets of DNA together.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/exhibiti...es/180.asp This one even has a stuck up british woman telling it to like "like it is".
Now then, I've provided a large number of sources indicating this IS the current scientific view. Currently, there are no scientists in disagreement here (don't bother mentioning non-biologists, as their opinions are worth about as much as ours on the subject).
The next step is providing evidence that this explanation is correct.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/ev...berg.shtml
Here's an experiment for you. Try it yourself, though I must confess it's not like it's EASY to perform.
Quote:In 1952, Esther and Joshua Lederberg performed an experiment that helped to show that many mutations are random, not directed.
Here is the experimental set-up for the Lederberg experiment. All you really need to know in terms of background information is that bacteria grow into isolated colonies on plates, and that you can reproduce the colonies from an original plate to new plates by “stamping” the original plate with a cloth and then stamping empty plates with the same cloth. Bacteria from each colony are picked up on the cloth and then deposited on the new plates by the cloth.
The hypothesis for the experiment is that antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria surviving an application of antibiotics had the resistance before their exposure to the antibiotics, not as a result of the exposure.
Of course there is the possibility that they misinterpretted their findings. :D
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/ev...ndom.shtml
You have the second hypothesis, that the lice shampoo actually was what CAUSED the mutations.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution4.htm
Yeah, I linked to howstuffworks again... But, I'm just making it clear you ARE the one making the new hypothesis here.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2...120505.php
Here's a recent discovery. Evolution IS incomplete. Holes, as you put it. However, gaps in knowledge shouldn't be taken as a sign to throw the whole thing out. Do you toss out the ENTIRE theory of relativity because it doesn't work at the quantum level? Do you toss out the ENTIRE concept of gravity because of gaps in knowledge about what occurs inside the horizen of a black hole? No, you fill in those gaps with more knowledge! If that knowledge contradicts the existing theory, you either modify that theory or you throw it out completely. Simple as that.
Gaps don't mean the theory is wrong. Evidence it is wrong mean the theory is wrong.
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comme...evolution/
Here's a lovely explanation of a particular mutation that I wish I didn't suffer from (I'm a cat remember?). Why would any intelligent design, cell based or otherwise, lead to this? No, it only makes sense if the mutation was random but "not harmful" as judged by environment. Since cats don't eat sweet things, the ancestor's lack of this ability would not have affected it's life. By chance, since a neutral mutation is pretty much now on the whims of fate, this was what got passed on to all future species. Also, and this is part of what makes a hypothesis a hypothesis. After testing a number of cat species and noting the same error, we can make a TESTABLE PREDICTION (say that in a 1950's educational video style when important words appear on screen when the narrator talks) that other cat species not yet tested will also have the same defect. We can test this and see whether or not we are correct. That's science right there, and it is wonderous that we are actually lucky enough to be capable of doing that.
Well, you may wonder why we don't splinter off in a million neutral mutation directions. Perhaps you forget ONE other thing. Some species have sex. They have to have certain features to allow this. Similar genetic code, for example, so they can't splinter off all that well. What about the asexual creatures? Guess what? They do exactly what you predict in that less bounded situation. They DO splinter off in a lot of different mutational directions. In fact, when it comes to single celled creatures, "species" as a concept falls apart pretty quickly. It's hard to define a species when, almost by the generation, each new creature has a new genetic code, and seperate cultures can develop pretty differently. Spread this out over a long period of time and you have the vast variations of bacteria we have today.
lazy, you are smart, and I'm not just saying that to lull you into a false sense of security or to brainwash you. I'm basically saying science, at it's basic level, doesn't really need all that much mental power. You impress me very often with the insight you have. Every sarcastic comment you make seems to have some deeper meaning, and when I think I've figured it out (and I'm never sure), I tend to laugh. However, you really seem to have never been taught critical thinking skills. Those are learned skills which a lot of people don't have. They are skills which lead to being willing to find out the truth, not just willing to further your own hypothesis whether the evidence agrees with it or not.
So please, I've done my part here. I can't find anything trying to state your idea. I've found a few nonsense sites mind you, but they don't really show your specific version of intelligent design. No, it's the typical "christian" version of which I'm sure you don't agree with.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)