Enough Time for Evolution?

[Shermana]

I responded. You never commented back after your first reply to me. I am not even sure what you are trying to suggest. You wanted us to comment on the review. I explained why the review was irrelevant criticisms of the original paper. Is a more complex calculation necessary to account for the time necessary for evolution? Yes. But the paper was clearly focused on one argument dealling with the time necessary. Then you posted a video which dealt with the focus on Neo Darwinism as a sole portrayal of evolution. This critique is very valid, there is a bias towards Neo Darwinism. But, that does not mean that evolution is not occurring. What is it that you do not understand about evolution? Is it the time? Do you not feel there is enough time? Is it mutation? Speciation?

Please link to your comment that you feel is not being addressed. I am glad that you agree that there needs to be a paper which addresses whether there is truly enough time for evolution rather than relying on it as a presumption that it happened.

There was a specific point in the video besides just showing the bias towards Neo Darwinism, it was showing that there's not really much standing for the concept of incremental changes.

 

[Curious George]

Please link to your comment that you feel is not being addressed. I am glad that you agree that there needs to be a paper which addresses whether there is truly enough time for evolution rather than relying on it as a presumption that it happened.

There was a specific point in the video besides just showing the bias towards Neo Darwinism, it was showing that there's not really much standing for the concept of incremental changes.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3423760-post173.html

Your video did not show that there is not much standing for incremental changes, but rather that there is not much standing for slow gradual change being the whole story of evolution. No person will be able to give you a whole history from a Neo. Darwinian perspective because such a perspective is not complete, no evolutionary theory is complete. Yet, we certainly have enough evidence to say that evolution and speciation is occurring, even Darwinian evolution.

 

[Agnostic75]

Okay Agnostic, if you'd like to have a Public debate on this with experts, you're welcome to invite whoever you want to this thread.......

But I never claimed that I could win a debate with an expert. Since I do not know a lot about biology, I accept the opinions of the vast majority of experts. What is wrong with that?

I am not boasting about what I know, I am questioning what you know. Even if skeptics at this forum cannot adequately refute your arguments, there are a multitude of other skeptics who can.

.......hopefully they'll be willing to actually address the OP and properly represent the arguments as well as from counter sources, it would be a major improvement than what this sorry lot of Naturalismists have offered so far.

Hopefully you will be willing to address the vast amount of scientific literature that disagrees with Dr. Newman, and to address Dr. Newman's hypotheses about evolution.

If you really wanted to learn something about evolution, you would be willing to debate at Physics Forum. It has over 385,000 members, many of whom have advanced degrees in science. It would interesting to see you repost your opening post there. And, wherever you live, there must be some college biology professors who will be happy to discuss your arguments with you.

Whatever you say in this thread is irrelevant since you cannot adequately defend what you claim in debates with experts. I have no idea where you got the notion that it proves something if you know more about evolution than some skeptic laymen do.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to Shermana:

At There’s plenty of time for evolution « Why Evolution Is True, there is an article by Jerry Coyne, Ph.D., biology. Dr. Newman has criticized him, but many other experts support him. In the article, Coyne discusses the research by Wilf, and Ewens that you mentioned. Will you please critique the article? If you do, I hope that you have an excellent background in math since Coyne says:

Here’s their complicated equation for the number of rounds of “guessing”, that is the number of rounds it takes to achieve adaptive evolution at every one of L genes:

The mean number of rounds that are necessary to guess all of the letters of an L letter word, the letters coming from an alphabet of K letters, is

[1]
with β(L) being the periodic function of log L that is given by Eq. 7 below. The function β(L) oscillates within a range which for K≥2, is never larger than .000002 about the first two terms on the right-hand side of Eq. 7.
​

Let’s put some biological numbers to this. Let’s assume that we have to change 20,000 genes to get from an ancestor to a descendant. (That’s a LOT of genes, since the whole human genome is only a tad bigger than this.) And let’s assume that at each gene only 1/40 of all gene variants are adaptive. (We’re assuming that if the population has as few as one “adaptive” variant, that one will sweep through the population. That’s not strictly correct since some of these will get lost by genetic drift and never contribute to evolution.) The 1/40 figure comes from assuming a population has a million births each generation, that there are 20,000 genes, that each generation of new births carries about 5 million new mutations in the genome—about 250 per gene—and that only one new mutation in 10,000 will be favored over the “resident gene type” (The mutation data are taken from humans, and assume that only a small percentage of new mutations arise in regions of the genome that actually do something.)

 

[Sculelos]

Message to Shermana:

At There’s plenty of time for evolution « Why Evolution Is True, there is an article by Jerry Coyne, Ph.D., biology. Dr. Newman has criticized him, but many other experts support him. In the article, Coyne discusses the research by Wilf, and Ewens that you mentioned. Will you please critique the article? If you do, I hope that you have an excellent background in math since Coyne says:

Evolution is most definitely true to some extent but that's not what Shermana is arguing. He is arguing the there is not enough time for a single cell to form into a complex cell, indeed bacteria has no DNA nor does it have RNA nor is Bacteria even considered living. Bacteria is organic and it can replicate itself but yet it is not living. That is to say Bacteria is the force of magnetism enacting on itself and what we call Bacteria is the process of Oxidation.

Bacteria is not what we have to worry about as there is no such thing as 'bad' bacteria. However Viruses are something we have to worry about as Viruses are non-living matter that bind to human cells and cause mutations and permeations that lead to death.

It's laughable how stupid '21st Century Science' really is when the Scientist don't even know what they don't know.

 

[Agnostic75]

Evolution is most definitely true to some extent but that's not what Shermana is arguing. He is arguing the there is not enough time for a single cell to form into a complex cell, indeed bacteria has no DNA nor does it have RNA nor is bacteria even considered living.

But you do not know enough about biology to know whether or not naturalism had enough time to account for evolution. You are certainly not able to adequately critique a large amount of scientific evidence that support naturalistic explanations for common descent.

It is easy for you to quote experts who agree with you, but how much do you know about biology? Would you like to have a public Internet debate with an expert in biology who disagrees with you? Would you like to critique Ken Miller's article on the flagellum, intelligent design, and irreducible complexity at http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html?

If theistic evolution is true, that takes care of the time problem since God is not limited by time, and he can cause evolution to occur as quickly, or as slowly as he wants to.

Consider the following:

If "Aliens" are responsible, that's still basically the same thing as saying "gods". It's really Semantics.

You claimed that incremental changes cannot account for naturalistic evolution. Even if you are right, aliens could have plausibly accounted for evolution. If God created the aliens, you have won your argument about naturalism, but you have not won your argument that God created life on earth if that is what you are arguing.

So, are you arguing that God created life on earth or not?

What is your opinion of that?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Evolution is most definitely true to some extent but that's not what Shermana is arguing. He is arguing the there is not enough time for a single cell to form into a complex cell, indeed bacteria has no DNA nor does it have RNA nor is Bacteria even considered living. Bacteria is organic and it can replicate itself but yet it is not living. That is to say Bacteria is the force of magnetism enacting on itself and what we call Bacteria is the process of Oxidation.

Bacteria is not what we have to worry about as there is no such thing as 'bad' bacteria. However Viruses are something we have to worry about as Viruses are non-living matter that bind to human cells and cause mutations and permeations that lead to death.

It's laughable how stupid '21st Century Science' really is when the Scientist don't even know what they don't know.

Lol bacteria are not living? Bacteria don't have DNA...oh goodness....

 

[tumbleweed41]

...It's laughable how stupid '21st Century Science' really is when the Scientist don't even know what they don't know.

Well, it's a good thing you are here to educate all those poor ignorant biologists and biochemists.

I would suggest you submit a paper to the National Institutes of Science detailing how wrong they are concerning bacterial DNA, both linear and circular, In fact, you could educate them on the actual cell structure of bacteria and th 'magnetic' replication model that I am sure you have researched with unbiased, repeatable and falsifiable methods.


Or perhaps you are just full of it.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Ouroboros]

We don't know everything there is to know about math. It doesn't make Math wrong. What we do know about math is correct, even if we don't know everything.

Same goes for Evolution. We know a lot about it, and science in general, but it doesn't make it complete, neither does it make it wrong.

Science (including Evolution) is about finding the closest approximation to truth that we can find through natural means, without supernatural revelations or prophets proclaiming what we're supposed to believe as truth. Science is about non-subjective methods of knowing the world. Evolution is tested and is knowable to be true, for anyone who spends the time studying it. For anyone who refuse to learn or understand it, it will always be a mystery.

Unfortunately, the evolution-deniers are the ones who could disrupt medicine and food production and cause mass epidemics by sheer ignorance and stupid actions. For humanity to survive, we need to understand it.... but I think we're ******-out-of-luck.

===edit===

Btw, virus is RNA and not DNA. Virus don't contain mDNA, only cells can, virus is not a cell. Procaryotes and eucaryotes can contain mDNA, but I think there are some (or many?) that don't. mDNA is a redundant energy system in our cells. We already have a system for it in the cell (however crappy), and mDNA is an addition that improved our survival, possible introduced through an infection while our ancestor was nothing but a procaryote (IIRC).

And when it comes to "similarities" in the DNA for heritage, it's more than just similarities. It's more of transcript errors that comes through. It's like having a Rank Xerox (if anyone understand that term anymore) of a family tree that's been passed down through generations and it has coffee stains, rips, added written text, and such on it and each generation copies the same errors. For instance, the broken C-Vitamin gene (which was caused by an ERV) is something all humans have, and chimps... but not the other apes. So, statistically to have the exact same broken ERV gene is one it trillions, the most possible answer is that we are close relatives. We share the same parent in the distant past who had this broken gene. Now, we share another 22 ERV genes with chimps. We also share hundreds (I think) transposons, and many other similar gene codes with chimps, but no other animals. Then you can find even more that are shared between all apes. All animals. All bio-life, and so on. The probability for not being related is infinitesimal small. Macroevolution is statistically solid. Unless God intentionally gave us bad genes on purpose and gave it to the chimps too just for the divine heck of it.

