Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-05-2013, 05:45 AM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
Please list the recommended books you have now read. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2013, 06:54 AM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
1. Why evolution is true by Jerry Coyne

2. The greatest show on earth: the evidence for evolution by Richard Dawkins

3. The blind watchmaker by Richard Dawkins

4. Climbing mt improbable by Richard Dawkins
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2013, 06:57 AM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
AS-Level Biology AQA Complete Revision & Practice (Revision Guide)

Edexcel AS Biology Revision Guide (Edexcel A Level Sciences) [Paperback]

AS-Level Biology OCR Complete Revision & Practice (Revision Guide)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2013, 08:07 AM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
Listen, TBD:

I'm not looking to debate or have an argument per se. Rather, I'd just like some honest philosophical or empirical answers to a few questions without everyone saying, "It's true, it's obvious, you're an idiot, shut up," etc.

For example, what do you think might be the adaptative stimulus that caused the ascendance of flying animals? What kind of random mutation would prompt what we know are wings?

We know that the change has to be at a DNA level. There must be thousands of random possibilities for all types of appendages without flight (or even gliding) being produced.

This is not an attempt to debate you, just a question or musing. My family has pets including a cat, a dog and fish, at this time. I'm trying to think of the stimuli, without making any biblical assumptions or overlaying my Christian worldview atop my thoughts, as to what environmental factors would make a dog or cat, who has their needs met in the biosphere for food, shelter, they have a fur coat, mating, etc. to stimulate mutations, changes or even some kind of punctuated equilibrium rapid change catalyst so that should require flight and not fight to escape predators, etc.

My dog if mating would provide their genetic code including dominant and recessive and heritable traits to its mate, who would provide some genetic material. At that level, how can they make the changes, which would ultimately be tens of thousands of genetic changes at tiny levels, to produce changes in their forelimbs or add new limbs, feathers, and the internal brain and stimuli-motivated guidance systems to fly or glide.

I'm not trying to "win" a point here. I believe in speciation/new species. I'm aware of adaptive changes that lead to the ascendancy of a species, like the light and dark moths, etc. I understand viral and other mutations, even genetic mutations and adpatations, such as we see happen rapidly, even today. Look at the proliferation of new and old diseases, even diseases we thought were eradicated...

I'm just trying to understand how what I call big changes or macro changes from genus to genus or kingdom to kingdom, etc. can occur via natural processes. I'm getting really tired of "You're an idiot, everyone with a brain believes this happened in the past though we cannot see it today" and "Just look at the genetic similarities, we see it happened in the past" or "Fossil differences show it happened."

I know science is more what and how than why but I'd need a why as to how to go forward.

And if it's asking too much, since the changes, and even current, unchanged DNA is so amazingly complex to code the life cycle/growth of animals and people, cross-pollination between animals and plants (bees), etc. as to why it's taboo to say "intelligent design" instead of "mechanistic processes". I don't think intelligent design means there is a God. I think intelligent design means a sentient being on a higher order clearly designed and built DNA encodings in their version of test tubes to make life. In such a gigantic universe with so many planets, and knowing that we are slightly different genetically but of much higher intelligence that animal neighbors, why a being with slight differences above us wouldn't be able to make life by design here on Earth, sort of along the lines of the Neil deGrasse Tyson video that was posted in this forum a while back...

Thanks, all, and I apologize for my length.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2013, 08:16 AM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
(10-05-2013 08:07 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Listen, TBD:

I'm not looking to debate or have an argument per se. Rather, I'd just like some honest philosophical or empirical answers to a few questions without everyone saying, "It's true, it's obvious, you're an idiot, shut up," etc.

For example, what do you think might be the adaptative stimulus that caused the ascendance of flying animals? What kind of random mutation would prompt what we know are wings?

We know that the change has to be at a DNA level. There must be thousands of random possibilities for all types of appendages without flight (or even gliding) being produced.

This is not an attempt to debate you, just a question or musing. My family has pets including a cat, a dog and fish, at this time. I'm trying to think of the stimuli, without making any biblical assumptions or overlaying my Christian worldview atop my thoughts, as to what environmental factors would make a dog or cat, who has their needs met in the biosphere for food, shelter, they have a fur coat, mating, etc. to stimulate mutations, changes or even some kind of punctuated equilibrium rapid change catalyst so that should require flight and not fight to escape predators, etc.

My dog if mating would provide their genetic code including dominant and recessive and heritable traits to its mate, who would provide some genetic material. At that level, how can they make the changes, which would ultimately be tens of thousands of genetic changes at tiny levels, to produce changes in their forelimbs or add new limbs, feathers, and the internal brain and stimuli-motivated guidance systems to fly or glide.

