Evidence For And Against Evolution

[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,

You seem to be pushing the idea that despite all the evidence supporting evolution, if there is not 100% support, then the theory is out the window and any idea, no matter how wild or plausible, is an equal.

I assume you will also be rejecting your own religious views in light of the doubt a much larger and more diverse group has regarding your particular brand.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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!

That is not genetic engineering.

I thought you studied biology or is that just something creationist say.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My apologies to everyone for letting an off topic aside take on a life it's on and interfere with the topic of this thread. I started with a question that was, in retrospect, not only off topic, but too heated a subject. Having doubts about a particular phrasing was not raised to offend anyone and I am sorry if it did.

i have nothing more to say here, but am glad what posted was largely ignored and the main topic continued.

Again, sorry for the interruption.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That you didn't understand what I was saying.

Okay, so then can you explain what you meant when you said:

"I didn't like it when the minister gave me that answer. I kept telling him I don't believe in God, so how can God give me faith. And he rather kindly repeated that no one can give me that faith but God. And I realized that it was then a circle. I didn't want to get rude with him, so I terminated the conversation. Well anyway, here I am. With faith."

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

Of course we can. We're trying to help educate you on the subject because it's clear that your knowledge of the subject matter is quite lacking.

The thing about evolution I'm always saying is that usually when people don't accept evolution, it's simply because they don't understand it.
Case in point.

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.

The poster said this:

"What reason do you have to believe that these things cannot come about as a natural result of a developed brain?"

Can you explain how your response addresses that?

 

[leroy]

You seem to be pushing the idea that despite all the evidence supporting evolution, if there is not 100% support, then the theory is out the window and any idea, no matter how wild or plausible, is an equal.

I assume you will also be rejecting your own religious views in light of the doubt a much larger and more diverse group has regarding your particular brand.

But these are not just "any idea" these are models that have been published in peer reviewed literature

 

[leroy]

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.

There is evidence that NGE can cause what we might call micro evolution, but there is no evidence that this mechanism can be stretched and cause "macro evolution" (the same is true with Darwinism)

I know that these terms (micro and macro) are arbitrary, but hopefully you understand the point that NGE has been observed to cause small changes (say new proteins) but not big changes (like eyes)

I am not promoting NGE more implying the mechanism is successful, I am just prese ting this as an example of an alternative to Darwinism, simply to show that in the peer reviewed literature there is a controversy on whether is darwnisim or neo Darwinism are successful models that explain the diversity of life

 

[leroy]

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.

Yes yes natural forces.....

The question is do you claim that organisms evolve mainly by the mechanisms of random variation and natural selection? The key word is "mainly" obviously there are other mechanisms a d natural forces , but would you say that random variation and natural selection is the main mechanism and the main cause of the diversity of life, or would you say that there are other mechanisms that play a more important role?

 

[gnostic]

But these are not just "any idea" these are models that have been published in peer reviewed literature

Excuse me, but I don’t think you have read a peer-reviewed literature or journal.

Peer Review don’t just present their views on any hypothesis or theory, they must review the data from the observed evidence or the test results of the experiments.

If you don’t review the data with the explanations, mathematical equations and predictions, then what you call peer reviewed literature aren’t “Peer Review”.

In order for any model, be they hypotheses or theories to be reviewed, they must be -

1. first, be falsifiable, which are set of predictions and set of instructions on how ones would find the evidence, either in the fields or experiments in the labs.
2. second, be tested by following the specifications of Scientific Method (eg testing evidences and recording data)

Failing to do either, will automatically disqualify itself from being peer reviewed. No one would bother to read and review any model that aren’t falsifiable and tested.


All evolutionary mechanisms (eg Natural Selection, Mutation, Genetic Drift, Gene Flow, Genetic Hitchhiking) have been already peer-reviewed, throughout the 20th century and 21st century.

Creationism has never been peer-reviewed.

Intelligent Design also hasn’t been peer-reviewed, ever, because ID isn’t even a hypothesis, because the Discovery Institute’s ID has never been falsifiable.

Even Michael Behe admitted during cross examination that ID has never been peer reviewed, because in his words, “There are no original research and data”, which mean no evidence. Hence, ID isn’t just unfalsifiable and untestable, it is pseudoscience junk.

 

[gnostic]

@leroy

Michael Behe’s own paper on Irreducible Complexity isn’t a hypothesis, because he actually failed to present evidence and data.

Irreducible Complexity isn’t falsifiable, not tested and never been peer-reviewed.

All Behe provided were his inference, and some computer simulations.

Inference is the use of logic and reasoning, therefore they are not evidence.

Computer simulations aren’t evidence, because you can manipulate computer simulations to be biased.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Excuse me, but I don’t think you have read a peer-reviewed literature or journal.

Peer Review don’t just present their views on any hypothesis or theory, they must review the data from the observed evidence or the test results of the experiments.

If you don’t review the data with the explanations, mathematical equations and predictions, then what you call peer reviewed literature aren’t “Peer Review”.

In order for any model, be they hypotheses or theories to be reviewed, they must be -

1. first, be falsifiable, which are set of predictions and set of instructions on how ones would find the evidence, either in the fields or experiments in the labs.
2. second, be tested by following the specifications of Scientific Method (eg testing evidences and recording data)

Failing to do either, will automatically disqualify itself from being peer reviewed. No one would bother to read and review any model that aren’t falsifiable and tested.


