Evidence For And Against Evolution

[leroy]

[

QUOTE="shunyadragon, post: 6455702, member: 61872"98%+ of all scientist in the fields related to evolution accept basics of evolution without reservations, and beyond any reasonable doubt..

[/QUOTE] @shunyadragon


Sure me too I also accept the basics of evolution, I accept that organisms change and adapt, I accept universal common ancestry and I accept that complex systems evolved gradually from preexisting systems..... Is that what you mean with "basics of evolution"?

The controversy is on whether if the mechanism of random mutations +natural selection is the main cause of the diversity of life. Or if there are other that played a more important role.

Agree? Yes or no?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Yes, with a large enough group there are always a few crazies. If one does not want to be thought of as a crazy one must do more than so "I don't believe this" in the sciences. One must be able to form a testable hypothesis and find evidence for one's claims. If one cannot do that and merely opposes, as Behe does, then that person quickly earns the status of being a failed scientist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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,?

Using a strawman argument, especially after you were corrected amounts to lying. And if you want to debate understanding the scientific method and the concept of evidence is a must. Until you do that you are only flailing around in the dark. Your inability to understand these concepts is why it is a false claim on your part when you say that others have not supported their claims.

 

[leroy]

Yes, with a large enough group there are always a few crazies. If one does not want to be thought of as a crazy one must do more than so "I don't believe this" in the sciences. One must be able to form a testable hypothesis and find evidence for one's claims. If one cannot do that and merely opposes, as Behe does, then that person quickly earns the status of being a failed scientist.

Well take for example the alternative mechanism of natural genetic engineering proposed by James shapiro

His hypothesis is testable, and his work is avaliable in peer reviewed articles.

If this doest count as "controversy" the what would?

 

[leroy]

Using a strawman argument, especially after you were corrected amounts to lying. And if you want to debate understanding the scientific method and the concept of evidence is a must. Until you do that you are only flailing around in the dark. Your inability to understand these concepts is why it is a false claim on your part when you say that others have not supported their claims.

If it is a strawman then it is a strawman period, you don't have to defend the claim if you are not making such a claim


If you don't claim that eyes and flagella evolved mainly by a mechanism of "what I call random mutations" + natural selection, then you don't have to defend such claim

So are you making that claim, yes or no?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well take for example the alternative mechanism of natural genetic engineering proposed by James shapiro

His hypothesis is testable, and his work is avaliable in peer reviewed articles.

If this doest count as "controversy" the what would?

How is his idea testable? What exactly is the premise and what test, based upon the idea's own merits, could be done?

And one has to be careful when it comes to peer review. There are quite a few false journals run by creationists that do not follow peer review. Unless he did something rather amazing recently he too fits in the realm of failed scientists. I have heard his arguments against evolution and it is simply amazing how much of evolution that he gets wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If it is a strawman then it is a strawman period, you don't have to defend the claim if you are not making such a claim


If you don't claim that eyes and flagella evolved mainly by a mechanism of "what I call random mutations" + natural selection, then you don't have to defend such claim

So are you making that claim, yes or no?

I would appreciate it if you could try to debate properly.

And once again you go back to the strawman. It looks like you are trolling or lying at this point.

 

[leroy]

I would appreciate it if you could try to debate properly.

And once again you go back to the strawman. It looks like you are trolling or lying at this point.

I am not trolling, I honestly and sincerely don't understand your view.

Do you claim that complex systems like the eye evolved from preexisting systems mainly through the mechanism of random variation and natural selection? Yes or No?

 

[leroy]

How is his idea testable? What exactly is the premise and what test, based upon the idea's own merits, could be done?

And one has to be careful when it comes to peer review. There are quite a few false journals run by creationists that do not follow peer review. Unless he did something rather amazing recently he too fits in the realm of failed scientists. I have heard his arguments against evolution and it is simply amazing how much of evolution that he gets wrong.

Shapiro doesn't publish in creationists journals, he is a hard core anti creationist. (who is also skeptical to Darwinism)

Some examples:

Natural genetic engineering in evolution

Genome organization, natural genetic engineering and adaptive mutation - ScienceDirect


I honestly don't know what are you expecting, if these articles do not show that there is a controversy, what would convince you that there is a controversy ?... You don't have to agree with shapiro, all you have to do is admit that there are alternatives to Darwinism that may (or may not be) correct

 

[shunyadragon]

Sure me too I also accept the basics of evolution, I accept that organisms change and adapt, I accept universal common ancestry and I accept that complex systems evolved gradually from preexisting systems..... Is that what you mean with "basics of evolution"?

Basic Biology, Organic Chemistry, and Genetics to understand evolution, which you lack.

The controversy is on whether if the mechanism of random mutations +natural selection is the main cause of the diversity of life. Or if there are other that played a more important role.

Agree? Yes or no?

No. It is not a controversy in science, First we have to get past the fact that random mutations are not a mechanism, and the only thing they do is increase the diversity of the variation in genes, Only the individual mutations are random.

Again, your arguing for the negative in support of Intelligent Design, and no there are no viable hypothesis to support this, nor any alternative to evolution of life.

 

[shunyadragon]

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 ?

At least several, but the number of mutations are not the basis. It is the diversity of mutations in the predecessors of the light sensitive cells.

You have not responded to the following: 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.

 

[YoursTrue]

Isn't instinct innate morality?

No. What makes you think it could be? Instinct is as I was taught, fight or flight. Morality and thoughtful judgment is different.

 

[shunyadragon]

Shapiro doesn't publish in creationists journals, he is a hard core anti creationist. (who is also skeptical to Darwinism)

Some examples:

Natural genetic engineering in evolution

Genome organization, natural genetic engineering and adaptive mutation - ScienceDirect


I honestly don't know what are you expecting, if these articles do not show that there is a controversy, what would convince you that there is a controversy ?... You don't have to agree with shapiro, all you have to do is admit that there are alternatives to Darwinism that may (or may not be) correct

Shapiro is NOT skeptical of evolution, and there is no mention of Neo Darwinism in his articles. All the articles you cited are disagreements and advances within the science of evolution.

Please note from your reference: Natural genetic engineering in evolution

"In some cases, we know that cells are able to accomplish extensive genome reorganization within one or a few cell generations. The emergence of bacterial antibiotic resistance is a contemporary example of evolutionary change; molecular analysis of this phenomenon has shown that it occurs by the addition and rearrangement of resistance determinants and genetic mobility systems rather than by gradual modification of pre-existing cellular genomes. In addition, bacteria and other organisms have intricate repair systems to prevent genetic change by sporadic physicochemical damage or errors of the replication machinery. In their ensemble, these results show that living cells have (and use) the biochemical apparatus to evolve by a genetic engineering process.

Apparently you are clueless, and do not understand the references you cited by Shapiro. Shapiro's work involves disagreements within the science of evolution and NOT skepticism as to whether evolution takes place or not.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, neither had we until just a few thousand years ago, which is a very, very brief period in discussions on evolution. Most of the time the human species has been around, there was no writing, no organized government, and no living in communities with a fixed location. Even other apes are limited to pretty simple tool use and tribal levels of organization.

Those animals just didn't evolve to figure out reading and writing.

 

[YoursTrue]

Shapiro is NOT skeptical of evolution, and there is no mention of Neo Darwinism in his articles. All the articles you cited is disagreements and advances in the science of evolution.

Please not from your reference: Natural genetic engineering in evolution

In some cases, we know that cells are able to accomplish extensive genome reorganization within one or a few cell generations. The emergence of bacterial antibiotic resistance is a contemporary example of evolutionary change; molecular analysis of this phenomenon has shown that it occurs by the addition and rearrangement of resistance determinants and genetic mobility systems rather than by gradual modification of pre-existing cellular genomes. In addition, bacteria and other organisms have intricate repair systems to prevent genetic change by sporadic physicochemical damage or errors of the replication machinery. In their ensemble, these results show that living cells have (and use) the biochemical apparatus to evolve by a genetic engineering process.

Apparently you are clueless, and do not understand the references you cited by Shapiro. Shapiro's work involves disagreements within the science of evolution and NOT skepticism as to whether evolution takes place or not.

As far as skeptical goes, there is simply no reason to believe it all came about "by itself." For one thing, the odds are astronomically inconceivable. No matter how many bacteria become mutant, that's not evolution. What it is is the ability of a living form to emerge into something of a similar sort. That is the ability. But it's not evolution of the Darwinian kind as if dinosaurs became birds.

 

[shunyadragon]

As far as skeptical goes, there is simply no reason to believe it all came about "by itself." For one thing, the odds are astronomically inconceivable. No matter how many bacteria become mutant, that's not evolution. What it is is the ability of a living form to emerge into something of a similar sort. That is the ability. But it's not evolution of the Darwinian kind as if dinosaurs became birds.

Science does not propose the evolution and the nature of the universe came about 'by itself.' This concept is too foolishly anthropomorphic. The rest is rambling foolishness and nothing to do with science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well take for example the alternative mechanism of natural genetic engineering proposed by James shapiro

His hypothesis is testable, and his work is avaliable in peer reviewed articles.

If this doest count as "controversy" the what would?

Natural genetic engineering proposed by Shapiro is not an alternative to evolution. It is his conclusion based on his research as to how evolution takes place. Again he makes no mention of Neo-Darwinism.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, neither had we until just a few thousand years ago, which is a very, very brief period in discussions on evolution. Most of the time the human species has been around, there was no writing, no organized government, and no living in communities with a fixed location. Even other apes are limited to pretty simple tool use and tribal levels of organization.

Still, no matter how long you say humans have been around, no other species ever developed, or are developing reading and writing. I don't know about 'rithmetic, if bonobos and dogs use arithmetic.

 

[McBell]

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

Yes it is.
So stop doing it.

Also stop claiming that others who have NOT done so, have done so.
Makes you look bad.

 

[YoursTrue]

Science does not propose the evolution and the nature of the universe came about 'by itself.' This concept is too foolishly anthropomorphic. The rest is rambling foolishness and nothing to do with science.

I knew you or someone like you would challenge the statement that evolution has it that things just come about by themselves. No? They don't? Go ahead and explain.