Darwin's Illusion

[shunyadragon]

I´ll say that the Darwinian model is simply incomplete, but not totally wrong.

Yes, the Darwinian model is simply incomplete and Darwin knew this. The sciences of evolution will always change with new information, but at present it provides a relatively complete knowledge of the history of life today.

We need more than just “random mutations” and natural selection…… my best bet is that relevant mutations are for the most part non-random. Perhaps Lamarck was not completely wrong after all.

First, there is no such thing as 'random mutations.' All mutations follow a consistent pattern of cause and effect outcomes within the range of possible outcomes determined by the Laws of Nature and are fractal based on Chaos Theory.

Lamark's theory was found false long ago. This a groundhog day subject that comes around once in a while like a bad joke and false as a three-dollar bill. We have been here before.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, the Darwinian model is simply incomplete and Darwin knew this. The sciences of evolution will always change with new information, but at present it provides a relatively complete knowledge of the history of life today.


First, there is no such thing as 'random mutations.' All mutations follow a consistent pattern of cause and effect outcomes within the range of possible outcomes determined by the Laws of Nature and are fractal based on Chaos Theory.

Lamark's theory was found false long ago. This a groundhog day subject that comes around once in a while like a bad joke and false as a three-dollar bill. We have been here before.

I would think that @leroy would take a fractal process to be all but identical to a random one.

 

[leroy]

The Darwinian model did not even have mutations. Darwin did not know of genes. The theory has been continually modified as we learn more and more over the years. The term "Darwinian evolution" is incredibly out of date. Darwin was merely the first to come up with a working theory. He knew that he did not answer all of the questions and scientists know that they are merely getting closer and closer to what actually happened. Science is a learning process. But to date it still looks as if the mutations are random. You are likely forgetting about natural selection. It is not random. When one takes random events and put them through a non-random filter the results are not random.

The mechanism of Random mutations + natural selection does not aim at complexity. .... that is why it seems to me that there are missing pieces in the puzzle

 

[exchemist]

The mechanism of Random mutations + natural selection does not aim at complexity. .... that is why it seems to me that there are missing pieces in the puzzle

Quite right. It does not "aim" at anything. However it can result in adaptation to an environment.

As for complexity, increases in complexity can occur if they are advantageous to breeding success of the population. There is no principle of science that says otherwise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The mechanism of Random mutations + natural selection does not aim at complexity. .... that is why it seems to me that there are missing pieces in the puzzle

Why not? Support your claim. Don't just spout nonsense.

 

[leroy]

You may be misinterpreting a modern work. I do not know of such a case. Some parts of the genome may be more apt to undergo mutation, but in no way does that mean that the changes are not random.

Epigenetics and natural genetic engeneering are 2 examples of non random variation.

Sometimes Organisms change their DNA to overcome threads , they dont have to wait for random mutations ti occure.

 

[viole]

The mechanism of Random mutations + natural selection does not aim at complexity. .... that is why it seems to me that there are missing pieces in the puzzle

Correct. It does not aim at anything. Including simplicity.

ciao

- viole

 

[Subduction Zone]

Epigenetics and natural genetic engeneering are 2 examples of non random variation.

Sometimes Organisms change their DNA to overcome threads , they dont have to wait for random mutations ti occure.I doubt if you know what epigenetics is.. Tell me how does epigenetics change the genome?

 

[leroy]

Quite right. It does not "aim" at anything. However it can result in adaptation to an environment.

As for complexity, increases in complexity can occur if they are advantageous to breeding success of the population. There is no principle of science that says otherwise.

Yes but if becomming more simple happens to be advantagious natural selection would select for simplicity.



So unless you can show that on average increase complexity is more likely to be selected , there is no explanation for why we see a trend towards comolexity in the history of life. (Modern organism are on average more complex than 4 billion years ago)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes but if becomming more simple happens to be advantagious natural selection would select for simplicity.



So unless you can show that on average increase complexity is more likely to be selected , there is no explanation for why we see a trend towards comolexity in the history of life. (Modern organism are on average more complex than 4 billion years ago)

Guess what, that happens sometimes. Creationists deny that is evolution when that happens. Though quite often an increase in complexity is favored by natural selection.

I noticed that as usual you made a science denying claim and then ran away from it.

 

[exchemist]

Yes but if becomming more simple happens to be advantagious natural selection would select for simplicity.



So unless you can show that on average increase complexity is more likely to be selected , there is no explanation for why we see a trend towards comolexity in the history of life. (Modern organism are on average more complex than 4 billion years ago)

Well of course that is easily shown, in various respects. The development of limbs or fins aids locomotion, enabling escape from predators or ability to catch prey. The development of a nervous system and a brain enables more complex and coordinated reaction to stimuli, and so forth.
Perhaps one of the more interesting developments occurred in the pre-Cambrian: the development of the mouth. This was followed by rapid evolution of defences against being eaten, notably shells.

So one can fairly easily trace the evolutionary advantage of successive developments, to various classes of organism. However, equally, those that have found a stable niche seem to remain relatively unchanged, over millions of years. And there are examples of organisms losing faculties that were superfluous in the environment they adapted to, e.g. loss of eyes in cave-dwelling fish.

 

[leroy]

Why not? Support your claim. Don't just spout nonsense.

Its in the definition of natural selection.

Natural selections aims at surviavability not at complexity.

 

[leroy]

Tell me how does epigenetics change the genome?

