Nej, men hvis du har en tom spand og kaster en håndfuld sten, er der en god chance for at én af dem rammer. Du antager fortsat at giraffen opstod fra den ene dag til den anden. Det gjorde den jo ikke. Den ene dag var den en encellet organisme. Et par hundrede millioner år senere begyndte den at ligne en giraf.
Gi' dog pengene til Afrika... De har mere brug for dem.
Prøv du at lægge mursten, træ, cementposer og alskens byggemateriale i en stor bunke, og se så om det nogensinde selv organiserer og påbegynder rejsningen af et velfungerende hus!
"The big stunner in this paper was that the two independent gains of spots we studied each resulted from mutations in distinct ancestral CREs," said Carroll. "In the ancestor, one of these CREs controls the expression of the yellow gene in the wing blade and one in the vein.
"This finding is informative because it shows that the wing pattern wasn't generated from scratch," said Carroll. "The fly didn't use native DNA that had no job and invent this pattern out of thin air. It used a gene that was already active in the wing, already drawing some kind of pattern in the wing, and modified that pattern. We think that is strong clue to how nature invents, which is by using material that is already available. This demonstrates how evolution is a tinkerer," he said.
Angående Michael Dentons "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" er følgende side også fin at læse:
Denne tråd, og alle de andre, om evolution og skabelse handler om lægmænd der forsøger at overbevise andre lægmænd, om hvorvidt den generelle biologiske forskning er ude på et sidespor, eller ej.
Men dybest set så ved vi ingenting, fordi vi er ikke biologer. Og det er netop derfor det ikke er ligegyldigt hvad der er videnskabelig konsensus om, og hvad der er ikke er. For det er det eneste vi reelt kan forholde os til.
Det er grundlæggende helt absurd at lade andre end andre forskere forholde sig til kontroversielle idéer, som ligger sig uden for det generelle felt af konsensus, og netop deri består hele denne tråds indbyggede absurditet.
For bn anerkender angiveligt videnskabeligt forskning, men tillader sig alligevel indenfor biologien at være overdommer for hvad der er videnskabeligt plausibelt og hvad der ikke er. Og når han omfavner pseudo-videnskabeligt litteratur, som er blevet underkendt af biologien i almindelighed, samtidig med han forkaster størstedelen af de biologiske forskere, der forsker i evolution, hvad skal en lægmand som stakkels Patriarch gøre?
Han argumenterer det bedste han har lært, på trods af at slaget er tabt på forhånd, eller er det?
For i en diskussion som denne er det ikke kombattanternes sind der er kamp om, men derimod alle de tavse medlæsere, og her formår Patriarch at afsløre helt banale intellektuelle og logiske brister i bn's ideosynkratiske modstand mod evolutionen.
Da denne tråd alligevel handler om snusfornuft, synes jeg hunde som race muligvis er et af de mest snusfornuftige gode argumenter for evolutionen. For som der skrives i kritikken af Dentons bog;
Just look at the different varieties of dogs that exist today, and ask whether a Chihuahua and St. Bernard can be connected only by saltations? If such profound change can occur and speciation does, as Denton conceded, occur, then what is to theoretically stop a remote ancestor from evolving into all of the primates? What is theoretically to stop an ancient ungulate from evolving into a whale, or an ancient fish into an amphibian? The fossil record, as we will see later on, provides even more evidence for major structural change, both in skeletal and soft organ characteristics
"Ultimately, Darwin's theory implied that all evolution had come about by the interactions of two basic processes, random mutation and natural selection, and it meant that the ends arrived at were entirely the result of a succession of chance events. Evolution by natural selection is therefore, in essence, strictly analogous to problem solving by trial and error, and it leads to the immense claim that all the design in the biosphere is ultimately the fortuitous outcome of an entirely blind random process - a giant lottery. (Denton, 1987, p. 43)"
This is clearly an incorrect way of looking at things. To illustrate, we will examine a modern variant of Cuvier's "animal space", a multi-dimensional space in which all possible phenotypes exist, and are arranged next to one another according to the amount of difference between their genotypes (this is a very high-dimensional space, as anyone familiar with the number of genes and number of alleles per gene in a typical organism well knows). Absolutely nonfunctional phenotypes - ones that will not survive in any environment - are represented as blank spaces. Now take a functional point A and a functional point B that are separated by a few hundred thousand points in this space. The probability of a macromutation, which is somewhat like making a lottery drawing (although not exactly), changing A to B is astronomically small. Likewise the probability of A changing stepwise to B through a series of random events, is astronomically small. Denton seems to think that stepwise evolution is like the latter. But this is not so. The rate of mutation in organisms, "one mutation per locus per 105 to 106 gametes"(Campbell, 1990, p. 445) is sufficient to give natural selection an immense amount of variation to work with at any functional starting point. It is probable that one mutant of A will be a functional point closer to B. If this descendant is selected for, it will have a large number of descendants, whose gametes will undergo the same rate of mutation, making it extremely likely that another functional point closer to B will be produced. Without natural selection, the process would be random, and a connection from A to B would require an extremely improbable sequence of events to occur. But if thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of mutants are created at each locus, and selective pressures choose those forms that are closer to B, then it is virtually inevitable that B will arise.
