Atheists watch Ray Comfort's "Evolution vs God"

[Monk Of Reason]

I don't believe I stated that academia is anything good or bad. I simply showed by the evidence that they did not use academia to solve the problem of controlled flight. Stored information such as academia has, can and does serve many purposes but academia also houses bad information that can hinder its usefulness as well which I referenced here;

Thousands of pages had been written on the so-called science of flying, but for the most part the ideas set forth, like the designs for machines, were mere speculations and probably ninety per cent was false. Consequently those who tried to study the science of aerodynamics knew not what to believe and what not to believe. Things which seemed reasonable were often found to be untrue, and things which seemed unreasonable were sometimes true. Under this condition of affairs students were accustomed to pay little attention to things that they had not personally tested.
Civil-suit deposition against the Herring-Curtiss Company (1909)
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wilbur_Wright

If in your experience most everything you needed from academia turned out to be crap then I'm sure you would feel the same way as Wilbur did. You can't take what others say at face value regardless of their titles nor can you assume that institutions house information that can be counted on.

Example;

Airfoil Lifting Force Misconception Widespread in K-6 Textbooks
http://amasci.com/wing/airfoil.html

and here is a site that looks at many of the misinformations coming from academia;

K-6 Textbooks and "Science Myths" in Popular Culture
©1996 William J. Beaty

The complex and abstract nature of Science makes the subject hard to understand. But complexity is not the only reason that Science is confusing. The subject is made much more difficult by the presence of numerous misleading "Science Myths" which circulate in the popular culture, which are handed down from parents to children, and which have become so common and widespread that they even appear in science textbooks and are taught as facts in elementary school.

These "science myths" or "urban legends of science" present major barriers to students because the kids must un-learn the misleading materia before they can make further progress in their understanding. Unfortunately, this process of unlearning happens rarely. After all, the myths are supported by so many teachers, and they appear in so many textbooks. Most people never suspect their presence. If a particular concept in science seems impossible to understand, students won't blame their books. Instead they'll blame themselves, or perhaps will blame the new concept for being too complex/abstract. Teachers won't suspect that errors are present in the books, reasoning that if several books teach the same concept in exactly the same way, how could all those books be wrong?

Why do textbooks spread misconceptions? Because there are very strong forces preserving the mistakes. Any attempt to fix the problems will trigger a vigorous backlash. Tolstoy says it well:

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to collegues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."

Or less kindly: "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth."
http://amasci.com/miscon/scimyths.html

Also note that you were arguing against my reply to this post by Yorutenchi which stated;

Do you understand that he asserted that they got everything from scholars in academia? so if you want to argue against my point which was a counter to his then by default you are taking up his argument for him against me.

Mainly because the concepts you are arguing aren't even something I was arguing against. I lost interest in this a few posts back when I realized you mistook the point I was making and began making a totally irrelevant argument the point you had quoted.

Greenthewood or whatever his screen-name is has a habit of trying to nut stomp any sense of academics and paint them in the light of some sort of Illuminati conspiracy and that only free thinkers who don't learn from this secret corrupt organization is where we obtain all of the advancements in our society. I was pointing out to him why that was wrong. They didn't simply invent the plane on their own. They worked tirelessly following different people that had experimented and shown some results. Through ingenuity and grit they managed to create the world's first stable flying machine with a curved wing. That was a great leap in engineering and obtained something humans had wanted since before they were humans. But they didn't do it in a vacuum and out of "free thinking" totally apart from academics. Furthermore they didn't fully understand the concepts of why it worked till it was later analyzed and further studied.

I don't mind giving credit where credit is due. What I don't like is someone trying to misrepresent situations to further their incorrect world view.

 

[KBC1963]

Mainly because the concepts you are arguing aren't even something I was arguing against. I lost interest in this a few posts back when I realized you mistook the point I was making and began making a totally irrelevant argument the point you had quoted.

Greenthewood or whatever his screen-name is has a habit of trying to nut stomp any sense of academics and paint them in the light of some sort of Illuminati conspiracy and that only free thinkers who don't learn from this secret corrupt organization is where we obtain all of the advancements in our society. I was pointing out to him why that was wrong. They didn't simply invent the plane on their own. They worked tirelessly following different people that had experimented and shown some results. Through ingenuity and grit they managed to create the world's first stable flying machine with a curved wing. That was a great leap in engineering and obtained something humans had wanted since before they were humans. But they didn't do it in a vacuum and out of "free thinking" totally apart from academics. Furthermore they didn't fully understand the concepts of why it worked till it was later analyzed and further studied.

I don't mind giving credit where credit is due. What I don't like is someone trying to misrepresent situations to further their incorrect world view.

You should note that you were arguing against my reply to this post by Yorutenchi which stated;

Everything done by the men who invented flight learned it from scholars in academics.

Do you understand that he asserted that they got everything from scholars in academia? so if you want to argue against my point which was a counter to his then by default you are taking up his argument for him against me.
The facts are that intelligent designers do use some things from academia when it can be determined as relevant to their intent to help solve a problem but, the creativity of the intellect is usually where solutions end up arising from.
I am a Mechanical / Bio engineer.... I know from experience that I must test even the academic assertion before I can make an application that involves peoples lives.

