Crackpot Challenge Part 2 - Evolution

[rossum]

Would it be proper to say that adaptation follows the environment?

Yes. Evolution is a way of copying information from the environment into the genome. As the genome randomly mutates a few of the mutations happen match the environment better than the current genome and are beneficial. Those mutations get amplified and spread through the population. Mutations that do not match the environment as well are deleterious and get eliminated over time. The genome tracks the environment, with a delay dependent on the generation time; bacteria track faster than mice who track faster than humans.

rossum

 

[rossum]

We also now know that epigenetics comes in to play with rapid responses to environment. Evolution and long ages are not needed. This suggest the adaptability is already programmed in.

The adaptability evolved. For example, there are obvious advantages to increased melanin in skin during summer months, or white fur in winter in snowy areas. The required switches evolved as part of the normal mechanisms of evolution.

rossum

 

[rossum]

You claimed that it was about evolutionary predictions and I wasted the time to read it and discover that it was not about that.

My apologies for not being clearer. The link merely described the mutation. The prediction was mine.

This explains why I didn’t read your second link. That also makes a prediction about what will happen “without malaria control”, but not whether malaria control will occur and/or what will happen with malaria control. So, it’s not much value as a prediction.

That is beyond the ability of the scientists to predict. It is down to governments and aid agencies as to how much they spend on draining swamps, mosquito nets, drugs, insecticides and the other possible malaria control measures. Where a prediction is dependent on something else then that something else needs to be specified.

“and the low betaS gene frequency in the geographic epicentre of betaC, support the hypothesis that, in the long term and in the absence of malaria control, HbC would replace HbS in central West Africa.”

It does not explain why malaria has been a harmful disease for the entire history of the human race.

Nor does it explain why Obama won the US presidential election. The title of the paper is “Haemoglobin C protects against clinical Plasmodium falciparum malaria”, so that is all you can expect it to cover. If you want a full history of malaria then you will find it elsewhere.

Nor does it explain when, precisely, HbC will replace HbS. And as mentioned, it says nothing about how malaria control will occur or not occur and how that will affect the results.

If you can provide a detailed forecast of the prevalence of malaria in the stated area for the next few thousand years then scientists may be able to give you a more accurate answer. The timescale depends on the selective pressure, and the selective pressure depends on the amount of malaria present. Hence the stated dependance on malaria control.

Can you tell us what the creationist or ID prediction for the HbS and HbC variants in central West Africa is with any more accuracy?

rossum

 

[rossum]

I think some research shows malaria has affected the entire history of homo sapien life – and evolution has not yet caused an immunity to it.

1 Malaria has been around a lot longer than humans:A blood-filled sand fly, Palaeomyia burmitis, was recently described from Early Cretaceous Burmese amber. Within the alimentary canal of this sand fly were the amastigotes and promastigotes of a digenetic leishmanial trypanosomatid. Inside the lumen of the thoracic midgut of the fossil sand fly were nucleated blood cells, some of which were intact and others in various stages of lysis and disintegration. The present study identifies these blood cells as reptilian and describes putative developing amastigotes inside spherical to oval whitish vacuoles within some of the fossil blood cells. The significance of this find is discussed, especially regarding the high possibility that Cretaceous dinosaurs were infected by trypanosomatids.

Source: Evidence of vector-borne disease of Early Cretaceous reptiles.
Which describes a malaria-like parasite (“trypanosomatids”) in reptilian blood cells inside a blood sucking fly.

2 There are many different forms of malaria. Some have been around humans a long time and are not that serious because we have evolved to deal with them. One is more recent and is more serious for humans because we have not yet evolved to cope with it:Malaria is one of the most common infectious diseases and an enormous public health problem. The disease is caused by protozoan parasites of the genus Plasmodium. Five species of the plasmodium parasite can infect humans; the most serious forms of the disease are caused by Plasmodium falciparum. Malaria caused by Plasmodium vivax, Plasmodium ovale and Plasmodium malariae causes milder disease in humans that is not generally fatal. A fifth species, Plasmodium knowlesi, causes malaria in macaques but can also infect humans.

Source: Wikipedia - Malaria
Both HbS and HbC that were mentioned earlier in this thread are mutations that help humans deal with Plasmodium falciparum malaria.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

The adaptability evolved. For example, there are obvious advantages to increased melanin in skin during summer months, or white fur in winter in snowy areas. The required switches evolved as part of the normal mechanisms of evolution.

rossum

Are you sure? The senses, lifestyle and environment are known to cause epigenetic changes. This suggests latent abilities just waiting to be utilized. No evolution necessary.

