Evidence For And Against Evolution

[ecco]

Any organic thing that can reproduce should be considered life in this context

That's your opinion. Scientists would disagree.

 

[ecco]

This I do not dispute, but it is evidence why some do not believe in a god and not that one or another is demonstrated not to exist. I don't believe in Bigfoot, but I can't prove it doesn't exist.

Yeah. And you can not prove PsychicSnowflakes don't exist, but there is no reason to suspect that they or BigFoots exist.


I go along with science in regards to "proof" and "proving". Overwhelming evidence is what science and I use.

If all gods except one are the creations of man, why would it make any sense to believe that that one is real? Then you need to ask - which one? The god you believe in is not the same god others believe in. Why is yours any more real than theirs?

Another question to ask, where is the evidence for the need for a god? "I don't know" has been shown to be much more honest and correct than "GodDidIt" - regardless of the god or the question.

So if GodDidIt is always wrong, why would you consider the necessity for a god?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yeah. And you can not prove PsychicSnowflakes don't exist, but there is no reason to suspect that they or BigFoots exist.


I go along with science in regards to "proof" and "proving". Overwhelming evidence is what science and I use.

If all gods except one are the creations of man, why would it make any sense to believe that that one is real? Then you need to ask - which one? The god you believe in is not the same god others believe in. Why is yours any more real than theirs?

Another question to ask, where is the evidence for the need for a god? "I don't know" has been shown to be much more honest and correct than "GodDidIt" - regardless of the god or the question.

So if GodDidIt is always wrong, why would you consider the necessity for a god?

I recognize and understand your reason to conclude as you do personally. I await your proof that no god exists. People have been waiting a long time for answers from the extremes.

 

[ecco]

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.

Not to quibble about words here, but...
When male lions take over a group of females and kill the young...
When senior chimps take pretty much any female they want to...

It may not be called rape, and it may be acceptable, but...

 

[ecco]

explain how a blind creature evolved in to creature with eyes.

What do you mean eyes?

Do you mean cells capable of detecting the presence and absence of electromagnetic radiation?
Do you mean cells capable of differentiating between radiation at 400nm and radiation at 600mn?
Do you mean cells capable of transmitting this information to the brain?
Would you include the cells in the brain that try to make sense of this information?

 

[ecco]

I await your proof that no god exists.

What did you not understand ...

I go along with science in regards to "proof" and "proving". Overwhelming evidence is what science and I use.

It is no more necessary to "prove" that gods do not exist than it is necessary to prove that Psychic Snowflakes do not exist.

In fairness to your comment, I could say, "I await your proof that the other people's gods do not exist.

Why do you hope that a god exists?
Why do you hope that god is the god that you believe in and not the god the other people believe in?

 

[shunyadragon]

I have no problem in accepting that the flagelum "evolved" from a preexisting system and sure some intermediate stages have been shown to be viable.

The thing is: can you show that the flagelum evolved by the mechanism of random genetic mutations and natural selection? (and genetic drift)?

First, a basic misunderstanding without knowledge of science. The only thing that is random about mutations is the randomness of individual mutations within the possible range of mutations. The process of genetic mutations and genetic drift is NOT random. The total mutations only develop the genetic diversity in a population and lead to genetic drift. Evolution occurs when there is an advantage for natural selection within the genetic diversity of the population. Not ot acknowledge this very basic knowledge of genetics, which apparently Behe and you lack.

Actually yes, but you still have presented false assumptions of design and no hypothesis presented by Behe and other ID proponents that natural evolution.

We have all seen this images of the different stages of the evolution of the flagelum, the question is can you go from point a to point b and then to point c d e.... Etc through the mechanisms of random mutations and natural selection?

Behe would say No because there is not a path of benefitial mutations that bacteria could have followed in order to go from point a to b or to b to c etc... But the statement is testable and falsifiable, all you have to do is show that such a path exists.