 

[gnostic]

Are you sure about that?
Suppose the first specie came front loaded with coding to manipulate itself? How would that affect the evolutionary mechanisms? Wouldn't that eliminate the random mutation part of the hypothesis and leave it with just natural selection.
I would further ask how do you know there was a single common ancestor for life? Suppose there were many first types of common ancestors that all were front loaded with coding to manipulate themselves. How might that affect the evolutionary hypothesis? wouldn't that blow the whole 'radiating upwards in a cone' out the window? (I know, I know, then it just gets asserted as a bunch of cones)

Another one, who don't understand you can learn and understand evolution without learning about abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is about how is possible for the first life to be form from non-organic substances/molecules and under what condition it would take place.

Evolution required ancestry to have life, so it would require generations and cycles of parents producing offspring.

Vaccine researchers learn about multiplying and mutation of viruses, in order to produce vaccine, and they require learning and solid understanding of evolution. Without understanding evolution, there is no way that researchers could know the viruses react the way they do with vaccines.

These researchers don't need to know what is the "first virus". They study what they have in the last couple of centuries, but particularly from the 20th and 21st centuries.

The mechanisms behind the study of viruses are that of Mutation and Natural Selection.

Natural Selection is about how the environment can change life, from one to the next, over successive generations, passing beneficent genes to the next offspring, over and over again. The changes can be tiny, but over time, it will produce a new subspecies or species.

Consider the bear, for instance. Bears that lived in the temperate regions, the brown bears, black bears and grizzly bears have much in common. And what is important is how they lived, and they hibernate during the colder winter seasons. But in the tundra and arctic regions, the bears have to survive different environmental regions than southern counterparts - the polar bears.

A) The polar bears don't hibernate. They preferred the arctic regions, the very cold climate.
B) Both the southern bears and polar bears can eat just about anything that they can catch, what they have common is that their diets can consist of fishes, the polar bears preferred diet are seals. And while the brown, black and grizzly bears can learn to swim to catch these fishes, they are not natural swimmers like the polar bears, and more often than not, usually stay in the shallow parts of rivers and lakes. The polar bears can swim in any water, but the difference is, they can swim in sea, and they can swim for days in the sea. Put a brown bear on iceberg at sea, and it will not survive long, before it starved to death, die from the cold or drown when they enter the sea to catch something to eat.
C) Although in some areas they are physically the same, there are some differences that make them each suited for the environment they lived in. The bodies of the polar bears are physically longer.
D) But perhaps the most noticeable difference between the polar and other bears are their hide and fur. And I am not just talking about their colour. The polar bear's hide and fur is more suited for icy air and icy water, offering better protection.​

In order to study about evolution of the Ursidae family, you don't need to study everything before them.

Studying evolution, a person doesn't always encompassed every life form under the sun. He or she could focus more specific area in his or her studies.

 

[Ouroboros]

Suppose the first specie came front loaded with coding to manipulate itself?

Have you even looked into how the genetic coding works? It doesn't sound like you know how it works.

How would that affect the evolutionary mechanisms? Wouldn't that eliminate the random mutation part of the hypothesis and leave it with just natural selection.

That's not how genetics work. The random mutation isn't some fancy hypothesis or imaginary thing. It's well observable.

I would further ask how do you know there was a single common ancestor for life? Suppose there were many first types of common ancestors that all were front loaded with coding to manipulate themselves. How might that affect the evolutionary hypothesis? wouldn't that blow the whole 'radiating upwards in a cone' out the window? (I know, I know, then it just gets asserted as a bunch of cones)

I'm not sure what this "cone" thing is. Maybe that's something someone else said, but evolution doesn't work in "branches" as Darwin thought, but rather more like a spiderweb. Mutations are shared through reproduction. It's not a singular thread in one direction.

Your rebuttal to Guy is a common one which rests on so many assumptions about very important points that it's ridiculous. By not knowing anything about the first life (and assuming that there's no need to know about it) you can't properly speculate on how life actually does continue. Scientists are still making the same type of error that early scientists did. They originally assumed that life was simply “homogeneous globules of plasm” and now scientists "Believe" that the first life was simple and open to being manipulated by the random mutation mechanism which they also "Believe" in.

You really don't have to know how computers work or where they were built or where the material comes from to use a forum like this one. Or do you suggest that you know from which mine the silicon was used for your and my computer? If you don't know, then your post can't be posted!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You should note that you were arguing against my reply to this post by Yorutenchi which stated;

Do you understand that he asserted that they got everything from scholars in academia? so if you want to argue against my point which was a counter to his then by default you are taking up his argument for him against me.
The facts are that intelligent designers do use some things from academia when it can be determined as relevant to their intent to help solve a problem but, the creativity of the intellect is usually where solutions end up arising from.
I am a Mechanical / Bio engineer.... I know from experience that I must test even the academic assertion before I can make an application that involves peoples lives.

