Evidence For And Against Evolution

[leroy]

I am quite sure that you did not understand it or you did not read it. You do realize that scientists do not need to state the obvious, don't you?

Not really. The problem appears to be that when people support their claims you do not understand the support. I asked you a question that you ducked. I asked it so that we could see what level your understanding is at.

Can you describe what a mutation is?

Ok so you can't support your assertions....


A random mutation is just a random hereditable variation in the genome, with random it is meant that the mutation would occure (or not) regardless if the organism needs that variation..... See how easy it is to answer questions directly?

I didn't answer to your previos question, because my answer would depend on what you mean by evolution in that context

 

[leroy]

I have answered all the questions you have presented with sound science and references. You have the tendency to ignore my responses and twist my responses to things I did not say.

They did not just 'appear,] the evolved by way of the genetic diversity in the populations that develop through genetic drift. The steps are small as the appearance of light sensitive cells in Jellyfish for the beginnings of the eye that gave the animals an advantage of detecting light and dark. It has been shown that the genes involve in the light sensitive cells are related to the genes of animals as progressively more complex eyes that have a survival advantage. In some steps the mutation is simple the doubling of the primary genes for eyes by mutation that resulted in a more complex eye with a survival advantage over the simpler eye. ;

Ok so we start with a blind jelly fish (the ancestor of those that you mentioned) and after 1 mutation, light sencitive cells appeared and the jelly fish now has the ability to react when light is detected.

This hability is presumibly selectively positive and therefore it was selected by natural selection.


Is this an accure representation of your view?

 

[leroy]

I’m not sure what you’re asking. Are you asking for people’s personal opinions about that? Are you asking if any researchers think that it can happen? Are you asking if anyone has seen it happen? Are you asking if anyone has a model for how it could happen? Are you trying to find out if anyone has any reasons for thinking that it can happen, that would look convincing to you?

I haven’t seen any reason to think that it can’t happen. Have you?

At this point I am just asking for personal opinions, because at this point I am simply trying to understand their view.

I haven’t seen any reason to think that it can’t happen. Have you

That is a controversial topic, some scientists claim it can happen, some are skeptical, but nobody claims to have conclusive evidence, (except for fanatic new atheists and fanatic creationists )...... But there is no consensus in the scientific literature

 

[leroy]

For discussion purposes between you and me, let’s say that it can’t. Is there something that follows from that?

If it can't happen then Darwinism (or neodarwinism) would be wrong.... And the door would be open for other alternatives...... perhaps lamarkism, perhaps natural genetic engineering, perhaps intelligent design, perhaps neutralusm etc or maybe a combination of these mechanisms.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so you can't support your assertions....


A random mutation is just a random hereditable variation in the genome, with random it is meant that the mutation would occure (or not) regardless if the organism needs that variation..... See how easy it is to answer questions directly?

I didn't answer to your previos question, because my answer would depend on what you mean by evolution in that context

Please do not lie about others. I supported my claims. At best you are not able to understand them. At worst you did and are lying openly.

And your description of a mutation is woefully inadequate. Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If it can't happen then Darwinism (or neodarwinism) would be wrong.... And the door would be open for other alternatives...... perhaps lamarkism, perhaps natural genetic engineering, perhaps intelligent design, perhaps neutralusm etc or maybe a combination of these mechanisms.

But it can happen. And the door is always open. The problem is that there is no evidence for other ideas. I need to remind you that one cannot refute that which one does not understand.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. I'd rather show up your hypocrisy for all to see.

Your hypocrisy. Not mine.

Demonstrate that you know there are no gods. Not reasons why you do not see for believing in them. You claim atheists know there are none. It should be easy for you. It is a straw man to declare why you do not believe in some and this means that none exist by default. It is a non sequitur as well.

You are using a creationist arguments and creationist tactics here. The height of hypocrisy for an atheist. You have provided reasons that you do not believe. I understand that. I accept that you are no reason to believe. You have not shown that a deity cannot exist or that this lack of existence is known. That is simply what you believe. I don't accept your belief system and have no reason to.

 

[leroy]

I see that you did not dispute that Atlas is nothing more than a creation of man's imaginings, like Superman. There is no reason to believe that Atlas or Superman are, in any sense, real entities.

I see that you did not dispute that Shiva is nothing more than a creation of man's imaginings, like Wonderwoman. There is no reason to believe that Shiva or Wonderwoman are, in any sense, real entities.

The argument I made about the actions of men is that they create(d) gods. The creations of man's imaginings are not real entities - not Atlas, not Superman. Do I really need to continue to make the argument to specify all of man's creations like Spiderman or Mighty Mouse or Mickey Mouse or Ra or UNkulunkulu?

If we take away all the gods that are the creations of man's imaginings, how many gods, which gods, are we left with - NONE.

Presumibly theist are expected to have good reasons for believing in his God and not Atlas, Shiva Spiderman etc..

Typically Christian apologetics do present arguments for there God and some of these arguments would no be applicable to other God's

It is fallacious to say "Shiva doesn't excist, therefore the God of the Bible doesn't exists ether"

 

[leroy]

But it can happen. And the door is always open. The problem is that there is no evidence for other ideas. I need to remind you that one cannot refute that which one does not understand.