This scheme is a bit simplistic, because it assumes a constant environment and constant selective forces, making the result almost teleological in character, which is not an accurate account of evolutionary processes. In actuality, the environment fluctuates, so selective pressures vary constantly, and lifeforms must constantly change to keep up. In a fluctuating environment, it is less probable that a path will be traced to B. But this is hardly a problem, because evolution is not teleological. Nothing in evolution says that Homo sapiens had to arise from the long march from bacteria, or that it was even probable that it would arise. But even in a fluctuating environment, it is clear that we could expect something very structurally different and reproductively isolated from A to eventually arise. As Carl Sagan likes to point out, without whatever fortuitous cataclysm caused the downfall of the dinosaurs, there might be intelligent lizards - instead of us - around now pondering the stars and wondering where they came from. To repeat, nothing in evolution claims that the history of life had to unravel exactly the way it did, but evolution is by the far the best, and certainly a plausible, explanation of why life did in fact develop as it did. The predictive power of evolution at the macro-level is low, but the retrodictive, explanatory power of evolution is immense. And to summarize then, it is clear that Denton completely mischaracterizes evolutionary processes when he refers to them as matters of blind chance.
Heh, den med hundende er faktisk god. Hvordan ser kreationister på det? Har de en forestilling om at de forskellige hunderacer alle er skabt sådan, eller anerkender de at der sker en udvikling på det område (hvilket i min verden er ret åbenlyst)?
#55: Tak for den i øvrigt. Det illustrerer præcis den pointe som jeg, med noget mindre held, prøvede at udtrykke.
Gi' dog pengene til Afrika... De har mere brug for dem.
Og det er netop derfor det ikke er ligegyldigt hvad der er videnskabelig konsensus om, og hvad der er ikke er. For det er det eneste vi reelt kan forholde os til.
Exactly. Jeg prøver blot at videreformidle hvad videnskabelig konsensus er. Angående Carrol kan jeg anbefale hans bog Making of the Fittest som udelukkende handler om evolution fra et DNA perspektiv.
For bn anerkender angiveligt videnskabeligt forskning, men tillader sig alligevel indenfor biologien at være overdommer for hvad der er videnskabeligt plausibelt og hvad der ikke er.
Jeps, det er dét der er min pointe. Én ting er at afvise grundlæggende biologiske principper, men når man så ikke engang vil acceptere at man gør det ud fra religiøse, og ikke videnskabelige grunde, så er vi på et niveau hvor debat bryder sammen - desværre. Det er heller ikke kun biologi BN kan smide væk. Læste du nogensinde vores debat om menneskets alder?
Heh, den med hundende er faktisk god. Hvordan ser kreationister på det? Har de en forestilling om at de forskellige hunderacer alle er skabt sådan, eller anerkender de at der sker en udvikling på det område (hvilket i min verden er ret åbenlyst)?
Evolution kan deles ind i to niveauer - mikro og makro. Kreationister acceptere mikroevolution (variation inden for arter) men ikke makroevolution (evolution over art-niveau). De nægter så at de to ting er det samme. De vil ikke acceptere at de små (store) ændringer inden for en art kan over millioner af år akkumulere. Et yderligere problem er at de ikke acceptere definitionerne på hvad en art er. Så man kan aldrig tilfredsstille dem.
Læste du nogensinde vores debat om menneskets alder?
Taler vi her om "Jorden går under"? For da gjorde jeg, og takker for den indirekte anbefaling af "Guns, germs and steel" som er signed, sealed, delivered og klar til at blive læst.
Patriarch (57) skrev:
Evolution kan deles ind i to niveauer - mikro og makro. Kreationister acceptere mikroevolution (variation inden for arter) men ikke makroevolution (evolution over art-niveau). De nægter så at de to ting er det samme. De vil ikke acceptere at de små (store) ændringer inden for en art kan over millioner af år akkumulere. Et yderligere problem er at de ikke acceptere definitionerne på hvad en art er. Så man kan aldrig tilfredsstille dem.
Så sandt, men ikke desto mindre er hunden som art et godt eksempel, for dem hvis øjne ser sandheden, på hvor meget der kan ske indenfor bare en enkelt race i det fysiske udtryk, på ganske kort tid, hvis man avler på dem, dvs. hvis der er nogle meget, meget strenge (kunstige) miljømæssige forhold der gør sig gældende.