I'm not trying to "win" a point here. I believe in speciation/new species. I'm aware of adaptive changes that lead to the ascendancy of a species, like the light and dark moths, etc. I understand viral and other mutations, even genetic mutations and adpatations, such as we see happen rapidly, even today. Look at the proliferation of new and old diseases, even diseases we thought were eradicated...

I'm just trying to understand how what I call big changes or macro changes from genus to genus or kingdom to kingdom, etc. can occur via natural processes. I'm getting really tired of "You're an idiot, everyone with a brain believes this happened in the past though we cannot see it today" and "Just look at the genetic similarities, we see it happened in the past" or "Fossil differences show it happened."

I know science is more what and how than why but I'd need a why as to how to go forward.

And if it's asking too much, since the changes, and even current, unchanged DNA is so amazingly complex to code the life cycle/growth of animals and people, cross-pollination between animals and plants (bees), etc. as to why it's taboo to say "intelligent design" instead of "mechanistic processes". I don't think intelligent design means there is a God. I think intelligent design means a sentient being on a higher order clearly designed and built DNA encodings in their version of test tubes to make life. In such a gigantic universe with so many planets, and knowing that we are slightly different genetically but of much higher intelligence that animal neighbors, why a being with slight differences above us wouldn't be able to make life by design here on Earth, sort of along the lines of the Neil deGrasse Tyson video that was posted in this forum a while back...

Thanks, all, and I apologize for my length.

Natural selection acts on the phenotype and not the genotype. The genotype is expressed by the phenotype in some but not all cases. So natural selection on the phenotype indirectly selects for the phenotype.

As for flying, I have given that example already with adaptation of limbs, hollow bones, and feathers for lighter organisms to run faster on more surfaces.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2013, 08:42 AM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
(10-05-2013 08:07 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Listen, TBD:

I'm not looking to debate or have an argument per se. Rather, I'd just like some honest philosophical or empirical answers to a few questions without everyone saying, "It's true, it's obvious, you're an idiot, shut up," etc.

For example, what do you think might be the adaptative stimulus that caused the ascendance of flying animals? What kind of random mutation would prompt what we know are wings?

We know that the change has to be at a DNA level. There must be thousands of random possibilities for all types of appendages without flight (or even gliding) being produced.

This is not an attempt to debate you, just a question or musing. My family has pets including a cat, a dog and fish, at this time. I'm trying to think of the stimuli, without making any biblical assumptions or overlaying my Christian worldview atop my thoughts, as to what environmental factors would make a dog or cat, who has their needs met in the biosphere for food, shelter, they have a fur coat, mating, etc. to stimulate mutations, changes or even some kind of punctuated equilibrium rapid change catalyst so that should require flight and not fight to escape predators, etc.

My dog if mating would provide their genetic code including dominant and recessive and heritable traits to its mate, who would provide some genetic material. At that level, how can they make the changes, which would ultimately be tens of thousands of genetic changes at tiny levels, to produce changes in their forelimbs or add new limbs, feathers, and the internal brain and stimuli-motivated guidance systems to fly or glide.

I'm not trying to "win" a point here. I believe in speciation/new species. I'm aware of adaptive changes that lead to the ascendancy of a species, like the light and dark moths, etc. I understand viral and other mutations, even genetic mutations and adpatations, such as we see happen rapidly, even today. Look at the proliferation of new and old diseases, even diseases we thought were eradicated...

I'm just trying to understand how what I call big changes or macro changes from genus to genus or kingdom to kingdom, etc. can occur via natural processes. I'm getting really tired of "You're an idiot, everyone with a brain believes this happened in the past though we cannot see it today" and "Just look at the genetic similarities, we see it happened in the past" or "Fossil differences show it happened."

I know science is more what and how than why but I'd need a why as to how to go forward.

And if it's asking too much, since the changes, and even current, unchanged DNA is so amazingly complex to code the life cycle/growth of animals and people, cross-pollination between animals and plants (bees), etc. as to why it's taboo to say "intelligent design" instead of "mechanistic processes". I don't think intelligent design means there is a God. I think intelligent design means a sentient being on a higher order clearly designed and built DNA encodings in their version of test tubes to make life. In such a gigantic universe with so many planets, and knowing that we are slightly different genetically but of much higher intelligence that animal neighbors, why a being with slight differences above us wouldn't be able to make life by design here on Earth, sort of along the lines of the Neil deGrasse Tyson video that was posted in this forum a while back...

Thanks, all, and I apologize for my length.

Check this video:




I know I know, it doesn't explain it directly, but that's one of the main reasons that drive evolution, even what you call macro-evolution. Occupying a niche in a different ecosystem leads to an increase in the population, that means a bigger and broader gene pool, because with more specimens you get increased chances of mutation; if the niche is free of predators or high in resources then weird mutations (new limbs for example) aren't detrimental for survival and thus can be passed on to the next generation... with time the weird mutations can develop into new, fully functional, features (even if it didn't have a particularly great function before, like the "half wings" mentioned above).
With the new feature the species can conquer a new and better niche, to avoid the predators that by this time have evolved along them, or to get more resources because the species has taken almost all of the original supply. And the circle of life starts all over again.

