A simple case for intelligent design

[leroy]

But they are not random in the way that you seem to be thinking that they are. You seem to be thinking of us as a goal and not as a result What happens with life is that any population is going to acquire variation. That is why the word "random" is extremely misleading to those that won't let themselves learn. You may think of an accident as "random" but in the insurance industry that is not the case. So called random accidents can be predicted in a population. In the same way positive mutations will arise in any population. You are blinding yourself because it is the only way that you can maintain your false beliefs.

Ok so define random? What is a random mutation?

 

[Bear Wild]

Well that is your burden prove, show that ramdra mutations and natural selection can account for worm -to -man evolution

Will be happy to but will need to take it in steps to understand a complex theory. If you are interested it can be done.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well that is your burden prove, show that ramdra mutations and natural selection can account for worm -to -man evolution

That has already been done. Your refusing to understand does not mean that has not happened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so define random? What is a random mutation?

This is an ignorant demand. This shows that you are making the error of concentrating on individuals rather than on populations. The mutations that will arise in a population will give a large range of changes. From larger to smaller individuals, stronger or faster individuals. All sorts of different results. One has to look at both variation and selection in a population to understand evolution. Focusing on individual mutations may tell us a bit more how life evolved, but it is not necessary to see them to know that life did evolve.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Will be happy to but will need to take it in steps to understand a complex theory. If you are interested it can be done.

He appears to be actively trying not to understand. Bringing up red herrings in an attempt to understand feels like resistance to me.

 

[Polymath257]

Well that is your burden prove, show that ramdra mutations and natural selection can account for worm -to -man evolution

Well, we can do any number of models showing that random mutation and selection leads to increasing complexity. We can compare the type of complexity in our models to the observed types of complexity in life and find that they are similar. We can show the evolutionary pathways from worm-like animals, through ones with primitive notochords, to those having vertebrae, to those having jaws, then limbs, etc, through to mammals and then on to humans. We can show that no step in that pathway is beyond what can be modeled with random mutation and selection.

So what exactly is your question?

 

[leroy]

That has already been done. Your refusing to understand does not mean that has not happened.

That has been done ? Where? Care to provide a source?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That has been done ? Where? Care to provide a source?

There are countless sources. Every new peer reviewed paper is another page in the development of our understanding of evolution. The problem is that since you will not allow yourself to understand the basics there is no way that you will understand the specifics.

 

[leroy]

Well, we can do any number of models showing that random mutation and selection leads to increasing complexity.

That would be grate. Showing that random mutatios and natural selection tend to increase complexity would count as strong evidence

 

[leroy]

There are countless sources. Every new peer reviewed paper is another page in the development of our understanding of evolution. The problem is that since you will not allow yourself to understand the basics there is no way that you will understand the specifics.

Grate, just provide one of the many papers

I might me unwilling to open my mind, but other open minded individuals might come to this forum and they might be interested in reading your sources

 

[Subduction Zone]

Grate, just provide one of the many papers

I might me unwilling to open my mind, but other open minded individuals might come to this forum and they might be interested in reading your sources

Sorry, until you understand the basics there is no point. A child that is having problems with the multiplication tables is in no position to judge tensor calculus.

Do you understand your error in demanding specific mutations yet?

 

[leroy]

.....

Let's see if we agree.

1 It is a fact that random mutations and natural selection happen

2 it is an almost certain fact that organisms came from ancestral (simpler) organisms

3 you are assuming that random mutations and natural selection are responsible for these changes


Would you atleast agree that "3" is controversial ? Yes or no?

 

[leroy]

Sorry, until you understand the basics there is no point. A child that is having problems with the multiplication tables is in no position to judge tensor calculus.

Do you understand your error in demanding specific mutations yet?

I am not demanding specific mutations


You are just inventing excuses because you know that you can't prove that random mutationalism + natural selection are responsible for "worm to man evolution "

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's see if we agree.

1 It is a fact that random mutations and natural selection happen

2 it is an almost certain fact that organisms came from ancestral (simpler) organisms

3 you are assuming that random mutations and natural selection are responsible for this changes

Number three is wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not demanding specific mutations


You are just inventing excuses because you know that you can't prove that random mutationalism + natural selection are responsible for "worm to man evolution "

You did earlier. What do you want now?

 

[leroy]

You did earlier. What do you want now?

I asked for a viable path, not for the specific mutatios...or you can provide any other proof for "evolution by random mutations and natural selection"

Evolution I'd a controversial "theory" there are countless peer review articles that provide valid reasons to daubt evolution by random mutations and natural selection. This article sumerices the controversy https://dissentfromdarwin.org/resources-for-students/why-is-darwinian-evolution-controversial/#fn10

Only angy atheist from forums and YouTube think that evolution is uncontroversially true. True scientists are aware of the controversy and are working hard to ether prove evolution or provide a better theory.


But you can prove me wrong, provide your conclusive evidence for evolution. Or you can join me and the scientific community and admit that evolution is controvertial


With evolution I mean: " the idea that random mutations and natural selection are responsible for the complexity of life "

Reed the article that I provided and explain why is the author wrong

 

[Subduction Zone]

I asked for a viable path, not for the specific mutatios...or you can provide any other proof for "evolution by random mutations and natural selection"

Evolution I'd a controversial "theory" there are countless peer review articles that provide valid reasons to daubt evolution by random mutations and natural selection. This article sumerices the controversy https://dissentfromdarwin.org/resources-for-students/why-is-darwinian-evolution-controversial/#fn10

Only angy atheist from forums and YouTube think that evolution is uncontroversially true. True scientists are aware of the controversy and are working hard to ether prove evolution or provide a better theory.


But you can prove me wrong, provide your conclusive evidence for evolution. Or you can join me and the scientific community and admit that evolution is controvertial


With evolution I mean: " the idea that random mutations and natural selection are responsible for the complexity of life "

Reed the article that I provided and explain why is the author wrong

Then the "viable path" is given by the fossil record.

And when you use an old refuted and unreliable source you do not look very good. Do you know the history behind the piece of excrement? There are more people named "Steve" in the science that accept the theory of evolution than signed that misleading piece of paper.

So far you have not been avoiding learning. What good do you think that will do? All that happens is when you bring up poorly worded or ignorant arguments that your claims will be refuted.

 

[Valjean]

The truth is that in order to evolve a worm-like creature in to a human you need new “genetic stuff” (stuff that was not there) and evolution requires a step by step path, where each step is beneficial. (a step being a single mutation)…you can include some neutral mutations,

In order to evolve The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich into War and Peace, all you have to do is rearrange the existing letters. No new "stuff" or "information" is needed.

No path has ever been shown to exist,

Sure it has. Aren't you familiar with the mechanisms of evolution?
How are you defining "been shown?" I could say no path has ever been shown to exist from bacteria to disease. it is -- after all, only a theory -- but that wouldn't be reasonable, considering the evidence.
There is at least as much evidence for the ToE as there is for the germ theory.

We call this “genetic stuff” information, but you are always free to give it an other name.

Thanks for the clarification. So you'd expect the complexity of an organism to be related to the length of the genome; to how much DNA an organism has?

Well in order to evolve a worm-like creature in to a human you need bilions of mutations, each of them (or atleast most of them) has to be benefitial and selected by natural selection

So with a billion worms, and hundreds of mutations per reproductive cycle, wouldn't you expect some changes for natural selection to work with?

Ok then evolution by natural selection is not testable, perhaps in the future we would have the means to test it.

Why do you say it's not testable? People have been using selective breeding for millennia. If it works for farmers why wouldn't it work with natural, unguided selective breeding?
People have observed change, even speciation, in vivo, through natural selection.

1 I am not asking for the exact mutations that took place, I am asking for a viable path

But what do you mean by a "viable path?" Biology has described and tested the steps involved, the mechanisms are known. They've been observed a thousand times. What more do you want?

2 for the purpose of this conversation I define evolution as : the idea that organisms came from simpler ancestral species as a consequence of random mutations and natural selection.

"Evolution" is change. The Theory of evolution describes the processes involved. "Came from" leaves the mechanism blank.

I don't deny the fact that we evolved from "worm like " creatures

I am reject the idea that random mutations and natural selection where responsable for such an event. Do you have conclusive evidence that suggests otherwise?

But by what mechanism? There is no alternative explanation known.
"Goddidit" is not an explanation of mechanism, it's an appeal to magic. You seem to be making a black or white error. Apparently you think that if you can poke holes in the ToE, the only other "explanation' must needs be magic -- with or without evidence.

I grant that we are related to other species, I grant universal common ancestry , what I don't grant is that random mutatios and natural selection are responsable for evolving a worm in to a human

So you believe in evolution but not the ToE? Is there some alternative theory I'm not aware of?

Because " random" is the backbone evolution by natural selection.

I think "selection" is the backbone. The only random dice roll is breeding. After that Nature chooses which features to keep and discard.

With random I simply mean that they are not biased to achieve a give goal. A rat that lives in a cold climate is not more likely to receive a mutation that would produce thick hair, than a rat that lives in a warm climate. Both rats are equally likely to receive the mutation.

But the long hair is beneficial in the northern rats and not in the southern. In the north the long haired rats will be better adapted, they'll have more young and increase the incidence of the trait in the population.

This is natural selection. Beneficial features increase in the population, and deleterious ones are 'selected' out.

If mutations are not random (but guided) then I would agree with you.

But there is no evidence of this. The natural mechanism is commonsense. It's been observed and tested extensively. There is no evidence; no observations or tests -- and no need, for any guidance. guidance violates the Occam's razor principle. The ToE is entirely sufficient to explain the changes we see.
Why are you so invested in an invisible, completely unevidenced, unneeded intelligence magically manipulating things?

Granted, I don't claim to have robust evidence for my view, but neither do you.

But we do. The ToE is one of the most robust, well evidenced theories in all of science.

So skepticism is a reasonable position, and evolution by natural selection should not be considered an undisputed fact

Skepticism is always useful, so why do so many discard it for faith when evolution comes up?

 

[Valjean]

Grate, just provide one of the many papers

I might me unwilling to open my mind, but other open minded individuals might come to this forum and they might be interested in reading your sources

You're asking for textbooks and technical articles. These obviously aren't appropriate in a short reply format like RF.
If you're really interested just pick up a textbook or Evolutionary Biology magazine. Google the subject. There must be a thousand YouTube videos on the subject. Maybe you can take some Khan academy courses.
As Subduction Zone pointed out, however, you seem to lack even a basic knowledge of the subject, yet you're strongly opinionated about it.

Let's see if we agree.

3 you are assuming that random mutations and natural selection are responsible for these changes
Would you atleast agree that "3" is controversial ? Yes or no?

Not among scientists or people familiar with the subject. The objections seem to come almost exclusively from those wedded to religious folklore.

 

[leroy]

Then the "viable path" is given by the fossil record. ]

The fossil record at most proves that we came from ancestral organisms , but it doesn't prove that random mutations and natural selection is responsible for that.

And when you use an old refuted and unreliable source you do not look very good.

That your modus operandi, you claim to have evidence for your stuff, but you find excuses for not providing your sources.

You claim that my sources are wrong but you don't explain why.

When was that article refuted? Care to provide the refutation?