Page 21 of 42 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 411

Thread: Eating Paleo, But Don't Believe in Evolution? page 21

  1. #201
    TheyCallMeLazarus's Avatar
    TheyCallMeLazarus is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Northeast Kingdom, Vermont
    Posts
    994
    Shop Now
    "Are you aware of the Hardy Weinberg principle? Hybridization also can cause you to lose polymorphisms because the Hardy Weinberg principle doesn't apply to gene flow and migrant polymorphisms become fixed. If all existing clusters hybridized we'd be left with only one cluster rather than many. Genuine evolution requires new genes into the gene-pool of a species."

    -- Weinberg operates as a known non-real world principle. He was a pure mathematician, not a biologist, and his formula only applies to populations that fit his SEVEN ASSUMPTIONS, which in nature are very few. Among these is that mating is random, that allele frequencies are equal in EVERY organism (impossible), and that there is no selection pressure. Applying this as some kind of evolutionary law, rather than its intended use to approximate large gene pool frequencies, is an absurdity.

    -- The most obvious hole in the idea of a "DNA wall" is that, obviously, our DNA coding itself has little to do with phenotypic expression. In other words, it is not about whether DNA is present, it is whether DNA is actually being transcribed. In the case of dog breeding, deer populations, etc, all that is required is for certain genes to be EXPRESSED in order for speciation to occur. So many arguments against evolution work in an antiquated Darwinian place, in a land where all organisms are just a function of their DNA code. They are not. They are a product of all of the shuffling of DNA getting selection pressure for expression, not just mutation of DNA itself.....when one breeds a dog, they are not coding for new DNA. They are selecting for which lines of DNA will be EXPRESSED....in nature, this leads to speciation eventually, as enough selection pressure toward certain sets of gene expression are heavily favored, to the point that one set of animals will not breed with another.

    -- Also, how is "speciation" being defined? Seeing as everyone is so obsessed with it, what does it mean? If one breed of deer has gene selection pressure towards size, hearing, and being able to live at higher elevations over millenia, producing a mule deer instead of a whitetail, is this speciation? Of course it is....

    -- All of those arguments above are built inside the "coding box", as it is known in evolutionary study...it means looking a evolution only in terms of genotype, in actual DNA coding moving, rather than expression which is 95% of phenotypic and thus speciation pressure....In other words, a human could be a fly or a banana on this myopic view. The reason we are not is expression, not genotypic variation.

    Again, none of these arguments against evolution are new. They have been fought out for over a century without success. If one is so passionate about their finding holes, go to your nearest university conference and bring them up with people that know the area.

    I do this in my particular area, in diabetic research, trying to take on Ivy league stuffy-types that hate any kind of insurgent...but they can't argue with my results. Anyone that seriously studies a topic and refuses to do this is a "B-league All-Star" that is only capable of talking down to those less versed in a particular topic. It is self-serving and pointless.
    "They now look to a single and splendid government of an aristocracy, founded on banking institutions, and moneyed incorporations under the guise and cloak of their favored branches of manufactures, commerce and navigation, riding and ruling over the plundered ploughman and beggared yeomanry." - Thomas Jefferson, 1826

  2. #202
    TheyCallMeLazarus's Avatar
    TheyCallMeLazarus is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Northeast Kingdom, Vermont
    Posts
    994
    I have an honest question for Derp:
    - if you were to go into a moderated debate with a PhD in evolution, do you believe you could hold your own?

    I operate with the assumption that you are an intelligent guy I would like a lot in person....but I also think you have never been humbled by others before, and never been in the presence of those much smarter than you, as there always will be for anyone. I was like that at one point, so I get it. You must understand that argueing "to measure the intelligence" of others is an outrageously elitist and arrogant thing to say. That is why people are fighting you, out of arrogance, not some strong conviction of the premise of evolution.

    Lastly, I am not at all an atheist. Evolution vs "magic man in the sky that used his magic wand to put animals and fossils here" is completely false dichotomy.
    "They now look to a single and splendid government of an aristocracy, founded on banking institutions, and moneyed incorporations under the guise and cloak of their favored branches of manufactures, commerce and navigation, riding and ruling over the plundered ploughman and beggared yeomanry." - Thomas Jefferson, 1826

  3. #203
    Derpamix's Avatar
    Derpamix is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,390
    You are not understanding evolution still, nor Darwin's suggestion of natural selection. You are making fundamental errors in asserting what is evolution through what is actually not evolution and claiming this is evolution. Make sense? Not really. Natural selection actually disproves evolution, despite what you are claiming. Fully developed traits work through their maintenance and preservation via natural selection, as I've said, they must have these traits to begin with. Traits such as wings, eyes, etc. How do you get these from nothing to something if evolution must go through a long set of intermediate steps, which are said to be favored by natural selection? How, does Darwin's theory of natural selection explain those stages of traits that can only be used (as we now observe them) in much more elaborated form? This is where I said before: small stages observed do not equal big changes that are not observed.