I know. I had thought you had argued on the side of greenthewhatever on the lack of usefulness of academic studies. That too was my mistake.

 

[KBC1963]

Another one, who don't understand you can learn and understand evolution without learning about abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is about how is possible for the first life to be form from non-organic substances/molecules and under what condition it would take place.

Anyone can learn the "proposed" way that evolution is hypothesized to work but, the empirical evidence from the scientific method has shown that the "hypothetical" mechanism of evolution, random mutation is not true. The evidence has shown that mutation or change in the genome appears to be directed which is why I can ask the question if whether the mechanism of control could have arisen as a system within the very first life. I notice you did not answer my question on how such a mechanism would affect the concept of the proposed mechanism of evolution called "random" mutation and the need to understand the first specie if indeed the first specie had a such a control mechanism.

Are mutations truly random?
Do genetic mutations really occur at random spots along the genome, as researchers have long supposed? Maybe not, according to a study published online today (January 13) in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, which proposes a mechanism for how new mutations might preferentially form around existing ones.....
....Despite this non-random distribution, scientists believed for many years that these so-called mutational hotspots were the product of natural selection and other post-mutational processes, and that the mutations occurred at random. However, "in last two decades, the large amount of both genomic and polymorphic data has changed the way of thinking in the field....
....Dacheng Tian of linkurl:Nanjing University;http://www.nju.edu.cn/cps/site/njueweb/fg/index.php in China, who did not participate in the work, wrote in an email to The Scientist. "[This] idea provides a self-increasing hypothesis, which may be useful to rethink the formation of such non-randomness."
...Amos calculated the average size and density of existing mutational clusters. He then ran simulations under the assumption of either this new, non-random mechanism of mutation formation or that of randomly occurring mutations. He found that the non-random model more closely predicted the frequency and density of the mutational clusters on the chromosome. "My theory is going to shake things up majorly," Amos said. "The concept of non-independent mutations simply wasn't thought of before -- this is completely new and it really changes how we think of DNA evolving."
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27910/title/Are-mutations-truly-random-/

Non-Random Directed Mutations Confirmed
Non-Random Directed Mutations Confirmed
The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection of random mutations should be consigned to history where it belongs; electromagnetic intercommunication and resonance may be involved in activating and mutating just the right genes Dr Mae-Wan Ho

An obsolete theory challenged by directed mutations
Conventional neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is firmly based on the natural selection of random mutations plus the ‘central dogma’ assumption that environmental influences cannot change nucleic acids or become inherited. The central dogma has been invalidated at least since the early 1980s concomitantly with the emergence of the new genetics of the fluid genome [1, 2] (Living with the Fluid Genome, ISIS publication). Similarly, the randomness of mutations has been called into question since the 1970s in experiments demonstrating that cells subject to non-lethal selection come up repeatedly with just the right ‘adaptive’ or ‘directed’ mutations in specific genes that enable the cells to grow and multiply [3] (see [4] To Mutate or Not to Mutate, SiS 24).
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Nonrandom_directed_mutations_confirmed.php

You are another one who appears to still believe in an obsolete concept of how evolution WAS proposed to function.

Evolution required ancestry to have life, so it would require generations and cycles of parents producing offspring.

In other words your understanding of the proposed evolutionary mechanism requires that the first specie came into existence and was then entirely acted on by the proposed method of the evolutionary mechanisms of "random mutation" and natural selection. Implying that it didn't have any control within itself to affect its own changes.

By making a huge assumption / prediction that the first specie had no inherent control system for changing itself (because it was considered simple based on an assumption that life has progressed from simple to complex) , science and you both make the error of assuming the truth of the evolutionary mechanisms hypothesis without testing by scientific method whether such an assumption was a valid one to build the other concepts of the evolutionary mechanisms around.
So, why don't you answer my original question of how it would affect the evolutionary hypothesis if the first specie had a control system to affect its own change?

 

[KBC1963]

Have you even looked into how the genetic coding works? It doesn't sound like you know how it works.

The better question here is whether there is sufficient evidence to back the "current" hypothesis for how "genetic coding works" and whether future evidence can displace the current assumptions.

That's not how genetics work. The random mutation isn't some fancy hypothesis or imaginary thing. It's well observable.

see my reply to gnostic

I'm not sure what this "cone" thing is. Maybe that's something someone else said, but evolution doesn't work in "branches" as Darwin thought, but rather more like a spiderweb. Mutations are shared through reproduction. It's not a singular thread in one direction.

Ahhh the cone of increasing diversity, and you are not familiar with this concept? A single specie start of life varying to become a multitude of species. Why would you come to a forum to discuss or argue the relevant points of a subject without knowing what would be involved in such discussions?