@Subduction Zone

How? I have no idea.

But it happens

 

[leroy]

Guess what, that happens sometimes. Creationists deny that is evolution when that happens. Though quite often an increase in complexity is favored by natural selection.

No disagreement from my part

I noticed that as usual you made a science denying claim and then ran away from it.

Can you quote an example... NO... so stop making things up

 

[leroy]

Well of course that is easily shown, in various respects. The development of limbs or fins aids locomotion, enabling escape from predators or ability to catch prey. The development of a nervous system and a brain enables more complex and coordinated reaction to stimuli, and so forth.
Perhaps one of the more interesting developments occurred in the pre-Cambrian: the development of the mouth. This was followed by rapid evolution of defences against being eaten, notably shells.

So one can fairly easily trace the evolutionary advantage of successive developments, to various classes of organism. However, equally, those that have found a stable niche seem to remain relatively unchanged, over millions of years. And there are examples of organisms losing faculties that were superfluous in the environment they adapted to, e.g. loss of eyes in cave-dwelling fish.

That is a huge misrepresentation of what I said.

My points are
1 there is evidence that complexity on average increased since life first appeared (this is my guess I dont claim to know this to be true) it just seems obvious to me.

2 there is no evidence that random mutations + natural selection on average results in an increase of complexity.

The key word is "on average" I am not denying that ocasionally an increde in complexity can occure as (@Subduction Zone wrongly accused me of)



If you think I am wrong you are welcome to correct me. But please avoid "you are wong because I say so arguments"

If you grant points 1 and 2 it follows that you need more relevant mechanisms than just random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.

Which of the 2 points do you think is wrong and why?

 

[shunyadragon]

That would simply mean that some dinosaurs survived, and coexisted with humans……….

Dinosaurs survived today as birds, of course, you reject the overwhelming evidence for this,

evolution wouldn’t be falsified.

The truth of evolution (common ancestry) is based on a cumulative bunch of independent evidences for various fields of science and even philosophy. There is not an “individual thing” that could falsify evolution,

Actually in part true. There is no 'individual thing' that falsifies evolution. IT is the accumulation of discoveries, research, and observations over a period of 200 years that falsies evolution beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That would simply mean that some dinosaurs survived, and coexisted with humans………. evolution wouldn’t be falsified. There is not an “individual thing” that could falsify evolution.

OK. Then choose what would falsify the theory and assume that. The exercise is not about what can do that, but what would result if the theory were falsified.

With evolution I mean common ancestry , (modern organisms share ancestors with each other) if you define evolution differently then y comment doesn’t apply.

That's incomplete. The theory includes a mechanism. Do you include naturalistic genetic variation in living populations over generations and natural selection in your definition?

We know that nonrandom mutations occur, this is an uncontroversial nearly certain fact that has been observed.

Random isn't relevant. They only need to be unplanned, undirected by an intelligence with a purpose or goal. It may be that the universe is deterministic and that nothing is random.

what @LIIA is talking about is that mutations (I am assuming that he/she means random mutations) can’t change an existing gene in to something completely different that codes for a different protein and a different function.

Yes, he claims that new genes can't arise naturalistically, but science contradicts him.

For example if you have blind creature, the process of mutations + natural selection would not produce all the genes and genetic material necessary to evolve a functioning eye.

But it can and has many times: Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia

The mechanism of Random mutations + natural selection does not aim at complexity

So what? Nothing in nature that isn't conscious aims at anything.

unless you can show that on average increase complexity is more likely to be selected , there is no explanation for why we see a trend towards comolexity in the history of life.

You've misstated the claim. There is no claim that increased complexity is selected for. Only changes that facilitate fecundity are selected for whether more, less, or equally complex. But it's not difficult to show how increased complexity can benefit a population. Also, diminished complexity can occasionally benefit a population. Some creatures lose their eyesight when they move into dark habitats. Monkeys lost their prehensile tails in the transition to apehood and swinging under branches rather than walking atop them. Man lost much of his body hair transforming from arboreal to terrestrial ape.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its in the definition of natural selection.

Natural selections aims at surviavability not at complexity.

Okay, so what? You seemed to think that it cannot lead to complexity. You are right in a way that it does not aim at it but nevertheless complexity is a result of natural selection.

Do you understand this? Probably not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone

How? I have no idea.

But it happens

Really? It does not seem that way. Epigenetics is not a permanent change in the genome. Right now it does not appear to affect evolution, though it may. Epigenetics is a temporary change in how genes are expressed. It is a temporary turning off or on of individual genes.

You get half credit for honesty since you at least said "I have no idea" but you also lose have because you insist incorrectly "But it happens" when I specifically asked about a change in the genome. The genome is not changed by epigenetics. But for at least trying I will give you a link to read:

What is Epigenetics? | CDC

Epigenetics is the study of how your behaviors and environment can cause changes that affect the way your genes work.

www.cdc.gov

"Unlike genetic changes, epigenetic changes are reversible and do not change your DNA sequence, but they can change how your body reads a DNA sequence.

Gene expression refers to how often or when proteins are created from the instructions within your genes. While genetic changes can alter which protein is made, epigenetic changes affect gene expression to turn genes “on” and “off.” "

 

[Subduction Zone]

No disagreement from my part

Can you quote an example... NO... so stop making things up

No, you still do not get to make such demands. Simply stop doing it. You are a little bit better than normal on this page. See if you can keep it up.