Discussion in 'Science and the Universe' started by SufiPhilosophy, Apr 17, 2021.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/kno...l to evolution,a defining aspect of evolution.
Wil! Had me worried about you for a long time there.
To answer your question, of course it was. And the researchers that figured it out did so studying Zebra Danio aquarium fish, which as it turns out had the same skin tonal shift in their DNA. Caucasians are mutants.
To quote my OP:
Please see the above quote, l have already anticipated this (btw please understand that l have thought this over before starting the thread - l have a biosciences background, although l'll admit l never liked genetics nor the evolution modules that haunted my degree course).
Different forms of a gene (i.e. "alleles") are known as mutations of that gene. That nomenclature suffices in practice and l am happy to call them mutations. However, that is not to say they actually mutated from a parent form a la "evolution" - there is no scientific basis for it.
If there is scientific basis for it please show me it happening either in the laboratory or nature. Backstory won't do, l want to see it happening. Show me the money.
If we go into madeup backstory it may as well be due to the Dragonlord and his minions. I could draw a graph showing how, as the power of the Dragonlord waned i.e. at key points in the earth's history, the frequency of mutations would have, could have, should have increased via the equation p=x^2. But what did you actually witness? What hard proof was there? Zero.
I am not making a special case for stringent evidence either. This is bog standard scientific rigour.
Yep, another article that baits and switches or in this case, baits and gives nothing. There is no actual example of observed helpful gene mutations in evolution given in that entire article despite the article being predicated on just that.
Obligatory green frog on green leaf in tropical jungle pic. I see this pic all the time. I love you green frog, but you fail to deliver, every time.
Btw please see above quote of my OP. No link hurling / book stacking. If you understand, then you will have no problem writing up your understanding.
Link hurling and book stacking degrade the debate by shifting it outside of the thread. If the evidence is out there, then there is zero, 10 minus 10, the number of elephants within empty box, no, nada, zilch, absolutely no problemo in bringing the evidence into the debate, in one's own words.
I would be happy to see evidence contrary to my belief. There is no dogma nor ego in science and every new development is greeted with varying degrees of joy in science, ranging from quiet skepticism to elation - but we don't respond with wrath. So bring it - but please, please, please keep within the simple premises of my OP.
TL;DR: Once again l ask: Please show me mutations leading to evolutionary improvement happening, in the present. Show me the money.
Please show me the proof of your assertions. Your word isn't sufficient to count as evidence.
Just because you say so, doesn't make it so.
And my "link stacking" is my personal work, already done, here on this site, might even call it "peer reviewed." Not "run of the mill" drop and disappear. You might actually be surprised...presuming of course, you actually wish to dialogue. But if, as I suspect, you are here merely to demonstrate your intellectual prowess and superiority over all of us hillbilly hick dumbasses ... probably better you don't even bother.
So...how far does your argument get in any science forum or conference? Any thesis suport it?
I mean it is one thing to waltz into a religious forum and make headway with such a discussion....what do those in the industry think?
(PDF) Mutations affecting xanthophore pigmentation in the zebrafish, Danio rerio (researchgate.net)
SLC24A5, a putative cation exchanger, affects pigmentation in zebrafish and humans - PubMed (nih.gov)
ref: 1782 1782..1786 (berkeley.edu)
No obligatory green frogs, though I seriously doubt you studied this either...
So unless you can back your statements with PROOF, a.k.a. "facts," your position is opinion and nothing more.
BTW, this is old news, I reported on this here at this site back in 2005 as an ancillary to my anthropology studies.
Cha-Ching! The sound of money! Don't you just love it?
That is not the subject of this thread. First please answer the subject of this thread.
Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy. I said in the OP: no logical fallacies. You are literally appealing to authorities and pinning the truth of the matter on the opinions of relative celebrities. Zeus isn't proven by the hard work of the technicians that built Athens nor the person with the coolest toga nor the person with the greatest compendium of Zeus factoids. Zeus is proven by scientific enquiry. Which brings us back to the OP.
I will not engage you if you engage in logical fallacies / sophistry. Nor if you condescendingly make it about me "waltzing". Sorry.
Why condescend when you failed the request for facts? Why not just honestly admit you have no facts?
This is why l should not even have commented on your link because the fact that you posted a link meant you didn't have the facts yourself.
Show me the money. Don't attack me if l have done nothing wrong.
I have already said: no link hurling. Moreover, if you actually understood the content, you'd realise it is nothing to do with the subject of this thread.
Your opinion is not proof. Doesn't matter what you say about link hurling, without evidence in support it is not a valid argument.
I provided proof. Without proof, yours is hearsay.
Mine is supported. Yours is unsupported opinion.
The links I provided are specific to my statement above...nothing more, nothing less.
Your method would be laughed out of ANY peer reviewed journal. With no corroborating or supporting evidence, they would laugh you off the stage.
Slam dunk. Game, Set, Match.
OK l see nobody here is going to answer the OP with evidence of gene mutation leading to evolutionary progress.
Please admit you blindly believe in evolution by gene mutation and when challenged you get angry.
Alternatively, please demonstrate (as l have continually been asking throughout this thread) evidence of evolution by gene mutation. I don't mean showing a reference to a gene form being called a mutant. That is just common parlance as l have already said in post #63.