Som jeg nævnte, kan boget godt være lidt tør, men den rummer ting, og sammenhænge der er dybt facinerende. Man lærer en smule om alt i den bog :)
Ang. hunde så ja, det er et fint eksembel. Men ikke overbevisende for en som mener, at hver 'famile' er en lukket kasse som evolution ikke kan bryde ud af.
Noah havde jo et par af hver familie ombord på arken. Disse har så på 4000 år, udviklet sig til alt den variation vi ser idag - i øvrigt meget hurtigere end hvad evolution forudsiger. Det er imponerende stuff :D
Problemet er jo at, uanset hvor godt et eksempel man finder (og jeg mener at hunden er god), så kan de her folk jo altid finde på et modargument. Det fikse er jo at deres argumentation ikke behøver at have hold i virkeligheden, og derfor spiller de ikke helt efter samme regler.
Gi' dog pengene til Afrika... De har mere brug for dem.
#51 gi-jones 16 år siden
#52 Patriarch 16 år siden
EPIC FAIL
God tur i øvrigt... :)
#53 Zabriskie 16 år siden
Denne artikel om Fruit Flies er utrolig interessant:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/06042...
Et lille quote derfra:
"The big stunner in this paper was that the two independent gains of spots we studied each resulted from mutations in distinct ancestral CREs," said Carroll. "In the ancestor, one of these CREs controls the expression of the yellow gene in the wing blade and one in the vein.
"This finding is informative because it shows that the wing pattern wasn't generated from scratch," said Carroll. "The fly didn't use native DNA that had no job and invent this pattern out of thin air. It used a gene that was already active in the wing, already drawing some kind of pattern in the wing, and modified that pattern. We think that is strong clue to how nature invents, which is by using material that is already available. This demonstrates how evolution is a tinkerer," he said.
Angående Michael Dentons "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" er følgende side også fin at læse:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuleti...
Men klogere bliver vi nok ikke, gør vi?
Denne tråd, og alle de andre, om evolution og skabelse handler om lægmænd der forsøger at overbevise andre lægmænd, om hvorvidt den generelle biologiske forskning er ude på et sidespor, eller ej.
Men dybest set så ved vi ingenting, fordi vi er ikke biologer. Og det er netop derfor det ikke er ligegyldigt hvad der er videnskabelig konsensus om, og hvad der er ikke er. For det er det eneste vi reelt kan forholde os til.
Det er grundlæggende helt absurd at lade andre end andre forskere forholde sig til kontroversielle idéer, som ligger sig uden for det generelle felt af konsensus, og netop deri består hele denne tråds indbyggede absurditet.
For bn anerkender angiveligt videnskabeligt forskning, men tillader sig alligevel indenfor biologien at være overdommer for hvad der er videnskabeligt plausibelt og hvad der ikke er.
Og når han omfavner pseudo-videnskabeligt litteratur, som er blevet underkendt af biologien i almindelighed, samtidig med han forkaster størstedelen af de biologiske forskere, der forsker i evolution, hvad skal en lægmand som stakkels Patriarch gøre?
Han argumenterer det bedste han har lært, på trods af at slaget er tabt på forhånd, eller er det?
For i en diskussion som denne er det ikke kombattanternes sind der er kamp om, men derimod alle de tavse medlæsere, og her formår Patriarch at afsløre helt banale intellektuelle og logiske brister i bn's ideosynkratiske modstand mod evolutionen.
Tak for det, Patriarch!
#54 Zabriskie 16 år siden
Just look at the different varieties of dogs that exist today, and ask whether a Chihuahua and St. Bernard can be connected only by saltations? If such profound change can occur and speciation does, as Denton conceded, occur, then what is to theoretically stop a remote ancestor from evolving into all of the primates? What is theoretically to stop an ancient ungulate from evolving into a whale, or an ancient fish into an amphibian? The fossil record, as we will see later on, provides even more evidence for major structural change, both in skeletal and soft organ characteristics
#55 Zabriskie 16 år siden
"Ultimately, Darwin's theory implied that all evolution had come about by the interactions of two basic processes, random mutation and natural selection, and it meant that the ends arrived at were entirely the result of a succession of chance events. Evolution by natural selection is therefore, in essence, strictly analogous to problem solving by trial and error, and it leads to the immense claim that all the design in the biosphere is ultimately the fortuitous outcome of an entirely blind random process - a giant lottery. (Denton, 1987, p. 43)"
This is clearly an incorrect way of looking at things. To illustrate, we will examine a modern variant of Cuvier's "animal space", a multi-dimensional space in which all possible phenotypes exist, and are arranged next to one another according to the amount of difference between their genotypes (this is a very high-dimensional space, as anyone familiar with the number of genes and number of alleles per gene in a typical organism well knows). Absolutely nonfunctional phenotypes - ones that will not survive in any environment - are represented as blank spaces. Now take a functional point A and a functional point B that are separated by a few hundred thousand points in this space. The probability of a macromutation, which is somewhat like making a lottery drawing (although not exactly), changing A to B is astronomically small. Likewise the probability of A changing stepwise to B through a series of random events, is astronomically small. Denton seems to think that stepwise evolution is like the latter. But this is not so. The rate of mutation in organisms, "one mutation per locus per 105 to 106 gametes"(Campbell, 1990, p. 445) is sufficient to give natural selection an immense amount of variation to work with at any functional starting point. It is probable that one mutant of A will be a functional point closer to B. If this descendant is selected for, it will have a large number of descendants, whose gametes will undergo the same rate of mutation, making it extremely likely that another functional point closer to B will be produced. Without natural selection, the process would be random, and a connection from A to B would require an extremely improbable sequence of events to occur. But if thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of mutants are created at each locus, and selective pressures choose those forms that are closer to B, then it is virtually inevitable that B will arise.
