Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

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

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,

Finding human head inside a dinosaur, would be a small nail in the coffin………. You would need hundreds of “nails” for evolution to be “probably wrong”

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

It is correct that a species surviving, such as a T-Rex, would not violate evolution. That is a mild improvement. But you still do not seem to understand what would refute the theory of evolution. And yes, since there is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much evidence for evolution it would take something very extreme to refute it. At this point in time a Precambrian bunny rabbit would almost be thought more of a refutation of the impossibility of a tie machine than it would refute evolution.

But one clear example would still refute it. Just as the appearance of a single species way out of order in time, such as a Precambrian bunny rabbit. But so would other clear violations of phylogeny such animals that are like classical chimera.

For example a horse with wings and feathers would do so. A Pegasus with modern bird feathers would do so. By the way they could not just appear to look like bird feathers, they would have to have the same DNA as bird feathers. That is why the duckbilled platypus does not refute phylogeny. Its bill looks like that of a duck, but when dissected or the DNA that analyzes it is investigated we can see that the looks are just on the surface. They are very different structures. And we do know enough about DNA today to find the specific genes that lead to specific structures.

With creationism there is no need for animals to follow phylogeny. Of course there is no scientific model for creationism so there is no proper way to test it, but a Pegasus would not violate that particular belief.

 

[exchemist]

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?

Well you have changed the question, I notice. Previously you said "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".

So I said yes increase in complexity is what you expect to be selected for, and the fossil record shows this occurs.

But now you have asked a much narrower question, viz. whether there is evidence that a specific evolutionary mechanism, viz. "random mutation + selection" can on average produce greater complexity.

I'm not sure we can show that degree of granularity, in fact. What we can show is that random mutation + natural selection can lead to adaptation of a population to its environment, by acquisition of new traits. Whether these new traits can be shown to involve greater complexity is not really possible, as there is no agreed measure of complexity. But there is no reason why it should not and the fossil record shows that whatever the variation mechanisms are, they do result in more complex organisms appearing.

As to those variation mechanisms, "random mutation + selection" is, as you know, not the only process that operates. There is also genetic drift, horizontal gene transfer, epigenetics and the newly suggested roles for "junk" DNA. We learn more every day. So I'm a bit puzzled as to why you are focusing only on random mutation + selection. After all Darwin simply spoke of variation + natural selection - there was no genetics in his day.

 

[leroy]

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.

And how could you possible know that the mechanism are not directed by an intelligence?

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

That is very dishonest from your part…………… the paper donest even try to show that eyes evolved by the mechanism of random mutation s + natural selection
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

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

So what? the issue is that complexity on average seems to have increased since life first appeard………… so you do need a mechanism that “on average” is more likely to move towards “more complexity”

 

[leroy]

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.” "

Through epigenetics an organism can “turn on” a dormant gene and get a new trait as a consequence………… this new trait is then heritable for the next generation- (the baby will be born with that new trait form start)

Is there anything in that paragraph that you disagree with?

"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.

But new traits emerge anyway (which is the relevant thing for natural selection)

 

[leroy]

As to those variation mechanisms, "random mutation + selection" is, as you know, not the only process that operates. There is also genetic drift, horizontal gene transfer, epigenetics and the newly suggested roles for "junk" DNA. We learn more every day. So I'm a bit puzzled as to why you are focusing only on random mutation + selection. After all Darwin simply spoke of variation + natural selection - there was no genetics in his day.

Because not everybody in this forum is as rational and smart as you are, … I invite you to follow the conversation in silence, and see how most evolutionist would have a problem in granting that statement.

@Subduction Zone was the fisrt to disagree, lets see if we can add others to the list

 

[leroy]

It is correct that a species surviving, such as a T-Rex, would not violate evolution. That is a mild improvement. But you still do not seem to understand what would refute the theory of evolution. And yes, since there is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much evidence for evolution it would take something very extreme to refute it. At this point in time a Precambrian bunny rabbit would almost be thought more of a refutation of the impossibility of a tie machine than it would refute evolution.

But one clear example would still refute it. Just as the appearance of a single species way out of order in time, such as a Precambrian bunny rabbit. But so would other clear violations of phylogeny such animals that are like classical chimera.