That's why we can find huge amounts of new species just after a big extinction event, many niches are available

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2013, 01:48 PM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
Quote:Natural selection acts on the phenotype and not the genotype. The genotype is expressed by the phenotype in some but not all cases. So natural selection on the phenotype indirectly selects for the phenotype.

As for flying, I have given that example already with adaptation of limbs, hollow bones, and feathers for lighter organisms to run faster on more surfaces.

I understood both of those points already.

I understand, for example, how lighter organisms can run faster and on more surfaces. That is the beneficial adaptation. How is that beneficial adaptation stimulated into action at the genetic level? For example, and I'm not arguing, I'm asking, I would like to be taller to dunk more basketballs, but wishing cannot make it so.

If there is a randomness and not intelligent design here, then we must assume that most of the adaptations will not be helpful, right?

Quote:Occupying a niche in a different ecosystem leads to an increase in the population, that means a bigger and broader gene pool, because with more specimens you get increased chances of mutation; if the niche is free of predators or high in resources then weird mutations (new limbs for example) aren't detrimental for survival and thus can be passed on to the next generation... with time the weird mutations can develop into new, fully functional, features (even if it didn't have a particularly great function before, like the "half wings" mentioned above).
With the new feature the species can conquer a new and better niche, to avoid the predators that by this time have evolved along them, or to get more resources because the species has taken almost all of the original supply. And the circle of life starts all over again.
I would agree. But when we see twins fused together or someone with Down's Syndrome (and I'm not saying all mutations are harmful and not beneficial) we are not seeing, well, a person beginning to grow wings.

It takes a slight genetic change to have Down's and a slight environmental change to have multiple births--but is it not true that the genetic changes for one to grow wings are numerous?

Put another way, a recipe to make Oreo cookies can have some slight changes made to become mint Oreo cookies. Or quite a number of changes and we'll make roasted chicken instead. Or millions of changes over "generations" and we will have a recipe to make the City of Rome, Italy.

My lay understanding of genetics, adaptation and etc. makes the order of complexity to make a sightless creature's descendants sighted or a wingless creature to birth winged creatures for more complex that building Rome--in a day.

?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2013, 02:10 PM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
(10-05-2013 01:48 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Natural selection acts on the phenotype and not the genotype. The genotype is expressed by the phenotype in some but not all cases. So natural selection on the phenotype indirectly selects for the phenotype.

As for flying, I have given that example already with adaptation of limbs, hollow bones, and feathers for lighter organisms to run faster on more surfaces.

I understood both of those points already.

I understand, for example, how lighter organisms can run faster and on more surfaces. That is the beneficial adaptation. How is that beneficial adaptation stimulated into action at the genetic level? For example, and I'm not arguing, I'm asking, I would like to be taller to dunk more basketballs, but wishing cannot make it so.

If there is a randomness and not intelligent design here, then we must assume that most of the adaptations will not be helpful, right?

Quote:Occupying a niche in a different ecosystem leads to an increase in the population, that means a bigger and broader gene pool, because with more specimens you get increased chances of mutation; if the niche is free of predators or high in resources then weird mutations (new limbs for example) aren't detrimental for survival and thus can be passed on to the next generation... with time the weird mutations can develop into new, fully functional, features (even if it didn't have a particularly great function before, like the "half wings" mentioned above).
With the new feature the species can conquer a new and better niche, to avoid the predators that by this time have evolved along them, or to get more resources because the species has taken almost all of the original supply. And the circle of life starts all over again.
I would agree. But when we see twins fused together or someone with Down's Syndrome (and I'm not saying all mutations are harmful and not beneficial) we are not seeing, well, a person beginning to grow wings.

It takes a slight genetic change to have Down's and a slight environmental change to have multiple births--but is it not true that the genetic changes for one to grow wings are numerous?

Put another way, a recipe to make Oreo cookies can have some slight changes made to become mint Oreo cookies. Or quite a number of changes and we'll make roasted chicken instead. Or millions of changes over "generations" and we will have a recipe to make the City of Rome, Italy.

My lay understanding of genetics, adaptation and etc. makes the order of complexity to make a sightless creature's descendants sighted or a wingless creature to birth winged creatures for more complex that building Rome--in a day.

?