 

[Alethios]

In this article I extend an earlier study of spiral galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) to investigate whether the universe has an overall handedness. A preference for spiral galaxies in one sector of the sky to be left-handed or right-handed spirals would indicate a parity-violating asymmetry in the overall universe and a preferred axis. …The axis of the dipole asymmetry lies at approx. (l, b) =(32d,69d), roughly along that of our Galaxy and close to the so-called “Axis of Evil”.

…Ooh, the axis the universe rotates on is “evil”! Of course, this is because the universe having an axis explodes the standard model of the Big Bang, which says that the universe has no center or edge and thus no axis. But, of course, Geocentrism predicts that the universe rotates on an axis, and that we would find that axis “roughly along that of our Galaxy”, in fact, right through the earth!

This discussion belongs in the [ Copernicus challenge thread](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=333500)as a support for geocentrism:
The Big Bang is another inconsistent theory of modern Big Sci:
The expansion began from a single point, yet the BB has no center!
The universe is expanding into non-existence, yet it has no edge!	Fortunately the BB is off-topic; there are enough inconsistent scientific theories to deal with now. Perhaps a future BB crackpot challenge?

Geocentrism predicts the cosmos rotates around the geographic North-South pole axis, exactly as we observe every sidereal day. The axis around which the galactic spins are correlated passes through the Earth and participates in this polar rotation - the galactic spin axis is not the geocentric axis of rotation.

…Geocentrism requires the entire universe to be rotating around the earth in the equatorial plane once per day. .
Any cosmological effects should therefore be aligned to the celestial poles with cylindrical symmetry. They aren’t.

Correction:
Geocentrism requires the entire universe to be rotating around the Earth’s polar axis (as extended) once per day.
Any cosmic object motions should therefore be referenced to this polar axis. They are.

…By the way, Su and Chu, two of the authors cited in the Longo paper have constrained the rotation of the universe in the Robertson-Walker metric…

In the aforementioned Copernican challenge thread, relativity - both flavors - was shown to be logically inconsistent. Any evidence from relativity can't be accepted, unless its logical contradictions are resolved.
The RW model of GR is thus worthless as evidence on this thread.

…Geocentrism is completely absurd, but refuting it is like flogging a pink unicorn.

Relativity is completely absurd, but discussing it is like beating your head against a wall..... it feels so good when you stop.

AMDG

 

[rossum]

Are you sure? The senses, lifestyle and environment are known to cause epigenetic changes. This suggests latent abilities just waiting to be utilized. No evolution necessary.

We can sense sunlight on our skin. The cells react to the sunlight by producing more melanin. The mechanisms to do this are coded in our DNA. They are latent, but they also evolved.

A human child has the latent ability to reproduce. That ability remains latent until puberty. Genetics is well able to cope with latent abilities.

rossum

 

[Namesake]

Relativity is completely absurd, .

AMDG

Do you really mean to state that Einstein’s work was absurd?

 

[reggieM]

My apologies for not being clearer. The link merely described the mutation. The prediction was mine.

Apology accepted. I’ll also look more carefully next time.

That is beyond the ability of the scientists to predict. It is down to governments and aid agencies as to how much they spend on draining swamps, mosquito nets, drugs, insecticides and the other possible malaria control measures. Where a prediction is dependent on something else then that something else needs to be specified.

In the macro-view, the actions of goverments, aid agencies, spending and various control measures are all (supposedly) functions of evolution also. When a species takes certain actions, this affects environmental pressues and the results of evolution.

These things shouldn’t be “beyond the ability of scientists”. They’re all a function of mutations and selection.

Can you tell us what the creationist or ID prediction for the HbS and HbC variants in central West Africa is with any more accuracy?

Yes, sure. An ID prediction is that no matter what population of HbS is found, there will be no occurence of macro-evolution to be found. Human beings will not split off into a new species. Additionally, I think Michael Behe would predict that malaria itself will not evolve into multi-cellular organisms.

For myself, I would prefer to work so that nobody who contracts malaria will remain untreated – rather than to wait to see if this prediction comes true.

 

[grannymh]

Granny, I’m sure adaptation follows the environment. But “devising ways of adapting” stands outside of biological evolution; it may be included withing cultural evolution.