For example a horse with wings and feathers would do so. A Pegasus with modern bird feathers would do so. By the way they could not just appear to look like bird feathers, they would have to have the same DNA as bird feathers. That is why the duckbilled platypus does not refute phylogeny. Its bill looks like that of a duck, but when dissected or the DNA that analyzes it is investigated we can see that the looks are just on the surface. They are very different structures. And we do know enough about DNA today to find the specific genes that lead to specific structures.

With creationism there is no need for animals to follow phylogeny. Of course there is no scientific model for creationism so there is no proper way to test it, but a Pegasus would not violate that particular belief.

That is very naïve form your part.

Yes many out of place fossils and chimeras have been discovered……….. the thing is that nobody would drop such a robust theory like evolution, just because a “few nails in the coffin” have been found.

A rabbit in the Precambrian could be the result of contamination, modern burial, the bunny dig a hole and died inside it, it´s not really “precambric rock” or just a “strange thing that we can´t explain)…….. it is naïve to say that a single rabbit in the Precambrian would destroy such a robust theory.

For example pollen in the Precambrian has been found (analogous to a bunny in a Precambrian)

And some bats have the same system of echolocation (same genetic material) than dolphins (analogous to a Pegasus)

So by your standards evolution has been falsified, (luckily scientists don’t have such ridiculous standarts)

The reason for why evolutionist usually lose debates with YEC is because Evolutionists make very radical claims that are very easy to destroy .

 

[leroy]

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.

you made an accusation

"Subduction Zone said:
I noticed that as usual you made a science denying claim and then ran away from it."


Do you think it is appropriate to make such accusations without supporting them? Do you think that this behavior is correct?

 

[exchemist]

Because not everybody in this forum is as rational and smart as you are, … I invite you to follow the conversation in silence, and see how most evolutionist would have a problem in granting that statement.

@Subduction Zone was the fisrt to disagree, lets see if we can add others to the list

I don't see why that would make you fix on "random mutation", to the exclusion of the other variation processes I listed.

You can expect a variety of slightly differing responses on this, as on other science questions, since people will read slightly different things into your posts, and also because non-specialists, as we mostly are here, will have slightly different levels of appreciation of the biology. I'm a chemist not a biologist, for example.

What you seem to be driving towards is no more than the old bogus macro/micro dichotomy, beloved of creationists hunting for a way to maintain their religious convictions in spite of the science.

To summarise:
- We have evidence that random mutation + natural selection can add beneficial traits to organisms. So the most basic claim of the theory of evolution is firmly established.

- We have evidence from human history that huge diversity within species can be achieved by selective breeding.

- We have evidence from ring species etc that naturally occurring diversity can eventually lead to speciation, the formation of new species.

- We have abundant evidence from the fossil record that some organisms have evolved to become more complex, through tracing the transitional fossils. Many others, it is important to note, have not increased in complexity. (There are still plenty of fishes and sponges, for instance)

From this evidence we infer that variation + selection, or variation + genetic drift, or whatever suite of variation processes, is responsible for the changes we see in the fossil record.

This inference is no different - and no less reliable - than inferring that plate tectonics causes new oceans to open, or that our sun will one day become a red giant, both being also changes we are unable to see in real time since they take longer than human lifespans.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

how could you possible know that the mechanism are not directed by an intelligence?

I don't know that. Apparently, you think I claim I do. If so, you're doing it again - transforming ideas between the page and your consciousness. Elsewhere, I wrote to you, "The problem is that you unwittingly transform ideas and paraphrase them incorrectly the rare instances where you acknowledge seeing something written to you. It's a very common phenomenon on these threads and elsewhere. Someone says Paul may have been psychotic and that morphs into claiming that Paul was psychotic. On a recent thread, I noted that consciousness may well be an epiphenomenon of physical reality and that morphed into a claim of fact. Agnostic atheists tell theists that they do not have a god belief and this morphs into believing that there are no gods."

This is some kind of very prevalent cognitive bias in the general category of dyslexia, but for ideas rather than words.

Go back and read it again more carefully and you might find your error in comprehension.

That is very dishonest from your part…………… the paper donest even try to show that eyes evolved by the mechanism of random mutation s + natural selection
Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia

Random is your word, and you know how quickly I tire of correcting you on the same matter. Change it to what I substituted for random. I won't tell you what that is again. But after that substitution, you are wrong.

To address you claim with those substitutions, do you see the word evolution there in the title of the link? In case you were unaware, that's a synonym for natural selection applied to naturalistic genetic variation.