There is no conclusive evidence for any of those ideas....... (including Darwinism or Neodarwinism which states that the diversity of life is caused by the mechanism of random variation and natural selection )..... This is why there is a controversy in the scientific community.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You can accept them, or you can reject them.

What you have been unable to do is refute them.

I have not seen any evidence that a deity does not exist for me to refute. I have no reason to believe in Atlas, but no evidence that Atlas does not really exist. You cannot show Atlas does not exist anymore than you can show that universe is not run by giant, invisible, purple ping pony balls. Your claim is that there is no reason to believe. This is not evidence that they do, in fact, not exist. That was your religious claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no conclusive evidence for any of those ideas....... (including Darwinism or Neodarwinism which states that the diversity of life is caused by the mechanism of random variation and natural selection )..... This is why there is a controversy in the scientific community.

Sorry, but you have demonstrated not only a lack of education, but also an inability to discuss this topic rationally. And there really is no controversy. To claim there is again demonstrates either ignorance, dishonesty, or both.

 

[leroy]

Please do not lie about others. I supported my claims. At best you are not able to understand them. At worst you did and are lying openly.

And your description of a mutation is woefully inadequate. Try again.

Well I would argue that the mechanism of "what I call random mutations" + natural selection has not been proven to sucsefully explain the evolution of eyes or flagella.

If you don't want to call them "mutations" feel free to give them an other name and let me know if you agree or disagree

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Presumibly theist are expected to have good reasons for believing in his God and not Atlas, Shiva Spiderman etc..

Typically Christian apologetics do present arguments for there God and some of these arguments would no be applicable to other God's

It is fallacious to say "Shiva doesn't excist, therefore the God of the Bible doesn't exists ether"

You or I cannot show that God exists anymore than he can show that God does not exist. However, specific claims about that God that are made can be challenged. Deification of the Bible can be challenged. Claims about creation or a global flood have been challenged and succeeded based on the evidence. I know you deny this using the same tactics he is using.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is no conclusive evidence for any of those ideas....... (including Darwinism or Neodarwinism which states that the diversity of life is caused by the mechanism of random variation and natural selection )..... This is why there is a controversy in the scientific community.

No. Not at all. You are twisting actual scientific controversy into something that does not exist and you cannot demonstrate to exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I would argue that the mechanism of "what I call random mutations" + natural selection has not been proven to sucsefully explain the evolution of eyes or flagella.

If you don't want to call them "mutations" feel free to give them an other name and let me know if you agree or disagree

That is because you do not understand either scientific evidence or the scientific method.

And no, I have no problem with the word mutations. You have failed to demonstrate that you understand the concept.

 

[leroy]

No. Not at all. You are twisting actual scientific controversy into something that does not exist and you cannot demonstrate to exist.

Well there are peer reviewed articles where alternative explanations are discussed. And there are respected scientists that are skeptical to neodarwinism.

If this does not show that there is a controversy, then I don't know what are you expecting.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok so we start with a blind jelly fish (the ancestor of those that you mentioned) and after 1 mutation, light sensitive cells appeared and the jelly fish now has the ability to react when light is detected.

This hability is presumably selectively positive and therefore it was selected by natural selection.


Is this an accurate representation of your view?

The diversity of mutations in the gene or genes of the cells that resulted in the evolution of a cell to be light sensitive existed at the time. The light sensitive cells.of the Jelly fish that resulted had competitive advantage over those that did not, and became dominant over time.

 

[leroy]

That is because you do not understand either scientific evidence or the scientific method.

And no, I have no problem with the word mutations. You have failed to demonstrate that you understand the concept.

Irrelevant, if you don't what to call them mutations feel free to give it an other name

And wether if I understand the scientific method or not us irrelevant,....... I am simply accepting what scientist say / Conclude in the peer reviewed literature, given that there are no papers that conclude that neodarwinism is correct (beyond reasonable doubt) I think it is reasonable to be skeptical about that idea...... Wouldn't you agree,?

 

[shunyadragon]

Well there are peer reviewed articles where alternative explanations are discussed. And there are respected scientists that are skeptical to neodarwinism.

If this does not show that there is a controversy, then I don't know what are you expecting.

Scientist do not differentiate between Darwinism? or Neo-Darwinism? as far as what the science of evolution today. The science of evolution is simply the science of evolution. There is, of course disagreement concerning different views within evolution, but by far 98%+ of all scientist in the fields related to evolution accept basics of evolution without reservations, and beyond any reasonable doubt..

Please explain who these scientist are, cite them, and explain what they are skeptical about. What are the alternate explanations are from the peer reviewed articles offer.

 

[leroy]

The diversity of mutations in the gene or genes of the cells that resulted in the evolution of a cell to be light sensitive existed at the time. The light sensitive cells.of the Jelly fish that resulted had competitive advantage over those that did not, and became dominant over time.

Ok but about the mutations that resulted in light sensitive cells....... Are you talking about a single mutation or are you talking about many mutations? Was this step achieved via 1 mutation or after several mutations ?