Back to the point of the thread. I'll make it easier for you, please fill in the blanks:
Gene mutation: ENTER NAME OF MUTANT THAT HAS EMERGED DURING THE TIMEFRAME OF A STUDY, WHICH HAS PROGRESSED THE EVOLUTION OF A SPECIES - THIS IS THE BEEF, SO TO SPEAK, SHOW ME THE BEEF
Mutated from: ENTER THE NAME OF THE GENE IT MUTATED FROM
Reference publication: ENTER THE PUBLICATION REFERENCE
Date: ENTER THE DATE OF THAT PUBLICATION
Anticipated response: "NO I DON'T HAVE TO SHOW YOU ANYTHING."
"OH, YOU, YOU SO ARROGANT, WHY YOU SO ARROGANT? WHO YOU THINK YOU ARE?"
"WHY YOU ASK HERE? WHY NOT ANOTHER FORUM?"
"I ALREADY ANSWERED YOU, UP THERE, SOMEWHERE, SO GO THERE, UP THERE SOMEWHERE! YOU ARE AND (sic) IDIOT!"
"LOOK I FOUND AN ARTICLE THAT CALLED BLUE EYE A RECESSIVE MUTANT GENE OF EYE COLOUR! THIS MEANS BLUE EYES HAVE BEEN SEEN TO MUTATE!" (no it is just nomenclature as explained already, if you don't know basic genetics then don't quote it.)
Save yourself the bother of writing these irrelevant responses and stick to the facts, don't be ego. Thank you in advance
You're trying to have it both ways, duplicitous. I warned everyone you would do things like this. "Show me the money!" In bold, no less.
I show you, and you carp on about link stacking...a rule you pulled out of nether regions so you don't have to face the evidence...that you never studied.
I strongly encourage you to do exactly that.
I just provided 3, count them, 3 references to the same study regarding the genes (multiple, 17 in fact) implicated in the changing of skin color...and you don't want anything to do with them.
No. Your turn, where is YOUR proof demonstrating this research is incorrect? Where is it? Show it if you have the nerve.
For the 2nd or 3rd time:
Quote from post #63:
I do not wish to speak to you any further. You are wasting my time, whether you agree with me or disagree, your opinions are baseless. Please, leave me alone.
That's because you have ZERO understanding of debate. You have ZERO evidence. You have nothing to support or validate your position.
Ergo, you lose, by default.
I accept your concession.
By the way, for the record, quoting yourself is circular reasoning.
How has this approach worked in other forums?
This is a discussion forum...shutting down discussion when you do agree with folks responses makes.no sense. Unless of course you are the authority.and you male the rules.
Your topic.looks interesting your biases.show up in your responses and policing as I see it.
You realize that if you continue to insist on using common sense and a respectful tone when you write you’re to have most of us at a disadvantage.
Quote from my OP:
You are being wilfully ignorant of logical fallacies. You are using logical fallacies as the core of your statements. Your statements contain nothing in response to my OP, my OP is asking for evidence of gene mutations leading to evolution. You are providing nothing of the sort despite my repeated requests for this.
As a moderator you are also overlooking another user calling me a "Dick" in this thread and even on another thread pining about how genteel discussion is better than a controlled 1 on 1 debate because the latter might seem a bit aggressive. And now, no irony, you are criticising me for shouting down the opposition? I am shouting nobody down.
I am over and over again being abused whilst over and over again asking the same thing and being shortchanged: show me evidence of a gene mutation leading to evolution. That is a gene mutation actually happening, not backstory on a gene variant as having been mutated long long ago.
I have pointed out that you responded recently with an Appeal to Authority logical fallacy. I have pointed out that logical fallacies are intellectually dishonest. yet you persist in trying to push your fallacious thought as somehow virtuous and my insistence of fallacy-free arguments as somehow crooked, unvirtuous cheating. You literally don't know right from wrong, as is demonstrated by what l've just said.
For posterity, here is your logical fallacy:
An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument. Some consider that it is used in a cogent form if all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context, and others consider it to always be a fallacy to cite an authority on the discussed topic as the primary means of supporting an argument.
Because you insist on this fallacious line of thought and because you are further developing it into an ad hominem which has nothing to do with what l've said and nothing to do with the topic, l shall now ignore you as l have done the other abusive individual. Peace.
No irony. He then goes onto make out l'm dishonest in my entire thread's format and input. I hope your soul finds healing. I cannot entertain more of this because life is too short. And see above, dear casual reader, l actually went to pains to even read that article and refute it, and so l played into his ignorance in not having read it, and so he then detracted even more, condemning my form, format, self, soul, blah bla bla.
Please show me evidence of a gene mutation occurring, to progress evolution. Not backstory added to a presumed mutation that supposedly happened in ancient times. We call different versions of a gene "mutations" but that is just common parlance, l am asking for actual evidence of a real life mutation being witnessed to occur.
There is no need to be mean to me. No need to criticise me. Just answer the question Peace
This thread is already a disaster area, imo? The parameters are too technical for the forum. It belongs on a technical website, where knowledgeable people in the disciplines involved may express themselves in their own words and be understood by other experts. It is not a discussion, and it is not interfaith? Just my opinion?
This is @wil statement on the IO Homepage 'about' section:
"Our group seeks to fulfill a mission of interfaith dialogue and exploration of others beliefs while being a place to discuss the intricacies of our own belief in a safe format."
I wonder if it should not be included in the Code of Conduct?
IO is for the members. No reason for them to endure constant abuse?
Separate names with a comma.