So what? the issue is that complexity on average seems to have increased since life first appeard………… so you do need a mechanism that “on average” is more likely to move towards “more complexity”

We have one. It's in the sentence above - natural selection applied to naturalistic genetic variation. You seem to confuse the fact that most change including increased complexity is not selected for with the fact that much change that IS selected for is due to increased complexity whenever that increase confers a selective advantage to a particular phenotype. The rare genetic changes that increase both complexity and fecundity are selected for and accumulate.

Consider a machine that rolls dice one die at a time and has a method to identify and select out the sixes and reroll the other dice. Only a minority of rolls are sixes, but because they are selected for, they begin to accumulate into a collection that gets further from "random" with each new six spotted and selected to "survive."

The reason for why evolutionist usually lose debates with YEC is because Evolutionists make very radical claims that are very easy to destroy .

Pigeon chess now?

That never happens. YECs don't debate. They don't know how to. It requires critical thinking skills. You saw what became of the geologist when he went to university (or were shown it, anyway). He became an old earth creationist, which was due to a huge improvement in his ability to understand evidence following a university education.

Do you think that what you do is debate? You just disagree and frequently add what you believe instead while ignoring the arguments and refutations of others, which is not debate. Debate is the cooperative attempt of two or more critical thinkers to falsify one another's contradictory opinions, also called dialectic. You rarely try to do that and even more rarely succeed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Through epigenetics an organism can “turn on” a dormant gene and get a new trait as a consequence………… this new trait is then heritable for the next generation- (the baby will be born with that new trait form start)

The term "dormant gene" does not have a new trait, it has an old trait that is no longer expressed:

Atavism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Is there anything in that paragraph that you disagree with?

Yes, atavisms are often not repeated, people born with a vestigial tail do not tend to have children with vestigial tales. A dormant gene does not appeared to be turned off and on by the same process as epigenetics which deals with methylated genes.

But new traits emerge anyway (which is the relevant thing for natural selection)

And once again, epigenetics does not bring out "new traits". Older traits may be expressed, but those are not new.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because not everybody in this forum is as rational and smart as you are, … I invite you to follow the conversation in silence, and see how most evolutionist would have a problem in granting that statement.

@Subduction Zone was the fisrt to disagree, lets see if we can add others to the list

That is because you distort the arguments of others. Probably due to a combination of you not understanding the science and the influence of your creationist beliefs. You were wrong in principle about natural selection.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is very naïve form your part.

Yes many out of place fossils and chimeras have been discovered……….. the thing is that nobody would drop such a robust theory like evolution, just because a “few nails in the coffin” have been found

Really? Name one. You do not seem to even understand what an out of place fossil is I doubt if you have any "nails in the coffin".

.

A rabbit in the Precambrian could be the result of contamination, modern burial, the bunny dig a hole and died inside it, it´s not really “precambric rock” or just a “strange thing that we can´t explain)…….. it is naïve to say that a single rabbit in the Precambrian would destroy such a robust theory.

Correct, there are possible rational explanations. But that is just grasping at straws again on your part. A proper fossil that was found not to be from contamination etc. would refute the theory. Or prove time travel. Your choice.

For example pollen in the Precambrian has been found (analogous to a bunny in a Precambrian)

Citation needed.

And some bats have the same system of echolocation (same genetic material) than dolphins (analogous to a Pegasus)

You are not paying attention again. So what? I can see that the concept went over your head. Or you are being dishonest. Instead of posting nonsense you should be asking questions. Those are not examples of a chimera. I laid it out rather well. You had to have ignored the explanation.

So by your standards evolution has been falsified, (luckily scientists don’t have such ridiculous standarts)

Nope, only by your strawman that showed once again why people get so frustrated with you.

The reason for why evolutionist usually lose debates with YEC is because Evolutionists make very radical claims that are very easy to destroy .

LOL!!! And now you are delusional. Thank you for the best laugh of the day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you made an accusation

"Subduction Zone said:
I noticed that as usual you made a science denying claim and then ran away from it."


Do you think it is appropriate to make such accusations without supporting them? Do you think that this behavior is correct?

With most people the answer would be no. But you have been corrected thousands of time and it does no good. Just look at all of the errors in the last post of yours that I just responded to. Change your debating techniques and then you can make such demands. When I have supported my accusations in the past you either ignored them and ran away or simply denied them.

This is why you are on corrections only.

 

[leroy]

I don't see why that would make you fix on "random mutation", to the exclusion of the other variation processes I listed.

