Evidence For And Against Evolution

[ecco]

If I have to explain the term 'life form' to you, lol, I believe we're finished.

It seems that you are not aware that scientists have not agreed on a single all-encompassing definition of life. I'm not surprised.

Nevertheless, now that you have been informed, please provide your definition of 'life form' so that we can attempt to discuss origins.

 

[ecco]

And yes, I did need to understand many things at that time because I did not believe in God but I knew I needed something more in my life than just waking up each day and going through life 'living.' I had that one conversation with him. He does not know that because of our conversation, which led to a wall in the conversation that evening, since I did not believe in God and he kept telling me only God can give me faith, I did become a believer in God.

So, you were looking for a reason to believe and you found a reason to believe.

 

[ecco]

So do I have that correct about your statement, that the world being in the mess from evolution is fun?

If you thought I said, "the world being in the mess from evolution is fun", whatyou have is a problem in reading comprehension.

(shaking my head here...) So you don't think life is "fun." (By the way, I didn't say you said that the world being in the mess from evolution is fun." You misunderstood my phrase. OK, so you don't think life is fun. Or did I misunderstand you again? So it's not fun. Or is it fun. OK. )

Slip and slide, slip and slide. Where did I say the world was in a mess because of evolution?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That you didn't understand what I was saying.

To be fair, I have had to read many of your posts a couple of times, and even then, often don't understand what you are trying to say.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You guys can't even figure your own understanding. Or lack of it.


If I have to explain that your response just now means you're saying they came about by themselves, there's nothing I can say to make your answer clearer.

This is all very amusing. From following your posts back to your initiation on this forum, I have found little, if anything, to indicate an understanding of science, biology or the theory of evolution arising from your posts. This in light of numerous claims from you that you have studied some of the material in your educational background.

Frankly, the only reasons for your rejection of science that I can determine is based on your apparent misguided ignorance of the subject matter and complete d adherence in believed conditions as the only answer to anything.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Good question.

Most animals do not rape. That appears to be a behavior more often limited to humans and our cousins, the orangutans. Many mammals are subject to extend and sex does not occur outside of this. I'm many species, females that have no interest in a male make that clear and are left alone. Unless you take the traditional creationist tactic of redefining words and terms to mean something different than standard, accepted definitions. You know what I mean. Straw men and convenience revision.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am not going to repeat the work of others. Did you not read the article that I linked?

Perhaps your problem arises largely from your inability to define morals. Ask a clearer question and you may get a clearer answer.

As is often the case, creationist, assertions and questions regarding biology are not based on understanding or valid scientific sources. Reverend Bob down at the church, he don't like it and done told them all the science they done need to know.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So an RNA strand that can catalyze its own formation is alive? Then we have created life in the lab.

That would be the end result of the definition he is using as near as I can tell.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am not going to repeat the work of others. Did you not read the article that I linked?

Perhaps your problem arises largely from your inability to define morals. Ask a clearer question and you may get a clearer answer.

Complex behavior traits arise from the interaction of many factors and not all are directly biological in origin, but I do not get the impression that is understood by creationists. Or even that some of them do have a biological basis. Many behavioral tests are observable across a wide range of related and unrelated animals.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You guys can't even figure your own understanding. Or lack of it.


If I have to explain that your response just now means you're saying they came about by themselves, there's nothing I can say to make your answer clearer.

This entire post is a perfect example of why your argument fails. You can't actually understand or elaborate on anything, nor are you capable of even comprehending an opposing possibility.

 

[leroy]

You are being disingenuous. You made a claim, then spent weeks convulsing in diversions as you avoided all requests to support that claim. Since you gave no reason your claim had validity, there was nothing to debate.I

It is gratifying to see you concede that your claim is failed, despite all the deceitful tactics.

I made it very clear since the beginning that I would only debate with someone who would pick a naturalistic hypothesis

 

[leroy]

So an RNA strand that can catalyze its own formation is alive? Then we have created life in the lab.

Source?

 

[leroy]

Once again, the 'multiply probabilities' is only correct if you want a single protein to spontaneously appear with no precursors and with all three mutations all at once.

No, Behe is not calculating the probability of having all 3 mutations at once, I read and understood the example with the dice, but behe is not making the fallacy that you think he is.

He calculates the odds with actual observations, and experiments confirm his calculations.

But you are simply wrong that three neutral mutations would be effectively impossible.