As a non-scientist evolutionist, I am positive that there is good cause to consider the posiibility that the current human species evolved separately from its cousin chimps or other shirttail animal cousins. To me, it would be a fun-type brain challenge to explore the differences between branches of the alleged family tree or trees.

My post 235
*Would it be proper to say that adaptation follows the environment? That way, human brains can come into play in devising ways of adapting. Maybe similar to the movie, *Swiss Family Robinson **expanded to generations…

And StAnastasia’s answer above is as good as any place to start. It said: But “devising ways of adapting” stands outside of biological evolution". The stated devising was being done by human brains. Thus, one way to look at this example is to suggest that there are functions of the human brain which are outside biological evolution.These functions could then serve as a major difference between the human species and others.

 

[grannymh]

Yes. Evolution is a way of copying information from the environment into the genome. As the genome randomly mutates a few of the mutations happen match the environment better than the current genome and are beneficial. Those mutations get amplified and spread through the population. Mutations that do not match the environment as well are deleterious and get eliminated over time. The genome tracks the environment, with a delay dependent on the generation time; bacteria track faster than mice who track faster than humans.

rossum

Straight answers, like the above, which lead to more questions, are the kind I find exciting as part of a fun-type brain challenge exploring the differences between branches of the alleged family tree, trees or diagrams which look to me like bushes.

The genome tracks the environment, with a delay dependent on the generation time; bacteria track faster than mice who track faster than humans.

This is reasonable from an evolutionary point of few. Could one say that chimps track faster than humans, slower, or the same? No matter which answer, there is still the evidence of wood stoves and air conditioners which have been brain-devised to compensate for slow mutations of the human genome.

The challenge which follows is to find the many differences which stand outside of biological evolution. St.Anastasia suggested cultural evolution as a possibility. That sounds intriguing and possible?

 

[rossum]

In the macro-view, the actions of goverments, aid agencies, spending and various control measures are all (supposedly) functions of evolution also.

Where on earth did you get that from? Our evolutionary background may well have an influence on our social organisation, but that influence is very indirect and not rigid. Darwin called his book “On the Origin of Species”, not “On the Origin of Governments”.

When a species takes certain actions, this affects environmental pressues and the results of evolution.

Correct. One of the most influential effects on your environment is the species in that environment. Diseases, competitors and prey are all species and all have an impact on evolution through their influence on the environemnt.

These things shouldn’t be “beyond the ability of scientists”. They’re all a function of mutations and selection.

If you want to predict the outcome of an election then ask a psephologist, not a biologist.

Yes, sure. An ID prediction is that no matter what population of HbS is found, there will be no occurence of macro-evolution to be found.

Then ID is falsified since there is abundant evidence of macroevolution (biological definition).

Human beings will not split off into a new species.

Unless we get space travel, in which case genetically isolated populations may form and remain isolated long enough to speciate. While on earth I agree that there will probably be enough gene flow to stop speciation, absent a major collapse of civilisation. In that case there may be speciation in an isolated population on an island somewhere, as with Homo floresensis.

For myself, I would prefer to work so that nobody who contracts malaria will remain untreated – rather than to wait to see if this prediction comes true.

Agreed.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The challenge which follows is to find the many differences which stand outside of biological evolution. St.Anastasia suggested cultural evolution as a possibility. That sounds intriguing and possible?

Google “meme” for one approach to cultural evolution.

rossum

 

[reggieM]

Where on earth did you get that from? Our evolutionary background may well have an influence on our social organisation, but that influence is very indirect and not rigid. Darwin called his book “On the Origin of Species”, not “On the Origin of Governments”.

I’m not following your objection here. A population adapts to environmental conditions and natural selection preserves various characteristics where there is a survival advantage. As a result, we have the entire diversity of nature and the evolution of new species and characteristics of those species (as the story is told).

One of the characteristics of a species is their social organizational patterns. This emerged through mutations and genetic inheritance and the dying-off of characteristics that lack a survival advantage.

If evolution was not essentially random, then one would merely need to look at samples of the mutation rate and the effect of such, the predicted environmental conditions, and then predict changes based on that model. It’s a determinist model that is quite rigid.

On the other hand, if the random component of evolution is dominant, then you’d be right to say that changes in human social organization would be nearly impossible to predict.

I don’t believe you’re pointing to a non-material component, and perhaps something that did not emerge from our evolutionary background – although it seems like that.

Again, as I see it – if Darwin was correct in his statement, “Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws” (Autobiography p. 87), then he does not limit the effect of evolution to the origin of the species alone. Human social organizations (like political movements and policies) are merely a part of nature – and thus are the result of fixed laws.

Therefore, scientists should be able to predict such things quite easily.

Evolution is as certain as gravity (as it is said). We can easily make predictions about the effects of gravity on objects. Therefore, we should just as easily make predictions about the effects of evolutionary “fixed laws” on human behavior and development.

If, however, evolution must rely on random events in order to function at all – then whatever it is that can be predicted is very limited and evolution cannot possibly be as “certain as gravity”.

 

[rossum]

I’m not following your objection here. A population adapts to environmental conditions and natural selection preserves various characteristics where there is a survival advantage. As a result, we have the entire diversity of nature and the evolution of new species and characteristics of those species (as the story is told).

One of the characteristics of a species is their social organizational patterns. This emerged through mutations and genetic inheritance and the dying-off of characteristics that lack a survival advantage.

You are correct that our genetics influences our social organisation. It does not influence out social organisation so rigidly that we can use genetics to predict whether or not various governments and aid agencies will prioritise anti-malaria measures in a specific part of Africa. It is not sensible to expect any biologist to predict such details. You need to ask that question of an expert in politics or international aid.

The level at which our genetics influences our social organisations is not such as to allow that sort of detailed prediction.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

One of the characteristics of a species is their social organizational patterns. This emerged through mutations and genetic inheritance and the dying-off of characteristics that lack a survival advantage.

A general difference between the animal species and the human species is that the organizational pattern remains relatively constant in an animal species. Alpha animals’ duties may vary but there is still “alpha dog.” Whereas during approximately the same evolutionary period, the social organizational patterns of humans actually adapted, changed, invented, discarded various social organizational patterns.

Evolution is as certain as gravity (as it is said). We can easily make predictions about the effects of gravity on objects. Therefore, we should just as easily make predictions about the effects of evolutionary “fixed laws” on human behavior and development.

I flat out refuse to be considered an object like some apple falling from a tree.

A general difference between the animal species and the human species is that human brains have devised ways to avoid gravity. But, you will answer, bats have evolved so that they do not fall out of trees. Bird eggs do not drop to the ground, but remain in nests which are the result of bird brains devising a method of safe adaptation. And so you may conclude that the difference is one of degrees.

Difference in degrees between the human species and rest of nature is acceptable. It does not negate the possibility that the current human species evolved separately.

 

[reggieM]

A general difference between the animal species and the human species is that the organizational pattern remains relatively constant in an animal species. Alpha animals’ duties may vary but there is still “alpha dog.” Whereas during approximately the same evolutionary period, the social organizational patterns of humans actually adapted, changed, invented, discarded various social organizational patterns.

With all respect, granny – I think your distinction is irrelevant to the point. Animal populations evolved one way, humans another (as the story goes). It’s all a function of physical laws and randomness, supposedly.

I flat out refuse to be considered an object like some apple falling from a tree.

That’s good to hear – except that your embrace of evolutionary theory necessitates that you should rightly consider yourself as an object. You share an inheritance with worms and with inanimate objects – and you are moved by physical laws and mutations alone. To flat out refuse to accept the implications of the theory is to be a contradiction to yourself, as I see it.

A general difference between the animal species and the human species is that human brains have devised ways to avoid gravity. But, you will answer, bats have evolved so that they do not fall out of trees. Bird eggs do not drop to the ground, but remain in nests which are the result of bird brains devising a method of safe adaptation. And so you may conclude that the difference is one of degrees.

I don’t follow this. In the evolutionary model (which I reject) there is no real difference between human and animal. Humans do not possess an intrinsic worth or value greater than bats or worms or any animal or plant. Evolution cannot confer that value – since it is an unintelligent, unconscious physical process acting on matter.

Difference in degrees between the human species and rest of nature is acceptable. It does not negate the possibility that the current human species evolved separately.

I don’t understand what you mean by “evolved separately”. Supposedly, we all have the same common ancestors – a pool of bacteria. This became multi-cellular life, then complex organisms, then fish, then mammals, then humans. Some mice grew wings and flew away as bats – others didn’t want to. Some plants decided to eat bugs, other plants in the same pond didn’t need to. Squid grew eyes from light-sensitive spots. Humans decided to grow eyes with the same kind of lenses and optical mechanisms – but entirely independent of squid. This was all just random luck – it’s not that hard to grow functioning eyes from light-sensitive spots, apparently. That’s the evolutionists’ story.