This scheme is a bit simplistic, because it assumes a constant environment and constant selective forces, making the result almost teleological in character, which is not an accurate account of evolutionary processes. In actuality, the environment fluctuates, so selective pressures vary constantly, and lifeforms must constantly change to keep up. In a fluctuating environment, it is less probable that a path will be traced to B. But this is hardly a problem, because evolution is not teleological. Nothing in evolution says that Homo sapiens had to arise from the long march from bacteria, or that it was even probable that it would arise. But even in a fluctuating environment, it is clear that we could expect something very structurally different and reproductively isolated from A to eventually arise. As Carl Sagan likes to point out, without whatever fortuitous cataclysm caused the downfall of the dinosaurs, there might be intelligent lizards - instead of us - around now pondering the stars and wondering where they came from. To repeat, nothing in evolution claims that the history of life had to unravel exactly the way it did, but evolution is by the far the best, and certainly a plausible, explanation of why life did in fact develop as it did. The predictive power of evolution at the macro-level is low, but the retrodictive, explanatory power of evolution is immense. And to summarize then, it is clear that Denton completely mischaracterizes evolutionary processes when he refers to them as matters of blind chance.
#56 gi-jones 16 år siden
#55: Tak for den i øvrigt. Det illustrerer præcis den pointe som jeg, med noget mindre held, prøvede at udtrykke.
#57 Patriarch 16 år siden
Exactly. Jeg prøver blot at videreformidle hvad videnskabelig konsensus er. Angående Carrol kan jeg anbefale hans bog Making of the Fittest som udelukkende handler om evolution fra et DNA perspektiv.
Jeps, det er dét der er min pointe. Én ting er at afvise grundlæggende biologiske principper, men når man så ikke engang vil acceptere at man gør det ud fra religiøse, og ikke videnskabelige grunde, så er vi på et niveau hvor debat bryder sammen - desværre. Det er heller ikke kun biologi BN kan smide væk. Læste du nogensinde vores debat om menneskets alder?
Evolution kan deles ind i to niveauer - mikro og makro. Kreationister acceptere mikroevolution (variation inden for arter) men ikke makroevolution (evolution over art-niveau). De nægter så at de to ting er det samme. De vil ikke acceptere at de små (store) ændringer inden for en art kan over millioner af år akkumulere. Et yderligere problem er at de ikke acceptere definitionerne på hvad en art er. Så man kan aldrig tilfredsstille dem.
#58 Zabriskie 16 år siden
Taler vi her om "Jorden går under"? For da gjorde jeg, og takker for den indirekte anbefaling af "Guns, germs and steel" som er signed, sealed, delivered og klar til at blive læst.
Så sandt, men ikke desto mindre er hunden som art et godt eksempel, for dem hvis øjne ser sandheden, på hvor meget der kan ske indenfor bare en enkelt race i det fysiske udtryk, på ganske kort tid, hvis man avler på dem, dvs. hvis der er nogle meget, meget strenge (kunstige) miljømæssige forhold der gør sig gældende.
#59 Patriarch 16 år siden
Som jeg nævnte, kan boget godt være lidt tør, men den rummer ting, og sammenhænge der er dybt facinerende. Man lærer en smule om alt i den bog :)
Ang. hunde så ja, det er et fint eksembel. Men ikke overbevisende for en som mener, at hver 'famile' er en lukket kasse som evolution ikke kan bryde ud af.
Noah havde jo et par af hver familie ombord på arken. Disse har så på 4000 år, udviklet sig til alt den variation vi ser idag - i øvrigt meget hurtigere end hvad evolution forudsiger. Det er imponerende stuff :D
#60 gi-jones 16 år siden