You hold the answer to your question right there, Rome wasn't built in one day, and neither a wingless creature birth a winged one. It's quite hard to grasp how small changes can develop into complex and intricate changes.
Also, sometimes there aren't big changes at all, but when a system is complex enough (as pretty much any multicellular organism is today) a small difference can provoke a big cascade in the system, making it completely different than it would be otherwise. That's why we share 97 or 98 percent of our genome with chimps.

I notice this kind of changes when I cook something usually, take a pot and boil some noodles or something like that and watch it, you'll see ascending convection currents, usually with a big bulge in a side, nudge the pot a bit in the direction of that bulge and wait, you'll see how the bulge moves to a different location. After that you'll see the noodles moving towards the bulge, that's a big change in an otherwise stable system.

You may say that that is just micro-evolution, but isn't a half wing just a bigger paw? and isn't a wing just a bigger half wing?


We're talking about millions of years and millions of generations, with millions of family lines and gazillions of chances of different mutations, small and big nudges in billions of directions at the same time; on top of that add the impossible to count different interactions of the fuzzillions of other species in the same ecosystem and the interactions of the non living factors (weather, sunlight, etc.).

All that and you have a system that pretty much necessarily will make species to change over time, and those changes can be as complex as you can imagine because the complexity of the system each species is in is far greater than the complexity of the specimens that make up that species.

If you want to find a designer look the ecosystem and the biosphere, it forces species to change, not by design, but by brute force... pretty much Tongue

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
13-05-2013, 08:22 AM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
Quote:You hold the answer to your question right there, Rome wasn't built in one day, and neither a wingless creature birth a winged one. It's quite hard to grasp how small changes can develop into complex and intricate changes.
Also, sometimes there aren't big changes at all, but when a system is complex enough (as pretty much any multicellular organism is today) a small difference can provoke a big cascade in the system, making it completely different than it would be otherwise. That's why we share 97 or 98 percent of our genome with chimps.

Why is that hard to grasp as you wrote? It is easy to grasp.

1. If there are millions of changes for these large changes as you wrote, like flight to flightless or vice versa, there should be at least thousands of generations of fossils demonstrating intermediate forms and/or thousands out of millions of species today with ancilliary and vestigial organs. Time and again, I go to delve into whales with leg bones and etc. to discover the veneer of respectability that is placed on specious arguments and scanty evidence.

2. Even if it was rapid change (say ten generations instead of thousands or millions) the animals with the half-formed wings would have no advantage for flight and be at a disadvantage with fight. They should have died.

I'm not asking about abiogenesis, which is an enormous change requiring left-handed molecules to assemble in sensible ways, and for RNA to play one role than subsume into a secondary role behind DNA later. I'm asking about things like flightless to flight and vice versa which are not in the record or observable in nature today--or rational or reasonable without some kind of intelligent design IMHO.

Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-05-2013, 08:25 AM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
(13-05-2013 08:22 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:You hold the answer to your question right there, Rome wasn't built in one day, and neither a wingless creature birth a winged one. It's quite hard to grasp how small changes can develop into complex and intricate changes.
Also, sometimes there aren't big changes at all, but when a system is complex enough (as pretty much any multicellular organism is today) a small difference can provoke a big cascade in the system, making it completely different than it would be otherwise. That's why we share 97 or 98 percent of our genome with chimps.

Why is that hard to grasp as you wrote? It is easy to grasp.

1. If there are millions of changes for these large changes as you wrote, like flight to flightless or vice versa, there should be at least thousands of generations of fossils demonstrating intermediate forms and/or thousands out of millions of species today with ancilliary and vestigial organs. Time and again, I go to delve into whales with leg bones and etc. to discover the veneer of respectability that is placed on specious arguments and scanty evidence.

2. Even if it was rapid change (say ten generations instead of thousands or millions) the animals with the half-formed wings would have no advantage for flight and be at a disadvantage with fight. They should have died.

I'm not asking about abiogenesis, which is an enormous change requiring left-handed molecules to assemble in sensible ways, and for RNA to play one role than subsume into a secondary role behind DNA later. I'm asking about things like flightless to flight and vice versa which are not in the record or observable in nature today--or rational or reasonable without some kind of intelligent design IMHO.

Thanks.

"1. If there are millions of changes for these large changes as you wrote, like flight to flightless or vice versa, there should be at least thousands of generations of fossils demonstrating intermediate forms and/or thousands out of millions of species today with ancilliary and vestigial organs. Time and again, I go to delve into whales with leg bones and etc. to discover the veneer of respectability that is placed on specious arguments and scanty evidence."

They are right there in the fossil record. Go look for them. And once again, useless for flight, does not mean useless for anything else. You use your hands for more than just grabbing things, right?

"2. Even if it was rapid change (say ten generations instead of thousands or millions) the animals with the half-formed wings would have no advantage for flight and be at a disadvantage with fight. They should have died."

Did you read my reply on the adaption of wings in baby-birds that are half-formed?

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: