Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

The video (nor the paper) represent a step by step path. You can't go from. Stage a to stage b via a single mutation

Why not? You don't appear to even know what a mutation is in the first place.

Here is something you need to remember, an inability to understand on your part does not mean that something is impossible. Once again it appears that you are trying to use an argument from ignorance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That would imply that life (the first living thing or first self replicating molecule) would lack at least 1 of the 3 attributes

So which one is it?

Something is specified and complex if:
1 has many parts or units (in this case many aminoacids)

2 there are many possible combinations, or many possible way to arrage these parts

3 only 1 or few combinations would produce something with a function or meaning. (in this case self replication)

Several parts. 1 is so vague as to be worthless. 2 is a "so what"? claim. And 3 appears to be wrong. You would need to prove that. The articles you rely on actually refute your claims so I do not know how you are going to do that.

 

[Valjean]

this is also relevant to a comment made by @Dan From Smithville

I am talking about the first living things that appeared on earth (which where supposedly self replicating molecules)

The point that I made is that this "first life" would have had the attribute of specified complexity and therefore would have had required a mind

What the first living things were depends on how you define "living." I wouldn't consider a self replicating molecule alive.
Many components of life are observed to form naturally, and some have been seen to combine. At what point such a combination would be considered alive is anyone's call.

I still don't understand what you mean by specified complexity. Complexity arises from natural mechanisms all the time. Where does specification fit in?

 

[ecco]

Demonstrate that you know there are no gods.

I did. If you have a problem understanding a logical argument, that is your problem, not mine.

I do note that you were unable to refute my argument.

Simple questions to ask yourself:
Do you know that Atlas is not a God?
If so, why?

 

[ecco]

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 probably believe that all gods, except the one you happen to believe in, are nothing more than the creations of man's imaginings.

You probably don't even realize how ridiculous that notion really is.

Hindus believe the same way you do.

You can't both be right, but you can both be wrong.

Bottom line - all gods are the creations of man's imaginings.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.)

You are changing the subject and not responding to my posts, but nonetheless chance nor randomness has no causal role in abiogenesis nor evolution. Chance or randomness only applies to the timing of each cause and effect event and not the outcome of the processes over time. The Laws of Nature and the environmental conditions are cause, and you have hundreds of millions of years for it happen when the environment is what is needed for abiogenesis.

 

[shunyadragon]

@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,

First problem is in the science of evolution randomness play no causal role.

The Cambrian Explosion was not fast it took millions of years, and the process extends into the PreCambrian.

 

[Valjean]

Yes I belive in the darwinian mechanism (random variation + natural selection) and I accept that somethings can be explained by this mechanism. The claim is not that Darwinism doesn't explain anything, but rather that Darwinism can't explain everything

..The alternative that I propose is non random genetic changes, there are many non random mechanisms where the genes change or jump from one place to an other forming new proteins, and new tools for survival. (natural genetic engineering would be an example of such mechanisms)

These mechanisms have been observed, they are real, and can produce fast changes in a short period of time. For example one can get new proteins in 1 generation via these mechanisms.

Obviously as a theist I belive that God is behind these mechanisms, but the mechanisms themselves are natural, you can still be a hard core atheist and accept the claim that these mechanisms rather than Darwinism are the main cause for the diversity of life.

Is this a special pleading for an agent that is both invisible and, by your own admission, unnecessary? You acknowledge that these non-random mechanisms could be natural, yet you remain wedded to this unevidenced and likely untestable idea of divine meddling.

You need more that just a "massive effect" you would need a mutation that would chance multiple independent systems for good.

And even more important, you have to show which of these "massive" mutations occured in the process of the evolution of the eye or the flagellum

Why do you say massive, multiple mutations are necessary? A single mutation could easily produce or deepen an eyespot cup, for example.

 

[Valjean]

Take for example a car,
1 it has many parts
2 there are many ways in which you can arrage this parts
3 but only one or few combinations would produce a functional car

Therefore the car has the attribute of specified complexity,

There is nothing tricky about this concept, in my opinion it is very easy to understand.

There may be only a few functional combinations, but how many chances are there for such configurations to occur, and for natural selection to work with and proliferate?

I still don't get the "specified," though.

 

[Valjean]

Why is nylonaise suppose to be relevant?

Be more specific, exactly what is the challenge.

Nylonase requires only 2 coordinated mutations, something that is within the limits of what is possible to achieve via random mutations and natural selection

So what sort of variation is outside the limits of variation and selection?

 

[Valjean]

For every functional fold there are 10^77 useless folds (source)
This doesn't mean that there is only one possible folding that would have a functional outcome, but it makes functional outcomes very, very unlikely to have o cure by chance.

An analogy would be, imagine that you have 100 different letters, sure there might be more than 1 meaningful sentence that can be forned with such letters, but the mayority of possible combinations would represent a meaningless set of letters.

The claim is that it is very unlikely for aminoacids to have organice by chance in the exact order required to produce the first living organism (a self replicating molecule)

Very unlikely x billions of chances = a statistical probability, and when a useful fold is chanced upon it's selected for.

 

[YoursTrue]

What the first living things were depends on how you define "living." I wouldn't consider a self replicating molecule alive.
Many components of life are observed to form naturally, and some have been seen to combine. At what point such a combination would be considered alive is anyone's call.

I still don't understand what you mean by specified complexity. Complexity arises from natural mechanisms all the time. Where does specification fit in?

So what do you consider as alive? (What were the first living things, iyo?)

 

[YoursTrue]

You are changing the subject and not responding to my posts, but nonetheless chance nor randomness has no causal role in abiogenesis nor evolution. Chance or randomness only applies to the timing of each cause and effect event and not the outcome of the processes over time. The Laws of Nature and the environmental conditions are cause, and you have hundreds of millions of years for it happen when the environment is what is needed for abiogenesis.

It's not that I am avoiding your posts. I don't understand them and asking for explanations leads to more confusion as far as I'm concerned. Now you're saying the laws of nature and environmental conditions are cause -- When I look at the complexity of the human body, the heart, the veins, the stomach, the brain, muscles, it is impossible for me to believe that they just came about due to -- the laws of nature and environmental conditions -- in other terms, natural selection, replicating cells without intitial (and I mean initial) guidance. So have a good night. It's been interesting.

 

[Valjean]

I'm wondering. I wonder also what Valjean thinks. I'll relate what he says when I have more time. I've been looking up about what the NIH (National Institutes of Health) is saying about cells being the smallest (?) form of living matter. Of course that leads to questions in my mind, me not being that conversant with all these things, but -- now again -- wonder what Valjean thinks if there is a penile and scrotum transplant that works, and how can that be natural selection. At first I didn't think so, but now -- I wonder. (Thanks.)

I'm not sure what you're asking. I suppose any small living object would be a cell, by definition -- though it might be very simple or configured very differently from unicellular organisms we're familiar with.
As for transplants, a transplant isn't changed genetically, nor does it genetically change the recipient. A transplanted kidney retains the DNA of the donor and doe not affect the DNA of the recipient. Why would testicular or ovarian transplantation be any different?

 

[Bear Wild]

1 Specified complexity can only come from. A mind

2 life (say the first living thing) was specified and complex

Therefore life came from a mind,............... both of the premises are testable, and falsifiable, and there are good objective and scientific reasons to accept each of the premises

Exactly how does this have any verifiable support.
1. Nature has complexity but it is not specified. You are using human centric explanations which is a ego driven mistake and to limited for the natural world. Actually the mind is the product of the natural processes which are not all random. Thus you have the problem reversed. Nature creates complex structures and therefore the mind comes from natural processes. This is clearly demonstrated in evolutional theory. ID loses this argument.

2. Live is complex but not specified and naturally produced. Thus the mind comes from as a result of life. Again you have it backwards. The process is well understood through the theory of evolution which has evidence. Again ID has no evidence only opinion!
I think therefor it is so! False assumption.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not sure what you're asking. I suppose any small living object would be a cell, by definition -- though it might be very simple or configured very differently from unicellular organisms we're familiar with.
As for transplants, a transplant isn't changed genetically, nor does it genetically change the recipient. A transplanted kidney retains the DNA of the donor and doe not affect the DNA of the recipient. Why would testicular or ovarian transplantation be any different?

I am asking right now if you agree with the National Institute of Health in their definition of cell. Which is: that cells are the smallest form of living matter. I'm leaving the subject of transplants and so-called natural selection for the present because there's much for me to learn, but I was wondering about that. So now I read that many scientists say that cells are the smallest form of living matter. Do you agree with that?

 

[Bear Wild]

Magic.

ID is totally dependent on magic. It has no other way to explain what happens.
" I don't understand how this could happen therefore GOD DID IT with a magical wand" Or was that Harry Potter, although at least most of the people who read Harry Potter at least realize it is fantasy (although maybe not all).

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not sure what you're asking. I suppose any small living object would be a cell, by definition -- though it might be very simple or configured very differently from unicellular organisms we're familiar with.
As for transplants, a transplant isn't changed genetically, nor does it genetically change the recipient. A transplanted kidney retains the DNA of the donor and doe not affect the DNA of the recipient. Why would testicular or ovarian transplantation be any different?

(I'm off the subject of transplant until I have more information.)
So now I have to figure what is a cell, which you say could be any small living object. And then you say it might be very simple or configured very differently from unicellular organisms.
Studying Cells
Here is how they describe a cell -- "Cells provide structure and function for all living things, from microorganisms to humans. Scientists consider them the smallest form of life." To repeat their statement: Scientists consider them the smallest form of life. Do you agree?

 

[Valjean]

So what do you consider as alive? (What were the first living things, iyo?)

I don't know what the first living things were. Candidates, if found, would probably be controversial even among biologists.

I'd consider something alive if it were organized, metabolized (took in and processed nutrients/energy, grew, reproduced and responded to environmental stimuli.
But that's just me.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not sure what you're asking. I suppose any small living object would be a cell, by definition -- though it might be very simple or configured very differently from unicellular organisms we're familiar with.
As for transplants, a transplant isn't changed genetically, nor does it genetically change the recipient. A transplanted kidney retains the DNA of the donor and doe not affect the DNA of the recipient. Why would testicular or ovarian transplantation be any different?

I'm leaving the subject of transplants right now.
What I am asking is if you agree with the National Institute of Health (United States governmental agency) that explains what a cell is. They say that "Scientists consider them the smallest form of life." So in order for me to have a conversation that I can follow with you, do you agree that cells are the smallest form of life?
You may refer to this link: Studying Cells