Evidence For And Against Evolution

[YoursTrue]

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.

Now that you're at genetic engineering, it turns out that scientists are proposing the idea of changing heads and spinal structures to different bodies. Now there's an idea for evolution. Put a different (entire) head (as sci-fi writers used to work on) on a body and just see what happens!

 

[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.

How about abiogenesis. Chance that life emerged from whatever they say it emerged from? What are the odds of these chemicals transforming into life? (Just like that, yup, and over and over from that same source, more than amazing, it's as some scientists say -- beyond belief, such as astronomical to the absurd degree.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

Those along with other natural causes, such as genetic drift and gene flow. But yes, all of the evidence supports the claim that natural forces are enough.

And you still have not shown that you understand mutations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How about abiogenesis. Chance that life emerged from whatever they say it emerged from? What are the odds of these chemicals transforming into life? (Just like that, yup, and over and over from that same source, more than amazing, it's as some scientists say -- beyond belief, such as astronomical to the absurd degree.)

The odds appear to be about one. Every "odds argument" against abiogensis that I have ever seen has been a fatally flawed argument due to erroneous assumptions in their premises.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Do you have these articles to share with the group and do they really say what you claim they say? Or is this going to be more of your dodge, dip, duck, dive and dodge?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The first paper has been cited a grand total of three times. That is rather low for a peer reviewed article. The second one may not have been cited at all.

And no, Shapiro is a creationist. He may not be a YEC, but he is still a creationist that argues dishonestly against evolution.

Just as I suspected.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

When I saw the name I thought of another creationist. Dang, now I forgot his name. But I checked out the article and found nothing that pointed away from "Darwinism" a poor term since the theory of evolution has changed quite a bit since Darwin's time. Change of course does not mean "incorporated a designer'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just as I suspected.

I screwed up. He was not who I thought that he was. Now I need to check the roster of creation "scientists". Luckily it is very short

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

What is natural genetic engineering? The door has been closed on intelligent design. I know you hate that, but alas, it is so. It turns out that is just religion disguised as science and no one has been able to disguise it enough for anyone with any critical thinking skills at all to be fooled.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I screwed up. He was not who I thought that he was. Now I need to check the roster of creation "scientists". Luckily it is very short

Well even if it turns out to be a paper by some fringe scientist, it doesn't suddenly make intelligent design the default explanation. A scientific explanation would still be required.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well even if it turns out to be a paper by some fringe scientist, it doesn't suddenly make intelligent design the default explanation. A scientific explanation would still be required.

But that does not even appear to be the case. Unless he had more to say than could be seen in the little bit of that article that is free. I think that @leroy used this argument in the past now that I think of it. And it was pointed out to him back then that the scientist did not oppose evolution. And when I say opposing evolution that means claimed there needed to be a designer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I found who I was thinking of. David Berlinski.:

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #24: David Berlinski

I remember that he got nominated for an award one year.

 

[gnostic]

Now that you're at genetic engineering, it turns out that scientists are proposing the idea of changing heads and spinal structures to different bodies. Now there's an idea for evolution. Put a different (entire) head (as sci-fi writers used to work on) on a body and just see what happens!

You still don’t understand that when they talk of Evolution, they talking of changes that occur to population, and not changes of individual or two.

And when they talk of Evolution, they are talking of what ancestors’ traits have passed on to descendants, genetically.

What you are proposing of transplanting head or spine to another body, isn’t genetic, let alone evolution.

Any surgery done, including those of transplants, have nothing to do with genetics or with evolution.

That just another example of “you” providing some ridiculous examples that are not relevant to evolution. You are just making things up, and blaming the concepts of evolution for something that you clearly don’t understand.

You cannot blame biologists for your own ignorant narrow-minded shortcomings.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But that does not even appear to be the case. Unless he had more to say than could be seen in the little bit of that article that is free. I think that @leroy used this argument in the past now that I think of it. And it was pointed out to him back then that the scientist did not oppose evolution. And when I say opposing evolution that means claimed there needed to be a designer.

Punctuated equilibrium has been used as an example, by creationists, of dissent among scientist. But the concept is not an alternative for the theory, not does it refute the theory. It is an argument about the mode of evolution. It was formulated based on observations of the fossil evidence and not on some preconceived idea. As you well know, when a creationist brings it up, it is clear they haven't the least clue what is being stated in PE. It fits with the theory and does not detract from or refute it.