All you have to show?!?!?!!? Both Behe and you are arguing from the negative.which again, again and again . . is not falsifiable. The science of evolution has shown the paths to the formation and the flagellum and eye, and the genetic steps involved. There is most definitely demonstrated a path of natural selection that has been demonstrated, because the different paths of the variations of the flagellum and the steps of the evolution of the eye have natural selection advantages.

Again . . . Still waiting. . .

What is your scientific qualifications to understand the scientific literature involved.

 

[Polymath257]

I respectfully disagree. Abiogenesis must address the entire path between molecules and single-celled entities.

OK, I agree with that. My point was that it doesn't have to deal with the progression from single to multicelled organisms.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What did you not understand ...

​

It is no more necessary to "prove" that gods do not exist than it is necessary to prove that Psychic Snowflakes do not exist.

In fairness to your comment, I could say, "I await your proof that the other people's gods do not exist.

Why do you hope that a god exists?
Why do you hope that god is the god that you believe in and not the god the other people believe in?

This argument goes nowhere. You have chosen a view that has no more evidence than the view I have chosen. That is where it stands.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What did you not understand ...

​

It is no more necessary to "prove" that gods do not exist than it is necessary to prove that Psychic Snowflakes do not exist.

In fairness to your comment, I could say, "I await your proof that the other people's gods do not exist.

Why do you hope that a god exists?
Why do you hope that god is the god that you believe in and not the god the other people believe in?

You are shifting this away from the fact that you have no proof and turning atheism from a rational choice to a belief system. I certainly do not want to do it such a disservice and it is not even a position I take.

Don't fall into the same traps creationists set for thremselves.

 

[shunyadragon]

OK, I agree with that. My point was that it doesn't have to deal with the progression from single to multicelled organisms.

The evolution of single celled organisms to multicellular organisms is not as much of a mystery as previously thought. In fact it has been observed in the lab.

From: Scientists Have Witnessed in Real-Time a Single-Celled Algae Evolve Into a Multicellular Organism

Scientists Have Witnessed a Single-Celled Algae Evolve Into a Multicellular Organism

FIONA MACDONALD
23 FEB 2019
Most of us know that at some point in our evolutionary history around 600 million years ago, single-celled organisms evolved into more complex multicellular life.

But knowing that happened and actually seeing it happen in real-time in front of you is an entirely different matter altogether.

And that's exactly what researchers from the Georgia Institute of Technology and University of Montana have witnessed - and captured in the breathtaking, time-lapse footage below.

The evolution took just 50 weeks, and was triggered by the introduction of a simple predator.

The team captured nine, 14-second time-lapse videos of the transition, which you can view in this playlist:

In this incredible experiment, the team was trying to figure out exactly what drove single-celled organisms to become multicellular all those years ago.

One hypothesis is that it was predation that put selective pressure on single-celled organisms, causing them to become more complex.

So to test the validity of this in the lab, the team led by evolutionary biologist William Ratcliff, took populations of single-celled green alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii.

They then put a single-celled filter-feeding predator in the mix, Paramecium tetraurelia and watched what happened.

Incredibly, the researchers watched as in just 50 weeks - less than the span of a year - two out of five experimental populations of the single-celled creatures evolved into multicellular life.

"Here we show that de novo origins of simple multicellularity can evolve in response to predation," the team write in their paper.

Fifty weeks is a relative blink of an eye on the evolutionary scale. For the algae it was a little longer - 750 generations. But that's still quite impressive when you think that they evolved entirely new life cycles.

Being able to witness something like this is not only absolutely mind-blowing, but it also suggests that predation could have played some kind of role in at least part of the evolution of multicellularity.

Not only that, but the resulting multicellular organisms were all incredibly varied. Just like you'd expect in natural evolution.

"Considerable variation exists in the evolved multicellular life cycles, with both cell number and propagule size varying among isolates," the team write in their paper.

"Survival assays show that evolved multicellular traits provide effective protection against predation."

The research has been published in Scientific Reports and the full paper is freely available."