Priapulids challenge the cone of increasing diversity concept
Darwin’s solitary illustration of evolutionary branching has left a lasting impression in the minds of readers. From an ancestral form, speciation occurs and the diversity of descendants increases. This can be visualised as a cone of morphological variation, extending from the source.However, the Cambrian Explosion provides empirical evidence against this concept, as a large number of organisms appear abruptly. (For more, see here) Yet it has been tempting for Darwinists to interpret the Cambrian species in terms of a number of cones of increasing diversity that all have their origins deeper in the Precambrian...
http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...nge-the-cone-of-increasing-diversity-concept/

You really don't have to know how computers work or where they were built or where the material comes from to use a forum like this one. Or do you suggest that you know from which mine the silicon was used for your and my computer? If you don't know, then your post can't be posted!

You don't really have to know such things because no one would make the idiotic assumption that it evolved simply by the forces of nature without intelligent design however, life (which is far more complex that any known computer) and how it varies is proposed to have come to exist and progress by just such an assumption. So yes I do believe I am well within my right to question such an assumption.

 

[gnostic]

Anyone can learn the "proposed" way that evolution is hypothesized to work but, the empirical evidence from the scientific method has shown that the "hypothetical" mechanism of evolution, random mutation is not true. The evidence has shown that mutation or change in the genome appears to be directed which is why I can ask the question if whether the mechanism of control could have arisen as a system within the very first life. I notice you did not answer my question on how such a mechanism would affect the concept of the proposed mechanism of evolution called "random" mutation and the need to understand the first specie if indeed the first specie had a such a control mechanism.

Are mutations truly random?
Do genetic mutations really occur at random spots along the genome, as researchers have long supposed? Maybe not, according to a study published online today (January 13) in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, which proposes a mechanism for how new mutations might preferentially form around existing ones.....
....Despite this non-random distribution, scientists believed for many years that these so-called mutational hotspots were the product of natural selection and other post-mutational processes, and that the mutations occurred at random. However, "in last two decades, the large amount of both genomic and polymorphic data has changed the way of thinking in the field....
....Dacheng Tian of linkurl:Nanjing University;http://www.nju.edu.cn/cps/site/njueweb/fg/index.php in China, who did not participate in the work, wrote in an email to The Scientist. "[This] idea provides a self-increasing hypothesis, which may be useful to rethink the formation of such non-randomness."
...Amos calculated the average size and density of existing mutational clusters. He then ran simulations under the assumption of either this new, non-random mechanism of mutation formation or that of randomly occurring mutations. He found that the non-random model more closely predicted the frequency and density of the mutational clusters on the chromosome. "My theory is going to shake things up majorly," Amos said. "The concept of non-independent mutations simply wasn't thought of before -- this is completely new and it really changes how we think of DNA evolving."
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27910/title/Are-mutations-truly-random-/

Non-Random Directed Mutations Confirmed
Non-Random Directed Mutations Confirmed
The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection of random mutations should be consigned to history where it belongs; electromagnetic intercommunication and resonance may be involved in activating and mutating just the right genes Dr Mae-Wan Ho

An obsolete theory challenged by directed mutations
Conventional neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is firmly based on the natural selection of random mutations plus the ‘central dogma’ assumption that environmental influences cannot change nucleic acids or become inherited. The central dogma has been invalidated at least since the early 1980s concomitantly with the emergence of the new genetics of the fluid genome [1, 2] (Living with the Fluid Genome, ISIS publication). Similarly, the randomness of mutations has been called into question since the 1970s in experiments demonstrating that cells subject to non-lethal selection come up repeatedly with just the right ‘adaptive’ or ‘directed’ mutations in specific genes that enable the cells to grow and multiply [3] (see [4] To Mutate or Not to Mutate, SiS 24).
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Nonrandom_directed_mutations_confirmed.php

You are another one who appears to still believe in an obsolete concept of how evolution WAS proposed to function.



In other words your understanding of the proposed evolutionary mechanism requires that the first specie came into existence and was then entirely acted on by the proposed method of the evolutionary mechanisms of "random mutation" and natural selection. Implying that it didn't have any control within itself to affect its own changes.

By making a huge assumption / prediction that the first specie had no inherent control system for changing itself (because it was considered simple based on an assumption that life has progressed from simple to complex) , science and you both make the error of assuming the truth of the evolutionary mechanisms hypothesis without testing by scientific method whether such an assumption was a valid one to build the other concepts of the evolutionary mechanisms around.
So, why don't you answer my original question of how it would affect the evolutionary hypothesis if the first specie had a control system to affect its own change?

Good grief....

* sigh *

1. First off, you are going to need to go back to school to learn to read.
2. Then you should go to the same school and learn basic biology.
3. And then you go back for some more advanced education, on "reading" analysis, on logical reasoning and on not to bloody jumping to conclusion in what you are bloody hell reading!

A) there is really no such thing as Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism. There is also no such thing as "evolutionist". Perhaps, you should biologists, "natural selectionists?

The people who do work on or research in evolution or something related to evolution, are biologists, not evolutionists or Darwinists. Sure, you can called them "evolutionary biologist", but "biologist" is easier.

In physics, Do you call people who research gravity - "gravitationists" or "gravitians"? How about all those people who have expertise in electrical or electronics, do call them "Voltists" or "Ohmists"?

B) Although I did speak of mutation in my previous post (post 143), no where did I state mutations being "random", PERIOD! This is where you bloody "jump to conclusion" or "attacking straw man"

Mutation can occur in two ways, random and non-random. You are only indicating only ONE possible way for mutation. And this is where you are wrong.

Random mutation do occur, but in Natural Selection the mutations that occurred, are very far from "random".

I don't believe the bull sh## of Intelligent Design, because it required the ridiculous Designer, which is simply another name for "God" or "Creator". But, I do believe in design, but not by the nonexistent intelligent being(s), but design by nature itself.​

In Natural Selection, where creature lived, will dictate what possible changes could occurred to the descendants.

I even gave you a good, easy to understand example, the differences between the brown bears and polar bears.

Because these two populations of bears lived in different environments, the polar bears living in a totally different environment to their cousins in the south, they have to develop physically and genetically, hunt for food differently. Meaning, they have to adapt in the environment, or else die out. That mean producing offspring and descendents that are suited for the Arctic regions.

That's natural selection at work, and nature is the driving forces that make changes to life, not some stupid gods or unintelligent mythological designers. And these changes, in natural selection is not random at all.

That you really think that all natural selection required mutation to be "random" showed that you really don't know what the bloody hell you are talking about.

And stop deliberately putting words in my mouth. Either read and debate what I am actually saying, or go and choke on "random" lemon.

 

[McBell]

Anyone can learn the "proposed" way that evolution is hypothesized to work but, the empirical evidence from the scientific method has shown that the "hypothetical" mechanism of evolution, random mutation is not true. The evidence has shown that mutation or change in the genome appears to be directed which is why I can ask the question if whether the mechanism of control could have arisen as a system within the very first life. I notice you did not answer my question on how such a mechanism would affect the concept of the proposed mechanism of evolution called "random" mutation and the need to understand the first specie if indeed the first specie had a such a control mechanism.

Are mutations truly random?
Do genetic mutations really occur at random spots along the genome, as researchers have long supposed? Maybe not, according to a study published online today (January 13) in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, which proposes a mechanism for how new mutations might preferentially form around existing ones.....
....Despite this non-random distribution, scientists believed for many years that these so-called mutational hotspots were the product of natural selection and other post-mutational processes, and that the mutations occurred at random. However, "in last two decades, the large amount of both genomic and polymorphic data has changed the way of thinking in the field....
....Dacheng Tian of linkurl:Nanjing University;http://www.nju.edu.cn/cps/site/njueweb/fg/index.php in China, who did not participate in the work, wrote in an email to The Scientist. "[This] idea provides a self-increasing hypothesis, which may be useful to rethink the formation of such non-randomness."
...Amos calculated the average size and density of existing mutational clusters. He then ran simulations under the assumption of either this new, non-random mechanism of mutation formation or that of randomly occurring mutations. He found that the non-random model more closely predicted the frequency and density of the mutational clusters on the chromosome. "My theory is going to shake things up majorly," Amos said. "The concept of non-independent mutations simply wasn't thought of before -- this is completely new and it really changes how we think of DNA evolving."
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27910/title/Are-mutations-truly-random-/

Non-Random Directed Mutations Confirmed
Non-Random Directed Mutations Confirmed
The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection of random mutations should be consigned to history where it belongs; electromagnetic intercommunication and resonance may be involved in activating and mutating just the right genes Dr Mae-Wan Ho

An obsolete theory challenged by directed mutations
Conventional neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is firmly based on the natural selection of random mutations plus the ‘central dogma’ assumption that environmental influences cannot change nucleic acids or become inherited. The central dogma has been invalidated at least since the early 1980s concomitantly with the emergence of the new genetics of the fluid genome [1, 2] (Living with the Fluid Genome, ISIS publication). Similarly, the randomness of mutations has been called into question since the 1970s in experiments demonstrating that cells subject to non-lethal selection come up repeatedly with just the right ‘adaptive’ or ‘directed’ mutations in specific genes that enable the cells to grow and multiply [3] (see [4] To Mutate or Not to Mutate, SiS 24).
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Nonrandom_directed_mutations_confirmed.php

You are another one who appears to still believe in an obsolete concept of how evolution WAS proposed to function.



In other words your understanding of the proposed evolutionary mechanism requires that the first specie came into existence and was then entirely acted on by the proposed method of the evolutionary mechanisms of "random mutation" and natural selection. Implying that it didn't have any control within itself to affect its own changes.

By making a huge assumption / prediction that the first specie had no inherent control system for changing itself (because it was considered simple based on an assumption that life has progressed from simple to complex) , science and you both make the error of assuming the truth of the evolutionary mechanisms hypothesis without testing by scientific method whether such an assumption was a valid one to build the other concepts of the evolutionary mechanisms around.
So, why don't you answer my original question of how it would affect the evolutionary hypothesis if the first specie had a control system to affect its own change?

Wow.
Just wow.

You might want to try reading your links with the goal of understanding what they are actually saying instead of trying to make them say what you want them to say.

 

[KBC1963]

Although I did speak of mutation in my previous post (post 143), no where did I state mutations being "random", PERIOD! This is where you bloody "jump to conclusion" or "attacking straw man"
Mutation can occur in two ways, random and non-random. You are only indicating only ONE possible way for mutation. And this is where you are wrong.
Random mutation do occur, but in Natural Selection the mutations that occurred, are very far from "random".

Ok so you deny the current textbook description of evolutions mechanisms as "random" mutation and NS? Do you feel that the evolution should now be defined as simply mutation and NS?
You say that Mutations can occur that are random, how would you be able to show evidence of this randomness?
You also assert that somehow "in Natural Selection the mutations that occurred, are very far from random". First NS is described by the current textbooks as simply a selection pressure so it would not have any effect on what came to be available for that section pressure. Now if you believe that there are mutations that are far from random which would mean they are directed mutations then would you agree that it caused by mechanisms formed by the genetic coding that can direct these changes?

I don't believe the bull sh## of Intelligent Design, because it required the ridiculous Designer, which is simply another name for "God" or "Creator". But, I do believe in design, but not by the nonexistent intelligent being(s), but design by nature itself.

I'm fairly certain that I never asked you to believe in anything and an intelligent designer doesn't have to be considered a god. All that is required is intelligence that existed prior to life on this planet. With the current view of the age of the universe that could certainly mean any intelligent life that may have been looking to do exactly what we are now considering doing to another planet.... terraforming.... and placing designed organisms into the environment to effect the changes so, you can assume all you want that life on this planet is here by natural causes but, by making that assumption you a priori eliminate the other possibility. This is not proper scientific inquiry.

In Natural Selection, where creature lived, will dictate what possible changes could occurred to the descendants.
I even gave you a good, easy to understand example, the differences between the brown bears and polar bears.
Because these two populations of bears lived in different environments, the polar bears living in a totally different environment to their cousins in the south, they have to develop physically and genetically, hunt for food differently. Meaning, they have to adapt in the environment, or else die out. That mean producing offspring and descendents that are suited for the Arctic regions.
That's natural selection at work, and nature is the driving forces that make changes to life, not some stupid gods or unintelligent mythological designers. And these changes, in natural selection is not random at all.

In natural selection it is envisioned by the hypothesis (as explained in the textbooks) that the environment will dictate what "available" changes could be selected for, however, it cannot direct what changes might occur to begin with and I am quite sure that there is variability in life and that those with the best variables will likely be selected for. The question is and has been and will continue to be "how are the changes being made" to become selectable by NS?
You state that "the changes, in natural selection is not random at all" which makes no sense since NS doesn't change and its entire function in the evolutionary hypothesis is to simply make a choice from what is already available in the environment. So, ultimately NS is not random in its function but, mutation of the DNA is asserted by the current text books to be random. In case you still think that NS has some effect on mutation I will let someone with a title explain it to you;

FROM THE MARCH 2014 ISSUE
Mutation, Not Natural Selection, Drives Evolution
Molecular evolutionary biologist Masatoshi Nei says Darwin never proved natural selection is the driving force of evolution — because it isn't.

...Every part of our body is controlled by molecules, so you have to explain on a molecular level. That is the real mechanism of evolution, how molecules change. They change through mutation. Mutation means a change in DNA through, for example, substitution or insertion [of nucleotides]. First you have to have change, and then natural selection may operate or may not operate. I say mutation is the most important, driving force of evolution. Natural selection occurs sometimes, of course, because some types of variations are better than others, but mutation created the different types. Natural selection is secondary.
...In neo-Darwinism, evolution is a process of increasing fitness [in the sense of an organism’s ability both to survive and to reproduce]. In mutation-driven evolutionary theory, evolution is a process of increasing or decreasing an organism’s complexity. We tend to believe natural selection selects one type. But there are many types, and still they’re OK. They can survive, no problem.
...Textbooks on evolution haven’t changed: They still say natural selection causes evolution. My views were totally ignored. In that book, I discussed many statistical techniques, and only in the last chapter did I discuss the problem of natural selection not being proven. The chapter did not convince a lot of people, I think, because they already had a preconceived notion that natural selection must be the driving force because Darwin said so. Darwin is a god in evolution, so you can’t criticize Darwin. If you do, you’re branded as arrogant.
But any time a scientific theory is treated like dogma, you have to question it. The dogma of natural selection has existed a long time. Most people have not questioned it. Most textbooks still state this is so. Most students are educated with these books. You have to question dogma. Use common sense. You have to think for yourself, without preconceptions. That is what’s important in science.
http://discovermagazine.com/2014/march/12-mutation-not-natural-selection-drives-evolution

That you really think that all natural selection required mutation to be "random" showed that you really don't know what the bloody hell you are talking about.

NS has no requirements other than that there is more than one thing to make a choice between. NS has no requirements for how mutation or change occurs since NS is not really a force in and of itself. NS is a description of how an interaction between variants would likely play out "if" they both were vying for the same niche. Now once you realize that the random mutation I am talking about (which is being taught by the school system) which is a distinct and separate mechanism from NS then we might be able to have a proper discussion about it.

Once you wrap your mind around the difference between NS and random mutation then try and answer this question;
If the first specie to exist already had a mechanism controlled by the genetic code that caused variations to occur then how would that effect the evolutionary hypothesis?

 

[KBC1963]

Wow. Just wow.
You might want to try reading your links with the goal of understanding what they are actually saying instead of trying to make them say what you want them to say.

You might want to read those links and realize that the authors are still trying to rationalize what their observing in an evolutionary context. They have an opinion just like anyone else but their opinion does not mean truth or fact any more than previous assertions meant anything before the new observations occurred. They don't really know why the changes look like their directed because they don't understand how the system functions so they are throwing an opinion at it and hoping it sticks. Of course you are free to have your beliefs dictated by their opinions if you so desire since that's the nature of free choice.

 

[McBell]

You might want to read those links and realize that the authors are still trying to rationalize what their observing in an evolutionary context. They have an opinion just like anyone else but their opinion does not mean truth or fact any more than previous assertions meant anything before the new observations occurred. They don't really know why the changes look like their directed because they don't understand how the system functions so they are throwing an opinion at it and hoping it sticks. Of course you are free to have your beliefs dictated by their opinions if you so desire since that's the nature of free choice.

The fact of the matter is the article does not say what you are claiming it says.
It is rather difficult to take you seriously if your "argument" relies upon so many bold faced lies.

 

[KBC1963]

The fact of the matter is the article does not say what you are claiming it says.
It is rather difficult to take you seriously if your "argument" relies upon so many bold faced lies.

I say the changes are not random vs. the standard assertion in the textbooks that assert mutations are random, how is that a lie? if you believe I'm lying then by default you assert that the referenced authors are also lying. The authors and I only differ on what we feel might adequately explain how the observable non-random changes are occurring.

 

[McBell]

I say the changes are not random vs. the standard assertion in the textbooks that assert that mutations are random how is that a lie? if you believe I'm lying then by default you assert that the referenced authors are also lying. The authors and I only differ on what we feel might adequately explain how the observable non-random changes are occurring.

you really need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
I am saying the article doe snot say what you claim is says.

 

[KBC1963]

you really need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
I am saying the article doe snot say what you claim is says.

And I claim it says what? if its not what I just stated?

 

[Ouroboros]

The better question here is whether there is sufficient evidence to back the "current" hypothesis for how "genetic coding works" and whether future evidence can displace the current assumptions.

see my reply to gnostic

Ahhh the cone of increasing diversity, and you are not familiar with this concept? A single specie start of life varying to become a multitude of species. Why would you come to a forum to discuss or argue the relevant points of a subject without knowing what would be involved in such discussions?

Interesting. Thanks for the input. I haven't heard about the non-random mutations until now.

You don't really have to know such things because no one would make the idiotic assumption that it evolved simply by the forces of nature without intelligent design however, life (which is far more complex that any known computer) and how it varies is proposed to have come to exist and progress by just such an assumption. So yes I do believe I am well within my right to question such an assumption.

I thought my response had to do with abiogenesis, not the diversity. Your words that I responded to "By not knowing anything about the first life (and assuming that there's no need to know about it) you can't properly speculate on how life actually does continue." Which I disagree on. You can know and properly speculate how life evolve without knowing how life began, just as you can know how car designs change without knowing where the metal was produced. Knowing how amino-acids are produced in space doesn't necessarily change any knowledge we have about how amino-acids are used by cells or controlled by genes.

 

[KBC1963]

I thought my response had to do with abiogenesis, not the diversity. Your words that I responded to "By not knowing anything about the first life (and assuming that there's no need to know about it) you can't properly speculate on how life actually does continue." Which I disagree on. You can know and properly speculate how life evolve without knowing how life began,.

You can disagree all you want with your assumption that I inferred that we need to know how life began but that has nothing to do with my argument. My point was that the only way you can know if life actually evolved the way you conceive it did is by knowing what mechanisms existed within the first specie not about how it came to exist in the first place.
If the first specie had the functionality to alter / change / mutate its own genetic code then of what use is the proposed mechanisms of evolution? Assuming as scientist have that the first specie was simple and was acted on by random mutation in order to progress to higher levels of complexity / diversity is an assumption that is untestable and unscientific. Science should not be ruled by belief, it should provide evidence to found knowledge. All assumptions for a hypothesis should be testable by the scientific method.

just as you can know how car designs change without knowing where the metal was produced.