In true creationist style, repeating previously refuted notions after some time has passed and they feel a comfort level for bringing it back up as if it were brand new is standard operating procedure.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

And we don't run fast or have good night vision. Language is our specialization.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Yes, in fact, it is, if the bacteria are more adapted to their environment.

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.

But the small changes from one generation to another add up to large changes over thousands of generations. Birds are, technically, a type of dinosaur because their ancestors were a type of dinosaur.

 

[Polymath257]

How about abiogenesis. Chance that life emerged from whatever they say it emerged from? What are the odds of these chemicals transforming into life? (Just like that, yup, and over and over from that same source, more than amazing, it's as some scientists say -- beyond belief, such as astronomical to the absurd degree.)

Good question. We are investigating exactly that. And, from what we have found, it seems much more likely than a naive first impression would suggest.

 

[leroy]

@shunyadragon @Subduction Zone @Dan Mellis

I will try to sumerize my point regarding natural genetic engineering, rather that responding to each individual comment,


Natural Genetic Engineering (NGE) is not claimed to be an alternative to evolution (it depends on how you define evolution) NGE is an alternative to Neodarwinism...... (the view that the diversity of life is mainly caused by the mechanism of random variation + natural selection).

This is a natural mechanism in which organisms reorganize their DNA in order to produce new stuff (say new proteins) that would produce a new function and overcome threats from the environment (for example antibiotics) the claim is that genes are "Lego-like " they can change their configuration if there is selective preassure.

The important thing is that this mechanism is not random, DNA doesn't change randomly by this process.

This mechanism has been obverved, we know that this mechanism is real, and we know that this mechanism can create new stuff like new proteins.

The question is whether if there is a barrier or limit that prevents "big macro evolutionary changes" like eyes or flagella.

Nobody claims with certainty that organisms evolve through this mechanism, but it certainly has some advetages, this mechanism can produce relatively large changes in 1 generation, for example new proteins can evolve in a few minutes... A mechanism that can produce Fast changes is exactly what we need to explain things like the cambrian explotion.

I mentioned NGE simply as an example of an alternative to neoDarwinism other alternatives are neolamarkism, epigenetics, neutralism etc these are all alternatives to neodarwinism, the only point that I am Making is that neodarwinism (as I defined it) is controversial scienists do not claim with certainty that this mechanism is the main cause of the diversity of life. Neodarwinism is just 1 of many possible alternatives, perhaps it is correct perhaps is wrong,

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I found who I was thinking of. David Berlinski.:

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #24: David Berlinski

I remember that he got nominated for an award one year.

I recommend reading the three part article on skepticism and paranoia that is linked the Berlinski page. It is very thought provoking and summarizes conditions facing modern science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@shunyadragon @Subduction Zone @Dan Mellis

I will try to sumerize my point regarding natural genetic engineering, rather that responding to each individual comment,


Natural Genetic Engineering (NGE) is not claimed to be an alternative to evolution (it depends on how you define evolution) NGE is an alternative to Neodarwinism...... (the view that the diversity of life is mainly caused by the mechanism of random variation + natural selection).

This is a natural mechanism in which organisms reorganize their DNA in order to produce new stuff (say new proteins) that would produce a new function and overcome threats from the environment (for example antibiotics) the claim is that genes are "Lego-like " they can change their configuration if there is selective preassure.

The important thing is that this mechanism is not random, DNA doesn't change randomly by this process.

This mechanism has been obverved, we know that this mechanism is real, and we know that this mechanism can create new stuff like new proteins.

The question is whether if there is a barrier or limit that prevents "big macro evolutionary changes" like eyes or flagella.

Nobody claims with certainty that organisms evolve through this mechanism, but it certainly has some advetages, this mechanism can produce relatively large changes in 1 generation, for example new proteins can evolve in a few minutes... A mechanism that can produce Fast changes is exactly what we need to explain things like the cambrian explotion.

I mentioned NGE simply as an example of an alternative to neoDarwinism other alternatives are neolamarkism, epigenetics, neutralism etc these are all alternatives to neodarwinism, the only point that I am Making is that neodarwinism (as I defined it) is controversial scienists do not claim with certainty that this mechanism is the main cause of the diversity of life. Neodarwinism is just 1 of many possible alternatives, perhaps it is correct perhaps is wrong,

Is there evidence supporting natural genetic engineering? Does it really challenge the theory, or is it just an interesting and untested hypothesis?

If 1% disagree with a theory, is that really a controversy? For you I guess.