Well in my opinion (which is irrelevant and won’t be addressed in this thread because it would-be out of topic) the theory of evolution would only give points to “Atheism” if you can explain the diversity and complexity of life with simple mechanisms such random mutations + natural selection.

If you need complex mechanisms like gene transfer, epigenetics, natural genetic engeneering or those mechanisms that involve junk DNA……….then one could ask…………. If things evolve through these complex mechanisms, where did these mechanisms come from? …….. and dn my opinion in this scenario points to atheism wouldn’t be added

You can expect a variety of slightly differing responses on this, as on other science questions, since people will read slightly different things into your posts, and also because non-specialists, as we mostly are here, will have slightly different levels of appreciation of the biology. I'm a chemist not a biologist, for example.

What you seem to be driving towards is no more than the old bogus macro/micro dichotomy, beloved of creationists hunting for a way to maintain their religious convictions in spite of the science.

To summarise:
- We have evidence that random mutation + natural selection can add beneficial traits to organisms. So the most basic claim of the theory of evolution is firmly established.

And we also have solid evidence that *sometimes* losing traits would be beneficial…………………. So having new traits every once in a while doesn’t necessarily explain why does complexity tends to increase

You would need additional evidnece to show that *on average* the net complexity tends to increase by these mechanism (random muta+natural selecton)

- We have evidence from human history that huge diversity within species can be achieved by selective breeding

sure

.

- We have evidence from ring species etc that naturally occurring diversity can eventually lead to speciation, the formation of new species.

sure

- We have abundant evidence from the fossil record that some organisms have evolved to become more complex, through tracing the transitional fossils. Many others, it is important to note, have not increased in complexity. (There are still plenty of fishes and sponges, for instance)

Sure, but you can´t show that they evolved through the specific mechanism of random mutation + natural selection

From this evidence we infer that variation + selection, or variation + genetic drift, or whatever suite of variation processes, is responsible for the changes we see in the fossil record.

Granted, but nothing guaranties that all the variation was “random”

This inference is no different - and no less reliable - than inferring that plate tectonics causes new oceans to open, or that our sun will one day become a red giant, both being also changes we are unable to see in real time since they take longer than human lifespans.

sure

 

[leroy]

Correct, there are possible rational explanations. But that is just grasping at straws again on your part. A proper fossil that was found not to be from contamination etc. would refute the theory. Or prove time travel. Your choice.

You might find this surprising but in nature fossils do not have a label that says “contaminated” and “not contaminated”

And search for contamination is not an exact science, ………… if we find a rabbit in the Cambrian “contamination by an unknown mechanism” would be much more reasonable than to drop the whole theory of evolution

Do you honestly claim that a single rabbit in the Cambrian would falsify evolution ?

Citation needed.

pollen in the precambrian

Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana - Nature

THE discovery of pollen and spores in beds considered Precambrian (Proterozoic) has received brief notice in geological journals and the press1–3. Individual authors will doubtless publish detailed stratigraphic and palynologic accounts of the occurrence in due course. Meanwhile it is considered...

www.nature.com

You are not paying attention again. So what? I can see that the concept went over your head. Or you are being dishonest. Instead of posting nonsense you should be asking questions. Those are not examples of a chimera. I laid it out rather well. You had to have ignored the explanation.

Ok, I forgot that you have your own language and your own definitions.

But in English and in the context of evolution a chimera is an organism that share traits with a distant organism, such that closer relatives lack that attribute.

A Pegasus would be a horse with “bird feathers” this is not suppose to happen because birds and horeses are not close relatives, and closer relatives don’t have feathers.

A bat with echolocation system fits that defitnion because it shares this system with dolphins and not with closer relatives.

Nope, only by your strawman that showed once again why people get so frustrated with you.

These are not strawmans and honestly I am surprised to see how naïve is your understanding of evolution

 

[leroy]

I don't know that. Apparently, you think I claim I do

because it was implicit in your comment

"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."

it seens that you Are rejecting the possibility of mutations being directed by an intelligence

It is almost as if you willingly keep your replies vague and ambiguous as part of your debate tactics

Go back and read it again more carefully and you might find your error in comprehension.

Ok I saw my mistake

Random is your word, and you know how quickly I tire of correcting you on the same matter. Change it to what I substituted for random. I won't tell you what that is again. But after that substitution, you are wrong.

Sure, I assumed that @LIIA meant random mutations, if I am wrong he can correct me.