All evolutionary mechanisms (eg Natural Selection, Mutation, Genetic Drift, Gene Flow, Genetic Hitchhiking) have been already peer-reviewed, throughout the 20th century and 21st century.

Creationism has never been peer-reviewed.

Intelligent Design also hasn’t been peer-reviewed, ever, because ID isn’t even a hypothesis, because the Discovery Institute’s ID has never been falsifiable.

Even Michael Behe admitted during cross examination that ID has never been peer reviewed, because in his words, “There are no original research and data”, which mean no evidence. Hence, ID isn’t just unfalsifiable and untestable, it is pseudoscience junk.

And that raises a huge question. To test a concept it is not necessary to repeat the event. Evolution is tested by the evidence that the process leaves behind. Why cannot creationists come up with a way of testing their ideas? I know why. They have had a history of failure when they do. The creationists that understand science also understand why they are wrong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But these are not just "any idea" these are models that have been published in peer reviewed literature

Clearly, you do not understand what peer review means. Not that I expected you to.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is evidence that NGE can cause what we might call micro evolution, but there is no evidence that this mechanism can be stretched and cause "macro evolution" (the same is true with Darwinism)

I know that these terms (micro and macro) are arbitrary, but hopefully you understand the point that NGE has been observed to cause small changes (say new proteins) but not big changes (like eyes)

I am not promoting NGE more implying the mechanism is successful, I am just prese ting this as an example of an alternative to Darwinism, simply to show that in the peer reviewed literature there is a controversy on whether is darwnisim or neo Darwinism are successful models that explain the diversity of life

Actually, the theory of evolution explains evolution, both that which is called micro- and that which is referred to as macro. You simply deny that the latter occurs.

The current theory is the best explanation available. It just doesn't account for your favorite religious view, so you do what you can to cast doubt on it.

 

[leroy]

And that raises a huge question. To test a concept it is not necessary to repeat the event. Evolution is tested by the evidence that the process leaves behind. Why cannot creationists come up with a way of testing their ideas? I know why. They have had a history of failure when they do. The creationists that understand science also understand why they are wrong.

If you find a step by step path of benefitial random mutations that show how a blind creature evolves eyes, ID would be falsified

In the other hand, Darwinism is not falsifiable, if one shows that a particular path is not viable all you have to do is suggest an other path.... Given that there are trillions and trillions of possible paths it is impossible to show that each individual path is not viable.

 

[leroy]

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.

r.

Ok if one needs several mutations to go from completely blind to light sencitive cells, then the videos and images showing how eyes evolved, are not showing a step by step path (therefore behes argument has not been falsified)

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you find a step by step path of benefitial random mutations that show how a blind creature evolves eyes, ID would be falsified

In the other hand, Darwinism is not falsifiable, if one shows that a particular path is not viable all you have to do is suggest an other path.... Given that there are trillions and trillions of possible paths it is impossible to show that each individual path is not viable.

That is incorrect. That is not a proper test as written. It relies upon another idea being shown to be correct. You need to test it in its own merits. This was already explained to you.

On the other hand there are many tests that could refute evolution. Just because you can't think of any does not mean that they do not exist. I am sure that some have been given to you. When we claim that ID is not testifiable that claim is based on the fact that even the believers in it cannot seem to come up with a test.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok if one needs several mutations to go from completely blind to light sencitive cells, then the videos and images showing how eyes evolved, are not showing a step by step path (therefore behes argument has not been falsified)

Sorry, you do not appear to understand falsification.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you find a step by step path of benefitial random mutations that show how a blind creature evolves eyes, ID would be falsified

In the other hand, Darwinism is not falsifiable, if one shows that a particular path is not viable all you have to do is suggest an other path.... Given that there are trillions and trillions of possible paths it is impossible to show that each individual path is not viable.

What you wrote here does not make sense. Darwinism is not the theory of evolution. It is what creationists use to refer to for those that accept science and evolution.

A pathway is an hypothesis. It is accepted or rejected based on testing th at hypothesis. Rejecting it would not be a regulation of the theory. You have this all boondoggled.

It is irreducible complexity that cannot be supported due to the myriad of potential constructs that must be tested, but cannot possibly be tested that form the basis for failure of that concept.

As a theory, ID fails, because it cannot be falsified. The theory of evolution can be falsified.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you find a step by step path of benefitial random mutations that show how a blind creature evolves eyes, ID would be falsified

In the other hand, Darwinism is not falsifiable, if one shows that a particular path is not viable all you have to do is suggest an other path.... Given that there are trillions and trillions of possible paths it is impossible to show that each individual path is not viable.

Pathways for the evolution of eyes, other biological features, and lineages have been proposed based on the evidence. No supernatural agent is necessary to the support of these hypotheses.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok if one needs several mutations to go from completely blind to light sencitive cells, then the videos and images showing how eyes evolved, are not showing a step by step path (therefore behes argument has not been falsified)

This is the sort of blind argument that creationists always use. It is God of the gaps. If people cannot show every steep along the way, then creationism lives in the gaps.

If my friend comes all the way from Germany to visit me, she isn't really there, because I cannot show every step of her footfall between me and Germany. Your denial is hilarious beyond absurdity.

However, IR cannot be claimed, because every possible permutation of a structure claimed to be irreducible cannot be tested. But only one that falsified it need be found. They have bern.