empiracle evidence

[Heathen Hammer]

:lol:

 

[savagewind]

That's just the thing: creationists expect us to find something that is "half one thing and half another thing", which is not what evolution predicts, nor does it make sense. There's no such thing as "half-evolved". Nor is there such a thing as "half species" or even, really, a "transitional species". There is no point at which evolution just sort of stops, having reached where it wanted to, and then starts up again. Evolution is not a process that exists between one geneology and the next - evolution never stops. You are a "transition" between your parents and your children, your children are a "transition" between yourself and your grand children. Every generation exhibits new mutations, and every generation is therefore an "evolution" of the one that preceded it.

Would you say that the platypus is a "half-species"? It isn't, because there is no such thing. The platypus, like every other species on the planet that there has ever been, is a "complete" species. Just because it possesses features that make it duck-like does not make it a "half duck". It is a platypus.


It doesn't work like that. Things that are left over often remain because our bodies have evolved beyond the use (or some of the uses) of that particular appendage, but the body cannot just decide "hmm, an extra arm would be handy - I'll start working on that", and we develop a small, proto-limb that is useless at first but will eventually become useful. Every mutation that sticks and persists through a population has to be useful. If it has no uses, it's selected out of the gene pool, so over generations anything that isn't useful to our bodies is naturally "filtered" out of them.


See above. There is no such thing as an "unfinished" species, and mutations don't develop on a population level unless they actually have some use.

It sounds like you are saying organs appear fully formed ready to function. That is how I understand it too. I guess the difference is just A Person doing it versus magic. Now I'm in trouble, right?

 

[apophenia]

But something IN species. An unfinished something that does not function yet? (no roof) There should be lots of those, shouldn't there be? Unless evolution is stopping. Is there any evidence of that?

Evolution is not an intentional or programmed change. If a mutation (accidental) just happens to have a benefit, the mutated individual has a slightly better chance of procreation, which may pass on that gene mutation (but not necessarily).

Important point here - the mutation is accidental, either something like a transcription error, or possibly a damaged gene resulting from increased radiation (like a solar flare for example). Evolution is not posited to be a teleological process, or the 'strategy' of nature, it is not a result of a 'will to survive'. It is the accumulation of unintentional minute changes which happened to be transmitted by successful procreation.

Consider an analogy from the the world of jazz music - someone hits a 'wrong' note, but it sounds good in that context,creating a nice new chord progression previously not used, and so survives because the 'mistake' is imitated by other musicians. No-one set out to make a mistake. It was serendipity.

 

[Man of Faith]

Evolution is not an intentional or programmed change. If a mutation (accidental) just happens to have a benefit, the mutated individual has a slightly better chance of procreation, which may pass on that gene mutation (but not necessarily).

Important point here - the mutation is accidental, either something like a transcription error, or possibly a damaged gene resulting from increased radiation (like a solar flare for example). Evolution is not posited to be a teleological process, or the 'strategy' of nature, it is not a result of a 'will to survive'. It is the accumulation of unintentional minute changes which happened to be transmitted by successful procreation.

Consider an analogy from the the world of jazz music - someone hits a 'wrong' note, but it sounds good in that context,creating a nice new chord progression previously not used, and so survives because the 'mistake' is imitated by other musicians. No-one set out to make a mistake. It was serendipity.

Finally an honest description of evolution. Instead of calling evolution "just change, so obviously creationists are blind," this post actually says the magic word, mutation. We hear so much about evolution being change or natural selection that it’s good to hear someone say what evolution really is and that is mutations along with natural selection.

The two things that comprise the ToE are:
Observable scientific change - natural selection.
Non-observable philosophic acceptance - mutation.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

Finally an honest description of evolution. Instead of calling evolution "just change, so obviously creationists are blind," this post actually says the magic word, mutation. We hear so much about evolution being change or natural selection that it’s good to hear someone say what evolution really is and that is mutations along with natural selection.

The two things that comprise the ToE are:
Observable scientific change - natural selection.
Non-observable philosophic acceptance - mutation.

Question? Who or what determines natural selection? Does natural selection have consciousness? I pose this question to all not you alone. Any takers?

 

[Disciple of Christ]

Evolution is not an intentional or programmed change. If a mutation (accidental) just happens to have a benefit, the mutated individual has a slightly better chance of procreation, which may pass on that gene mutation (but not necessarily).

Important point here - the mutation is accidental, either something like a transcription error, or possibly a damaged gene resulting from increased radiation (like a solar flare for example). Evolution is not posited to be a teleological process, or the 'strategy' of nature, it is not a result of a 'will to survive'. It is the accumulation of unintentional minute changes which happened to be transmitted by successful procreation.