What I find it perplexing is that I made it clear that I am making that assumption , so what are you arguing about?

To address you claim with those substitutions, do you see the word evolution there in the title of the link? In case you were unaware, that's a synonym for natural selection applied to naturalistic genetic variation.

We have one. It's in the sentence above - natural selection applied to naturalistic genetic variation. You seem to confuse the fact that most change including increased complexity is not selected for with the fact that much change that IS selected for is due to increased complexity whenever that increase confers a selective advantage to a particular phenotype. The rare genetic changes that increase both complexity and fecundity are selected for and accumulate.

Consider a machine that rolls dice one die at a time and has a method to identify and select out the sixes and reroll the other dice. Only a minority of rolls are sixes, but because they are selected for, they begin to accumulate into a collection that gets further from "random" with each new six spotted and selected to "survive."

Pigeon chess now?

That never happens. YECs don't debate. They don't know how to. It requires critical thinking skills. You saw what became of the geologist when he went to university (or were shown it, anyway). He became an old earth creationist, which was due to a huge improvement in his ability to understand evidence following a university education.

Do you think that what you do is debate? You just disagree and frequently add what you believe instead while ignoring the arguments and refutations of others, which is not debate. Debate is the cooperative attempt of two or more critical thinkers to falsify one another's contradictory opinions, also called dialectic. You rarely try to do that and even more rarely succeed.

As you can note, I have Reading comprehension problems and quote frankly I haven’t found any relevant point of disagreement (just semantics)………. If there is a claim made by me, that you would reject, please let me know

 

[leroy]

With most people the answer would be no. But you have been corrected thousands of time and it does no good. Just look at all of the errors in the last post of yours that I just responded to. Change your debating techniques and then you can make such demands. When I have supported my accusations in the past you either ignored them and ran away or simply denied them.

This is why you are on corrections only.

well Lets look for a judge

person A Said that a single rabbit fossil in the Precambrian (or something equivalent) would falsify evolution

Person B said, that evolution is a robust theory and you need more than a single “out of place fossil” (like a rabbit in the Precambrian) to falsify that theory.

Who do you think is correct.

Lets see if any of them whants to be the judge
@shunyadragon @exchemist @It Aint Necessarily So

who is correct person A or Person B?

 

[shunyadragon]

well Lets look for a judge

person A Said that a single rabbit fossil in the Precambrian (or something equivalent) would falsify evolution

Person B said, that evolution is a robust theory and you need more than a single “out of place fossil” (like a rabbit in the Precambrian) to falsify that theory.

Who do you think is correct.

Lets see if any of them whants to be the judge
@shunyadragon @exchemist @It Aint Necessarily So

who is correct person A or Person B?

What person A or person B 'says' has nothing to do with how the sciences falsify evolution. The above is too imaginary to be real. Though person B would be the closest.

The problem remains that despite the overwhelming evidence accumulated over the past 200 years you still reject evolution.

 

[leroy]

The term "dormant gene" does not have a new trait, it has an old trait that is no longer expressed:

Atavism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes, atavisms are often not repeated, people born with a vestigial tail do not tend to have children with vestigial tales. A dormant gene does not appeared to be turned off and on by the same process as epigenetics which deals with methylated genes.

And once again, epigenetics does not bring out "new traits". Older traits may be expressed, but those are not new.

Why are you even mentioning atavism?

Through the mechanism of epigenetics an organism can swich on a gene, and produce a new trait (say a new protein) that wasn’t there when the organism was born

Sometimes this “change” is hereditable and the next generation will be born with this protein activated since the beginning.

If natural selection wills it, these protein will be eventually present in all the population

do you disgaree with anything ? it seems to me that I am making uncontrovertial claims, but I can support them if you disagree with anything

nd once again, epigenetics does not bring out "new traits". Older traits may be expressed, but those are not new.

Ok, agree but that is semantics; the trait is not really “new”

But the point is that we have hereditable variation + natural selection

 

[leroy]

What person A or person B 'says' has nothing to do with how the sciences falsify evolution. The above is too imaginary to be real. Though person B would be the closest.

The problem remains that despite the overwhelming evidence accumulated over the past 200 years you still reject evolution.

You might find this surprising but I do not reject evolution (I am person B) I am the one who is claiming that evolution is a solid and robust theory and that a single “out of place” fossil is not enough to overcome all those 200 years of evidence that you mentioned.