    Now, read one criticism:

    “But do the facts of actual organic nature square with the Darwinian hypothesis? Are all the recognised organic forms of the present date, so differentiated, so complex, so superior to conceivable primordial simplicity of form and structure, as to testify to the effects of Natural Selection continuously operating through untold time? Unquestionably not. The most numerous living beings now on the globe are precisely those which offer such a simplicity of form and structure, as best agrees, and we take leave to affirm can only agree, with that ideal prototype from which, by any hypothesis of natural law, the series of vegetable and animal life might have diverged.”

    'Individuals, it is said, of every species, in a state of nature annually perish,' and 'the survivors will be, for the most part, those of the strongest constitutions and the best adapted to provide for themselves and offspring, under the circumstances in which they exist.' Now, let us test the applicability of this postulate to the gradual mutation of a specific form by some instance in Natural History eminently favourable for the assumed results. In many species nature has superadded to general health and strength particular weapons and combative instincts, which, as, e.g., in the deer-tribe, insure to the strongest, to the longest-winded, the largest-antlered, and the sharpest-snagged stages, the choice of the hinds and the chief share in the propagation of the next generation. In such peculiarly gifted species we have the most favourable conditions for testing one of the conclusions drawn by Messrs. Darwin and Wallace from this universally recognised 'struggle for the preservation of life and kind.' If the offspring inheriting the advantages of their parents, did in their turn, however slightly and gradually, increase those advantages and give birth to a still more favoured progeny, with repetition of the result to the degree required by 'natural selection,'-then, according to the rate of modification experimentally proved in pigeons, we ought to find evidence of progressive increase in the combative qualities of antlers in those deer that for centuries have been under observation in our parks, and still more so in those that have fought and bred from the earliest historical times in the mountain wilds of Scotland. The element of 'natural selection' above illustrated, either is, or is not, a law of nature. If it be one, the results should be forthcoming; more especially in those exceptional cases in which nature herself has superadded structures, as it were expressly to illustrate the consequences of such 'general struggle of the life of the individual and the continuance of the race.' (43) The antlers of deer are expressly given to the male, and permitted to him, in fighting trim, only at the combative sexual season; they fall and are renewed annually; they belong moreover to the most plastic and variable parts or appendages of the quadruped. Is it then a fact that the fallow-deer propagated under these influences in Windsor Forest, since the reign of William Rufus, now manifest in the superior condition of the antlers, as weapons, that amount and kind of change which the succession of generations under the influence of 'natural selection' ought to have produced? Do the crowned antlers of the red deer of the nineteenth century surpass those of the turbaries and submerged forest-lands which date back long before the beginning of our English History? Does the variability of the artificially bred pigeon or of the cultivated cabbage outweigh, in a philosophical consideration of the origin of species, those obstinate evidences of persistence of specific types and of inherent limitation of change of character, however closely the seat of such characters may be connected with the 'best chance of taking care of self and of begetting offspring?' If certain bounds to the variability of specific characters be a law in nature, we then can see why the successive progeny of the best antlered deer, proved to be best by wager of battle, should never have exceeded the specific limit assigned to such best possible antlers under that law of limitation. If unlimited variability by 'natural selection' be a law, we ought to see some degree of its operation in the peculiarly favourable test-instance just quoted.

    Mr. Darwin asks, 'How is it that varieties, which I have called incipient species, become ultimately good and distinct species?' To which we rejoin with the question:--Do they become good and distinct species? Is there any one instance proved by observed facts of such transmutation? We have searched the volume in vain for such. When we see the intervals that divide most species from their nearest congeners, in the recent and especially the fossil series, we either doubt the fact of progressive conversion, or, as Mr. Darwin remarks in his letter to Dr. Asa Gray, one's 'imagination must fill up very wide blanks.'
    Longing is the agony of the nearness of the distant

  4. #204
    Derpamix's Avatar
    Derpamix is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,390
    Quote Originally Posted by TheyCallMeLazarus View Post
    I have an honest question for Derp:
    - if you were to go into a moderated debate with a PhD in evolution, do you believe you could hold your own?

    I operate with the assumption that you are an intelligent guy I would like a lot in person....but I also think you have never been humbled by others before, and never been in the presence of those much smarter than you, as there always will be for anyone. I was like that at one point, so I get it. You must understand that argueing "to measure the intelligence" of others is an outrageously elitist and arrogant thing to say. That is why people are fighting you, out of arrogance, not some strong conviction of the premise of evolution.

    Lastly, I am not at all an atheist. Evolution vs "magic man in the sky that used his magic wand to put animals and fossils here" is completely false dichotomy.
    I am not sure, but I have been in several instances of moderated debates before in entire courses dedicated to it. No one has had a PhD, yet, and I don't claim to be able to debate against them right now and hold my own. This is all practice, and I don't get out to disprove, merely to increase my own knowledge by challenging others. You also need to look at it from the point of view of a creationist, or a religious person, when these things are merely accepted as fact, and the others will look down at people who hold differing views, so I merely ask them to put their money where their mouth is. If you can call someone else ignorant and absurd, you should be prepared to run into someone that is going to go out of their way to challenge that. This is the role I'm filling currently, despite not actually committing to either side.