It woulnt be effectively imposible, but it would be so unlikely that it is not expected to have happened any time since the first living thing appeared.

 

[leroy]

I am not going to repeat the work of others. Did you not read the article that I linked?

Perhaps your problem arises largely from your inability to define morals. Ask a clearer question and you may get a clearer answer.

The article that you linked, doesn't answer any of my questions, you are constantly accusing me for not supporting my assertions, but now that you have the opportunity to show that you can support your assertions you are simply running away.

1 show that morals had some sort of selective benefit.

2 provide a mechanism in which morals evolved, which genes had to mutate?

3 what about things that we would consider morally wrong (rapping for example) that have no benefit it terns of survival, reproduction and passing our genes to the next generations.

 

[leroy]

And though I do share your opinion about rap music, rape is another matter. You are taking a very short sighted approach to evolution. A mother by herself would be less likely to be able to raise a child to adulthood than a family. Rape may seem to be a short term fix, but those children are less likely to survive and the rapist himself is a threat to a population. It is pro-survival to weed them out.

But that is the point, evolution (the process of random mutations and natural selection) can only do "Short term fixes" this mechanism doesn't have a mind, it doesn't have foresight


Besides, wouldn't you say that raping is wrong beyond any implication of the survival of our specie? I mean rape would still be wrong even if those children are equally likely to survive than those where born in a family. Agree,?

but those children are less likely to survie

Maybe, but are they less likely to reproduce?

And even more important, is that question even relevant? Wouldn't rape still be wrong even if this children are more likely to survive or not?

What if someone rapes an infertile woman? Would that be morally indifferent?


The point that I am making is that atleast there are atleast some moral values that we hold, that have no implications in the survival of our specie,........ agree,?

 

[leroy]

No, Behe is wrong because he made the foolish decision to say that cutting edge science problems could not be solved. All of his examples that I can think of have been shown to be wrong. It is foolish to say "Scientists will never solve this problem", especially if most of the work to solve it had been done already.

Ok, so Behe claimed that there is not a step by step path of benefitial mutations that would explain why things like the flagelum or the eye evolved.

Since according to you, Behe was proven wrong, that would mean that you can show a step by step path that would for example explain how a blind creature evolved in to creature with eyes.

With step by step I mean 1 random mutation at the time, and this mutations (at least the mayority) would have to be selectively positive,

 

[leroy]

. Behe's biggest error was to assume that features such as the flagellum was a goal and not a result.

That is my point, when people say that Behe was "refuted" they tend to focus on minor and insignificant details.

Regardless if behe treated the flagelum as a goal or as a result, it is still a fact that there is not a step by step path that would explain the evolution of the flagelum via random mutations and natural selection.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, so Behe claimed that there is not a step by step path of benefitial mutations that would explain why things like the flagelum or the eye evolved.

That is correct. But, you also have to recall that mutations along the way might not improve on the ultimate function. For example, the flagellum originated as a secretory protein.

Since according to you, Behe was proven wrong, that would mean that you can show a step by step path that would for example explain how a blind creature evolved in to creature with eyes.

This has been done so many times, why don't you just google it? In fact, from photosensitive areas on the exterior, to cups, to deeper indentations, to having an eye with no lens, etc, we have actual living examples for each other steps to the mammalian eye.

With step by step I mean 1 random mutation at the time, and this mutations (at least the mayority) would have to be selectively positive,

Do a google search. As I recall Dawkins has a nice video showing several steps in the progression.

 

[Polymath257]

That is my point, when people say that Behe was "refuted" they tend to focus on minor and insignificant details.

Regardless if behe treated the flagelum as a goal or as a result, it is still a fact that there is not a step by step path that would explain the evolution of the flagelum via random mutations and natural selection.

Yes, there is. It starts with a secretory protein. Again, a simple google search will turn out a nice video.

 

[leroy]

Yes, there is. It starts with a secretory protein. Again, a simple google search will turn out a nice video.

Yeees there are many nice videos that show how eyes and flagelums evolved from point "a" to point " b," then to point "c" etc.....


My question is:
1...... are you saying that one can evolve from A to B (then from B to C etc) with 1 single random mutation?

2.......Or do you need multiple benefitial mutations to go from A to B?


If you are claiming 1 then I hope you can provide some evidence, given that all you need us 1 mutation, it shouldn't be hard to provide examples where such an event was observed

If your answer is 2 then you failed to provide a step by step path