 

[Alceste]

Dismissing and handwaving and calling it a "mortal weakness" is very ironic with your link.

Of course it's a mortal weakness. You say you believe incremental change does happen, but that at some point it stops happening - it can't continue. You offer no mechanism to restrict change after a certain amount of deviation from the original form. You evade, sidestep and ignore the obvious question that undermines your position completely. You pretend nobody asked it, and then incessantly gloat that everybody else is embarrassing themselves. Come on, man! Open your eyes!

So, what is the mechanism that prevents incremental change over a few generations (microevolution) from producing substantial change over a much longer period of time (macroevolution)?

 

[Alceste]

This thread resembles a first-grade classroom.

No way - kids are very hungry for knowledge at that age. It takes years to wear them down to dogmatic, ignorant, incurious bundles of cognitive bias and self-deception most adults display. I think you need a reasonably advanced ego before you can start associating your erroneous beliefs with your identity and self-worth and start to feel threatened by learning.

 

[savagewind]

Of course it's a mortal weakness. You say you believe incremental change does happen, but that at some point it stops happening - it can't continue. You offer no mechanism to restrict change after a certain amount of deviation from the original form. You evade, sidestep and ignore the obvious question that undermines your position completely. You pretend nobody asked it, and then incessantly gloat that everybody else is embarrassing themselves. Come on, man! Open your eyes!

So, what is the mechanism that prevents incremental change over a few generations (microevolution) from producing substantial change over a much longer period of time (macroevolution)?

Someone said "need". The cause of mutation is need I heard say. When there is nothing to need the changes stop happening. There will still be incremental changes but the changes can no longer alter the organism because the organism has all that it needs.

 

[Agnostic75]

If "Aliens" are responsible, that's still basically the same thing as saying "gods". It's really Semantics.

You claimed that incremental changes cannot account for naturalistic evolution. Even if you are right, aliens could have plausibly accounted for evolution. If God created the aliens, you have won your argument about naturalism, but you have not won your argument that God created life on earth if that is what you are arguing. So, are you arguing that God created life on earth or not? If you are, my aliens argument is valid. If you are arguing that naturalism cannot account for the universe, that is a different subject than what you are discussing in this thread.

For this thread, I am not necessarily arguing against Theistic evolution or even Common Descent, even if I personally don't hold to those. This is 100% against naturalism, non-theistic naturalism.

But naturalism can account for evolution if aliens brought life to earth unless you have sufficient evidence that naturalism cannot account for the beginning of the universe.

 

[Alceste]

Someone said "need". The cause of mutation is need I heard say. When there is nothing to need the changes stop happening. There will still be incremental changes but the changes can no longer alter the organism because the organism has all that it needs.

That's not how it works. Change is inevitable because genes do not perfectly copy when organisms reproduce sexually. Need has nothing to do with it. It's just chemistry.

Natural selection also has nothing to do with need. It has to do with an organism's ability to successfully reproduce. That's it, that's all.

There is a phenomenon where a species might be particularly fit for a particular environment to such an extent that change happens incredibly slowly, but it never stops happening. For example, crocodilians are very fit for their environment, but there are still 23 species adapted for different climates and biospheres, all of them related via a common ancestral species 55 million years ago.

 

[Shermana]

For example, crocodilians are very fit for their environment, but there are still 23 species adapted for different climates and biospheres, all of them related via a common ancestral species 55 million years ago.

A perfect example of the Epigenetics and Micro-evolution we're talking about. Not exactly the "Speciation" you would need to demonstrate Cats and Dogs and Bears having the same ancestor.

 

[Falvlun]

Btw, virus is RNA and not DNA. Virus don't contain mDNA, only cells can, virus is not a cell.

There are DNA viruses, notably the Herpes viruses.

 

[mycorrhiza]

A perfect example of the Epigenetics and Micro-evolution we're talking about. Not exactly the "Speciation" you would need to demonstrate Cats and Dogs and Bears having the same ancestor.

If several crocodile species have the same ancestor, then speciation has clearly happened and thus macroevolution has happened (which is evolution at or above species level). Please stick to the scientific meaning of words when discussing science.

 

[Shermana]

If several crocodile species have the same ancestor, then speciation has clearly happened and thus macroevolution has happened (which is evolution at or above species level). Please stick to the scientific meaning of words when discussing science.

And thus begins the "Species" problem once again.

Species problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If your argument relies mainly on the Semantic concept of "Species" and "Speciation" without the individual specifics in question, then you're gonna have a bad time.

With that said, truly observed "Macro-evolution" is more or less actually Micro-evolution in all observed cases, unless you want to use the word "Macro-evolution" to cover a broad concept that does not do the TOE any favors, which is apparently how its most often employed.

If your argument is that "Macro-evolution has been observed" as if what's been actually observed means cats, dogs, and bears have a similar ancestor, you're barking up the wrong tree.

So like "Species", the term "Macro-evolution" apparently has a murky swamp that has to be navigated without falling into the sharp jaws of misuse of what's actually been observed that the term applies to and its applicability in speciation speculation.