    This I understand, so I can recant this in your particular case, as I haven't seen you be overtly offensive to either side.

    PS: I don't really claim to be a genius, or that intelligent of a person, just someone with an inquisitive mind that wants to learn as much as I can from all angles. I think it's inquisitive minds that actually drive the world. I can understand how I come off as arrogant, but it's not really the case.
    Last edited by Derpamix; 11-03-2013 at 10:47 AM.
    Longing is the agony of the nearness of the distant

  5. #205
    Gorbag's Avatar
    Gorbag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    3,742
    Quote Originally Posted by Derpamix View Post
    My point isn't to debate with them at the moment, it's to measure the intelligence of the atheists on this forum.
    Maybe it would be easier if you just sent them a phrenological questionnaire to fill out; let them measure their own skull etc. for evaluation? I suspect that die hard atheists and theists may get pretty much the same scores…

  6. #206
    MaceyUK's Avatar
    MaceyUK is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Gloucestershire UK
    Posts
    624
    Maybe I misunderstood the antiquated style of the author but there are many factors that limit the size of deer antlers, some biomechanical e.g supporting and wielding the greater mass of antlers will have a sweet spot and some physiological inasmuch as there is an energy cost to growing and carrying them. Natural selection works by stabilizing this trait so that deer born with tiny or oversize horns are uncompetitive. Comparing them to fancy pigeons that do not have any natural selection pressure from foraging or fighting for a mate is either misguided or disingenuous.
    Man seeks to change the foods available in nature to suit his tastes, thereby putting an end to the very essence of life contained in them.
    www.primaljoy.co.uk

  7. #207
    Rip @ MIPWID's Avatar
    Rip @ MIPWID is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Manchester, England
    Posts
    243
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Anthony View Post
    Eh, to me it doesn't matter. Not eating processed crap works just as well whether you call it Paleo or the Adam and Eve diet.
    This.

    Given that the food I eat is probably a million miles away from what we actually ate, and with the number of hidden history theories around, I'm not interested in what we ate back then - I want to know what's good to eat NOW.
    Meat is Prized, Wheat is Despised.

    Real Food - The REAL staff of life

  8. #208
    magicmerl's Avatar
    magicmerl is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,126
    Quote Originally Posted by TheyCallMeLazarus View Post
    -- Also, how is "speciation" being defined? Seeing as everyone is so obsessed with it, what does it mean? If one breed of deer has gene selection pressure towards size, hearing, and being able to live at higher elevations over millenia, producing a mule deer instead of a whitetail, is this speciation? Of course it is....
    For me speciation is when interbreeding goes from possible to impossible.

    So one example to me of speciation that is visible in the here and now is breeding donkeys and horses together, which produces mules/hinnies, which are neither horses nor donkeys and are sterile and incapable of breeding.

    In a few thousand generations it's likely that horses and donkeys will be unable to interbreed.
    Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

    Griff's cholesterol primer
    5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
    Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
    TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
    bloodorchid is always right

  9. #209
    turquoisepassion's Avatar
    turquoisepassion is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    NYC (and ATX)
    Posts
    2,777
    Donkeys and horses are already different species, not in a few hundred years. Horses have 64 chromosomes and donkeys have 62. Mules have 63, an odd number, therefore it is infertile. Sexual reproduction requires an even number of chromosomes to occur.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    ------
    HCLF: lean red meat, eggs, low-fat dairy, bone broth/gelatin, fruits, seafood, liver, small amount of starch (oatmeal, white rice, potatoes, carrots), small amount of saturated fat (butter/ghee/coconut/dark chocolate/cheese).

    My Journal: gelatin experiments, vanity pictures, law school rants, recipe links


    Food blog: GELATIN and BONE BROTH recipes

    " The best things in life are free and the 2nd best are expensive!" - Coco Chanel

  10. #210
    Derpamix's Avatar
    Derpamix is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,390
    Quote Originally Posted by magicmerl View Post
    For me speciation is when interbreeding goes from possible to impossible.

    So one example to me of speciation that is visible in the here and now is breeding donkeys and horses together, which produces mules/hinnies, which are neither horses nor donkeys and are sterile and incapable of breeding.

    In a few thousand generations it's likely that horses and donkeys will be unable to interbreed.
    Quote Originally Posted by turquoisepassion View Post
    Donkeys and horses are already different species, not in a few hundred years. Horses have 64 chromosomes and donkeys have 62. Mules have 63, an odd number, therefore it is infertile. Sexual reproduction requires an even number of chromosomes to occur.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Oops! Not looking good...
    Longing is the agony of the nearness of the distant

Page 21 of 42 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •