OK I read it but I can't claim to fully comprehend it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists believe in miracles more than believers
- Thread starter Eli G
- Start date
OK I read it but I can't claim to fully comprehend it.
I haven't read that particular paper yet. I'm still trying to find where I put the others so I can find them online and send you a link or pdf.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Can you provide a so called "verification" of random gradual mutation?
Before I completely wrap this up, I wanted to address what I see as another confusion you have regarding speciation. Speciation does not occur in an individual. Parents of a species do not reproduce offspring of a new or different species. It doesn't work that way. The evidence supports that. It isn't a claim of the theory of evolution. It does seem to be your belief. How you came about that, I have no idea, but it is incorrect.
Let's assume the flies you encountered were all of a single species. The ones that you killed remained that species. The ones that survived remained that species. Any offspring were also of that species. Selecting for a new trait, and that is what you claim you were doing, artificial selection, does not suddenly change individuals or groups of individuals into a new species. No scientist claims that. Darwin didn't didn't claim that.
I predict that nothing I have posted over the last few days will be reviewed with any attempt to understand. That's all right. I tried. But it doesn't leave us anywhere to go. There is no common ground for us. I'm trained as a scientist and you seem to want to be one without bothering to experience, learn or understand. That is oil and water.
Good luck to you. I'll correct your errors for the benefit of others, but I don't see further attempts at discussion and debate worth the effort.
The Origin of Species is a good start. Or try some of the books by Donald Prothero. He's a good writer with a non-technical audience in mind for some of his general works.
Are were you looking for something more specific?
Whales.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Yes. Specific.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Yeah. I like whales.
So again, please provide a so called "verification" of random gradual mutation.
OK, my friend, I’ll cover this one more time….
To answer your question above: NO!
Not when, on average, worldwide there are 20,000x more workers in existence than queens, and 100x to 150x more drones than queens!
Does saying there are “some” for each group sound acceptable, to you?
Not to me. Unless I was trying to downplay the number of workers, and inflate the number of queens for some reason.
I sincerely hope you & your family are staying healthy & safe too!
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
No. By implication of the words "brings about.." and "follows..."
You mean "ignored"
You can claim whatever you wish. That doesn't change the evidence of reality or the physical phenomenon of causality.
Physics says so.
Then stop saying otherwise.
I'm just saying it is absurd to invoke the physics of the universe, to explain the universe.
And you actually pretty much agree with that as per your own analogy that you can't explain the first computer by invoking another computer.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
The bolded part is nonsensical.
"random gradual" mutation?
You seem to be mixing things up.
Mutations are random with respect to fitness.
Evolutionary change (= the accumulation of mutations over generations by being passed on to off spring) happens gradually.
You're asking someone on an internet forum to do years of work and write something that would be the size of a book.
If you are truly interested and not just trying to score points against the evil evolution believers then Peter and Rosemary Grant have written several books about the Galapagos Finches. I suggest trying them. There's a list of their books towards the bottom of this page....
Peter and Rosemary Grant - Wikipedia
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I think part of (all of?) your problem is that causation needs something to happen—even if it's simultaneous (another temporal and relative term)—and things happening are just points in spacetime. We define causal relationships between these points, depending on their relationships in the 'landscape' of the manifold.
But, the manifold itself didn't happen. It never changes. It makes no sense to say that it would. All we have is a fixed 'landscape'. It 'just is'.
No, not everything has to follow GR (maybe nothing does, and it's just a good approximation), but without it (assuming it's correct), we have no time, except as paths through it, and, when we look at it as a whole, nothing happens.
How do you have a cause for something that is entirely fixed, not subject to time, and for which even simultaneity is meaningless (for it as a whole.).
Why are you so desperately clinging to applying the language of time to something that is timeless?
ETA: Also, even if you insist on the misuse of the language, whether time is finite in the past or not is irrelevant to any proposed 'cause'.
Last edited:
Surely you can give me a one sentence statement that explains 200 years of science. Or provide me with 10 years of advanced education in the brief space of this post.
A little disagreement here on how this is worded. As a general statement this is not true. It is true the timing and occurrence of mutations is random. The fact that mutations in and of themselves do not determine fitness is not true randomness. It is simply the physical nature of some kinds of mutation that fitness is not determined to varying degrees. Some types of mutations are to a degree protected form harmful mutations.
New study provides first evidence of non-random mutations in DNA.
The non-random pattern in mutations between gene and non-gene regions of DNA suggests that there is a defensive mechanism in place to prevent potentially disastrous mutations.
"In genes coding for proteins essential for survival and reproduction, mutations are most likely to have harmful effects, potentially causing disease and even death," Monroe said. "Our results show that genes, and essential genes in particular, experience a lower mutation rate than non-gene regions in Arabidopsis. The result is that offspring have a lower chance of inheriting a harmful mutation."
Researchers found that to protect themselves, essential genes send out special signals to DNA repair proteins. This signaling is not done by the DNA itself but by histones, specialized proteins DNA wraps around to make up chromosomes.
"Based on the result of our study, we found that gene regions, especially for the most biologically essential genes, are wrapped around histones with particular chemical marks," Monroe said. "We think these chemical marks are acting as molecular signals to promote DNA repair in these regions."
It should be emphasized that Natural selection is not a random process,
cladking
Well-Known Member
Just for the record I never said speciation does occur to an individual. I said new species arise full blown and as such are not the same species as the parents. They are typically quite similar, but every individual being the same species as its parents, as Darwin believed, runs counter his own concept that species "Evolve". It is illogical. I believe the fossil record shows no missing links because there never were missing links. Species change in tiny, small, or large jumps between generations and not within them.
Perhaps if I had imposed an artificial bottleneck on flies according to some fundamental characteristic of flies I would have created a new species. Perhaps if there were a sufficiently genetically robust population of wingless flies and these were left alone or a population of flies that didn't like sugar they would have produced a change in species. There are always individuals within populations which are different because of genes and a behavior that reflects these genes and the experience of their always individual consciousness.
Behavior is driven by genes and experience.
Mother nature is a mad experimenter and reality is very complex.
Perhaps no one empathizes with your perspective more than I. I don't even disagree really and just see every word from a different perspective. I'll continue to read your posts and follow links as appropriate but we're only going to agree on some of the broadest points. I'll certainly continue to watch for experiment and facts that show me to be wrong knowing full well it not only could happen but if Darwin was right probably will at least in the long run.
firedragon
Veteran Member
No. An example would be fine.
Yes, there are some of each in a hive. That sounds like proper usage. I don't where you got a different idea of what some means. You're using the word to mean an equal amount rather than an unspecified amount. Look at these dictionary entries:
In any event, if you didn't know before, you know now that you have an anomalous understanding of that usage. That doesn't mean you need to change, but if you want to be understood and you want to understand others who use the word more typically, it will help to keep that in mind.
OK. My experience has been very different. All I find there is entertainment value or less. I understand that these sources, Aesop's fables, and Shakespeare tragedies all feature some common human situations, but that kind of thing was only meaningful as a child (the boy who cried wolf, the three pigs), and no more so than aphorisms like "Look before you leap"
OK, this one is nice. I came to a similar conclusion about nature through a different path not involving any mythology, although I like and use the expression Mother Nature.
Science was my path to spirituality. Here's an excerpt from a kindred spirit from a transcript of a video entitled "Science Saved My Soul":
"When I looked at the galaxy that night, I knew the faintest twinkle of starlight was a real connection between my comprehending eye along a narrow beam of light to the surface of another sun. The photons my eyes detect (the light I see, the energy with which my nerves interact) came from that star. I thought I could never touch it, yet something from it crosses the void and touches me. I might never have known. My eyes saw only a tiny point of light, but my mind saw so much more."
[snip]
"The body of a newborn baby is as old as the cosmos. The form is new and unique, but the materials are 13.7 billion years old, processed by nuclear fusion in stars, fashioned by electromagnetism."
This to me is the spiritual experience - a sense of connection to nature and life combined with a sense of awe, a sense of mystery, and a sense of gratitude. But the path to understanding and experiencing that doesn't involve myths like the one you provided. For me, it was education and life experience.
Myths never did that for me, and biblical myths are utterly useless to me as I alluded earlier here. I really don't understand why people say that there is deep meaning there.
You did fine. Thanks.