Consider an analogy from the the world of jazz music - someone hits a 'wrong' note, but it sounds good in that context,creating a nice new chord progression previously not used, and so survives because the 'mistake' is imitated by other musicians. No-one set out to make a mistake. It was serendipity.

Would you explain to me the difference between evolution and adaptation?

 

[Koldo]

The two things that comprise the ToE are:
Observable scientific change - natural selection.
Non-observable philosophic acceptance - mutation.

Mutations are observable.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It sounds like you are saying organs appear fully formed ready to function.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Organs are the end result of generations after generations of mutations, but throughout each generation that mutations has to be useful. For instance, the eye started as a mutation causing a small patch of light-sensitive cells, allowing simple organisms to detect light. Each successive mutation added a new function or improved upon this original function of the mutation, until the result is an eye. There was no point at which a life form just had a "half eye" that was useless.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Finally an honest description of evolution. Instead of calling evolution "just change, so obviously creationists are blind," this post actually says the magic word, mutation. We hear so much about evolution being change or natural selection that it’s good to hear someone say what evolution really is and that is mutations along with natural selection.

The two things that comprise the ToE are:
Observable scientific change - natural selection.
Non-observable philosophic acceptance - mutation.

So, tell me, what causes change?

 

[Disciple of Christ]

So, tell me, what causes change?

That which can not change.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

Evolution is not an intentional or programmed change. If a mutation (accidental) just happens to have a benefit, the mutated individual has a slightly better chance of procreation, which may pass on that gene mutation (but not necessarily).

Important point here - the mutation is accidental, either something like a transcription error, or possibly a damaged gene resulting from increased radiation (like a solar flare for example). Evolution is not posited to be a teleological process, or the 'strategy' of nature, it is not a result of a 'will to survive'. It is the accumulation of unintentional minute changes which happened to be transmitted by successful procreation.

Consider an analogy from the the world of jazz music - someone hits a 'wrong' note, but it sounds good in that context,creating a nice new chord progression previously not used, and so survives because the 'mistake' is imitated by other musicians. No-one set out to make a mistake. It was serendipity.

How do you determine what is accidental?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Question? Who or what determines natural selection? Does natural selection have consciousness?

Nothing "determines" natural selection except nature. It's not a conscious entity, it's just a process of survival against environmental attrition.

For example, if you run flour through a sieve, does the sieve "decide" which particles of flour it lets through and which it doesn't? No. The sieve is not concsious, but the end result is a bowl full of fine flower and a sieve full of thicker flour.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That which can not change.

Or, which is more likely, mutations. Which we observe.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

Question? Who or what determines natural selection? Does natural selection have consciousness?quote]
Nothing "determines" natural selection except nature. It's not a conscious entity, it's just a process of survival against environmental attrition.

For example, if you run flour through a sieve, does the sieve "decide" which particles of flour it lets through and which it doesn't? No. The sieve is not concsious, but the end result is a bowl full of fine flower and a sieve full of thicker flour.

In order to have this process function there must be set parameters which have been determined, somehow beforehand, to maintain the notion of survival. Would there not?

If nature determines the outcome then does that statement within itself say that "nature" has will and volition in order to make determinations?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In order to have this process function there must be set parameters which have been determined, somehow beforehand, to maintain the notion of survival. Would there not?

No, there wouldn't. Survival is the natural result of the existence of life.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

No, there wouldn't. Survival is the natural result of the existence of life.

If nature determines the outcome then does that statement within itself say that "nature" has will and volition in order to make determinations?

Not to be redundant ,but posted this again because I edited my last response and am not sure if you saw it.

 

[Disciple of Christ]

No, there wouldn't. Survival is the natural result of the existence of life.

Where does life eminate from?

 

[Koldo]

In order to have this process function there must be set parameters which have been determined, somehow beforehand, to maintain the notion of survival. Would there not?

Why do you think so?

 

[Disciple of Christ]

Why do you think so?

Even though there is disorder in the universe there is also order and survival in based on order, is it not? Survival of life seems to resist the natural propensity or death or disorder. If it did not would it then not be survival ?

 

[Koldo]

Even though there is disorder in the universe there is also order and survival in based on order, is it not? Survival of life seems to resist the natural propensity or death or disorder. If it did not would it then not be survival ?

You are using concepts of order and disorder for some reason, and i do not comprehend why. As there is a natural propensity for death, there is a natural propensity for life.