 

[Alethios]

What is the point of trashing science on an obscure internet forum? If you have something worth saying about a scientific theory, by all means say it to the people who are in a position to effect change. Tell scientists directly that they are barking up the wrong tree. Tell theologians directly that the faith is in danger. Don’t hide your light under this bushel basket, where (to use another metaphor) you are merely “preaching to the choir.”

We took this sage advice last year and applied to the STOQ conference for speaker slots for our Kolbe scientists and theologians to present traditional views of creation consistent with objective science.

Incredibile dictu - we were denied permission to participate and express any views supporting Genesis as written or views contrary to evolution…
Vatican evolution congress to exclude creationism, intelligent design

No one at the conference spoke up for the freedom of debate expressed so well above.
In fact the one voice of dissidence was suppressed…
Anti-Darwin speaker gagged at Vatican evolution conference

No one here at the CAF should entertain any idea that the March STOQ conference sponsored by the Vatican allowed the free expression of ideas or challenges to evolution.

Global warming isn’t a science, but it is a fact.

…global warming is accelerating to the point that the Arctic ocean may be ice free in a few years, and to the point that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets begin to slide off, raising sea levels.

We suppose that all are familiar with the claim that devastating coastal flooding is one predicted effect of the Polar ice melting and causing the sea level to rise.

We had an interesting discussion with a Woods Hole MA oceanologist about this global warming scam. He said the deep ocean floor is covered with thermally-sensitive solid methane compounds that will convert to the gas state if the ambient temperature rises slightly. If the surface warming eventually penetrates to the ocean bottom enough to cause a slight increase in temperature, it will trigger the release of millions of tons of methane and increase the ocean depth… And cause sea level to fall.

It would be possible for the two effects of melting ice and methane release to balance and maintain the current level.

So here’s the prediction: If the ocean level rises, or falls, or stays constant, it will prove that global warming is occurring!

For those who don’t understand what *unfalsifiable *means… this is it.

Trying to make geocentricism or any part of science a part of the Catholic Faith would certainly be quite a challenge considering that the period of public Divine Revelation closed many centuries ago.

Not a challenge at all for the fully informed. Geocentrism is a part of inerrant divine revelation and the Catholic faith, as the Holy Office established in settling the Galileo heresy.
It’s probably more precise to call the Biblical support geostatism, since there are no explicit references to a central location, but many verses establishing that the earth is stationary and the Sun, Moon and stars are in motion.
see the Geocentric bible
To discuss geocentrism as a scientific theory, the Genesis references to the aethers on Day 1 must also be included.
The electromagnetic aether allows the water molecules to bind together and the gravitational-inertial aether- aka the firmament - produces the celestial motions.

**Another item that properly belongs on the Geocentrism Challenge thread. **

AMDG

 

[edwest2]

Climatologists looking at satellite images have shown that the ice in the world’s oceans is currently at the 1978 level. The collapse of a massive ice shelf in Antarctica, called Larsen B, was investigated. Scientists found discolored water in the area and confirmed an undersea volcano nearby. In Greenland, underground magma has moved closer to the surface, triggerring melting.

In the ‘information age,’ as in the past, trust can be abused and we should should check things out on our own. In the past, governments have used fear of this or that to convince the people to spend large amounts of money. The arms race during the Cold War. The constant threat that Russian ICBMs were only 20 minutes away from the United States. The space race. We’ve got to beat the Russians to the moon.

On the plus side, we do have a pollution problem and putting non-polluting or less polluting technology in place would be a good thing.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

No one at the conference spoke up for the freedom of debate expressed so well above. In fact the one voice of dissidence was suppressed.

Many people at the Gregorian conference spoke up, and there was a lot of discussion and debate. No dissidence was suppressed, although there was a Turkish man who crashed the conference, grabbed the microphone, and started haranguing the speaker. He was silenced because he was speaking out of turn and breaking the rules of engagement.

If the Kolbe “scientists” were excluded, it was because this conference was about the kind of science Kolbe people don’t engage in. This conference was not about geocentric astronomy and Young Earth Creationism, but about the serious theological and philosophical engagement of evolutionary biology. If Kolbe people want to discuss six-day creation physics and Noah’s-flood biology, they should organize a conference about it, and not invite evolutionists!