More to follow if necessary. The evolution of single celled organisms to early multi-cellular organism and fungi, plants and animals is better understood than most accept.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not to quibble about words here, but...
When male lions take over a group of females and kill the young...
When senior chimps take pretty much any female they want to...

It may not be called rape, and it may be acceptable, but...

I am not sure what human moral is at stake in these observations, but it is not rape. It is aggressive action rather distant from actual copulation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What a surprise @Subduction Zone avoiding direct answers and failing to support his assertions

You, of all people, have no grounds to make such accusations. Are you completely unfamiliar with what shame is?

 

[ecco]

This argument goes nowhere. You have chosen a view that has no more evidence than the view I have chosen. That is where it stands.

No true.

I have provided extensive evidence that gods are the creations of man's imaginings. You did not dispute that Atlas was the creation of man's imaginings. You did not dispute that Shiva was the creation of man's imaginings.
In other words, you agree with the evidence I provided.

You have provided no evidence to show that your god is any more real than Atlas or Shiva.

 

[ecco]

You are shifting this away from the fact that you have no proof and turning atheism from a rational choice to a belief system. I certainly do not want to do it such a disservice and it is not even a position I take.

Don't fall into the same traps creationists set for thremselves.

Why do you keep referring to "proof"? Science, and history, for the most part, is not about proving anything, it is about accumulating evidence.

See post # 2654 above.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No true.

I have provided extensive evidence that gods are the creations of man's imaginings. You did not dispute that Atlas was the creation of man's imaginings. You did not dispute that Shiva was the creation of man's imaginings.
In other words, you agree with the evidence I provided.

You have provided no evidence to show that your god is any more real than Atlas or Shiva.

You have made an argument about the actions of men. Not about the existence of gods. One does not follow the other by default. You are just doing what creationists do, but taking the other position. That is why this goes nowhere. You have no means to support that gods do not exist. You only have reasons for why you would conclude that personally. You believe it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why do you keep referring to "proof"? Science, and history, for the most part, is not about proving anything, it is about accumulating evidence.

See post # 2654 above.

You erroneously used the term, so I was using it sarcastically in response.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No true.

I have provided extensive evidence that gods are the creations of man's imaginings. You did not dispute that Atlas was the creation of man's imaginings. You did not dispute that Shiva was the creation of man's imaginings.
In other words, you agree with the evidence I provided.

You have provided no evidence to show that your god is any more real than Atlas or Shiva.

I do not have to support the existence of God. The discussion is about you claiming that atheists know they do not exist. I do not know how that can be. What you conclude regards your own understanding, but your understanding is not a universal law.

It is ironic that you give atheists the powers of a god to proclaim that gods do not exist.g

I accept your reasoning for deciding that you have no reason to believe in any god. I accept th e possibility that you may even be correct, but you do not have the evidence or the information to KNOW that they do not exist. You are making creationist arguments in support of atheism, when it is well positioned without them.

 

[Valjean]

1 show that morals had some sort of selective benefit.

Why would natural selection not select for psychology and behavior just as it does for anatomy? Why would behaviors beneficial to the group not be selected for?

"Morals" is ambiguous. Morality varies culturally and temporally. Behavior considered moral is widespread. Is a spider, crocodile, octopus, baboon or Neanderthal's self-sacrificing protection of band or offspring morality? Is it learned or innate? If innate, wouldn't that be genetic "morality?"
Ethologists have many examples of animal co-operation, and of awareness of abstractions like unfairness. These aren't learned behaviors. They're innate. They didn't pop into existence from nothing. They were selected for, genetically.

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

Why would they have to mutate? If the more pro-social individuals in a species were reproductively more successful, the trait would be selected for, no mutation required.

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.

There are learned morals and innate morals. Assault can benefit a group's reproductive success or harm it. It depends on application.

 

[Valjean]

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

Hasn't this and the flagellum thoroughly refuted a thousand times?

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.

There must be a hundred videos on YouTube showing exactly this, with living examples.

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,

Exactly. Google.