We don't need to know anything about how life began but we do need to know how complex it was to properly speculate that it started simple and progressed in complexity. We have watched as man made designs began as something simpler than what they may eventually evolve into but, even our simple designs are typically quite complex and easily discernible as not occurring by natural causes. consider if you will the first recorded steam engine;

Aeolipile
An aeolipile (or aeolipyle, or eolipile), also known as a Hero engine, is a simple bladeless radial steam turbine which spins when the central water container is heated. Torque is produced by steam jets exiting the turbine, much like a tip jet[1] or rocket engine.[2] In the 1st century AD, Hero of Alexandria described the device,[3][4] and many[which?] sources give him the credit for its invention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile

Look carefully at the mechanics of this first specie of engine and see just how many structures were formed in just the right manner to allow for its functionality.

Knowing how amino-acids are produced in space doesn't necessarily change any knowledge we have about how amino-acids are used by cells or controlled by genes.

Knowing that amino-acids and proteins are in fact produced on demand would of course change the knowledge about how the cells use them would it not? Before you can build a house you first need to have the availability of the building materials and be able to control where and when they are to be used during a construction project right? How is that any different for a cell? do you suppose that amino acids and proteins just magically appear at the perfect time and place or maybe you think that multitudes of them are produced all the time and just simply float around until they accidently hit the right point within the cellular structure?
You should consider this point carefully when you think about what systems were already in place within the first specie to even remotely allow for the consideration of the proposed mechanisms of evolution. If the first specie had the ability to manufacture its own structural substrates on demand AND could control them both in time and 3 dimensional space to build structures in specific locations then what other systems do you suppose could have existed to help it to continue the existence of itself and offspring?

 

[Noa]

I am late to the party and will not read all eight pages. But to the original post -- no, I do not think I will watch the video. I have seen Comfort's work before and that was plenty.

 

[Ouroboros]

You can disagree all you want with your assumption that I inferred that we need to know how life began but that has nothing to do with my argument. My point was that the only way you can know if life actually evolved the way you conceive it did is by knowing what mechanisms existed within the first specie not about how it came to exist in the first place.

Ah. Ok. I see what you're saying. That's fair enough. The same principles of mutation/selection etc that applied to the first living forms would be the same or very similar to the ones that apply to life forms today. Yes, I can agree to that to some degree. With the exception that the processes in the more complex lifeforms are most likely also more complex. In other words, the process of mutation and selection is more complex in the "higher" life forms.

Knowing that amino-acids and proteins are in fact produced on demand would of course change the knowledge about how the cells use them would it not?

I never heard anything about that amino-acids and proteins are produced on demand or that it's even a fact. We have to eat to supply our body with amino-acids, triglycerides, etc. We do know that some (or perhaps all) of them exist not only here on Earth, but in space.

 

[KBC1963]

Ah. Ok. I see what you're saying. That's fair enough. The same principles of mutation/selection etc that applied to the first living forms would be the same or very similar to the ones that apply to life forms today. Yes, I can agree to that to some degree. With the exception that the processes in the more complex lifeforms are most likely also more complex. In other words, the process of mutation and selection is more complex in the "higher" life forms.

ok so you can agree in principle that it would make a difference to how species occur and persist if the first specie had a genetic mechanism to alter its own dna right?
Now here is my question to you. If the very first specie had the ability to modify / change / mutate its own dna wouldn't this eliminate the proposed mechanism of random mutation as the driving force of variation and wouldn't this mechanism occurring in the first specie affect how all subsequent species occurred?

I never heard anything about that amino-acids and proteins are produced on demand or that it's even a fact. We have to eat to supply our body with amino-acids, triglycerides, etc. We do know that some (or perhaps all) of them exist not only here on Earth, but in space.

Essential amino acids
Essential amino acids cannot be made by the body. As a result, they must come from food.
The nine essential amino acids are: histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan, and valine.
Nonessential amino acids
"Nonessential" means that our bodies produce an amino acid, even if we don't get it from the food we eat.
They include: alanine, asparagine, aspartic acid, and glutamic acid.
https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002222.htm

Gene Expression
Genes encode proteins and proteins dictate cell function. Therefore, the thousands of genes expressed in a particular cell determine what that cell can do. Moreover, each step in the flow of information from DNA to RNA to protein provides the cell with a potential control point for self-regulating its functions by adjusting the amount and type of proteins it manufactures.
At any given time, the amount of a particular protein in a cell reflects the balance between that protein's synthetic and degradative biochemical pathways. On the synthetic side of this balance, recall that protein production starts at transcription (DNA to RNA) and continues with translation (RNA to protein). Thus, control of these processes plays a critical role in determining what proteins are present in a cell and in what amounts.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/gene-expression-14121669

As a mechanical / bio engineer It is important to understand how the system functions and your body is the greatest system ever encountered beyond those we currently form ourselves. You should take a bit of time to read up on how the cells systems function as it is extremely complex but, it also has some very fundamental points in its functionality that have only been observed in intelligently designed systems in fact, you will find that the cell performs every type of function that any manufacturer does as a normal part of business and much much more.
The cell produces the substrates to form its own structure in one place from stored information and then it sends the building materials from there to another 3 dimensional point in its space at the exact time it is needed in order to be used for the construction.
Imagine what kind of system you would have to make simply to move something accurately from one point in space to another point in 3 dimensional space. How simply could you describe such a system to me?