Evidence For And Against Evolution

[leroy]

Can you be more specific as to which mechanism you are talking about, when you talking about variation?

With random variation I mean Random mutations or just any random change in the genotype

But I have to admit that I am lost, what is your point?

Darwin suggested that organisms are born with random variations with respect to their parents, and some of these variations have a selective benefit and are therefore more likely to survive and reproduce. (this is what I mean with "darwinian" mechanism)

 

[leroy]

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.

I would say that God would be the cause of these mechanisms in the same way God would be the ultimate cause of everything.

But you don't have to accept my theological stuff... All I'm saying is that the evidence seems to indicate that complex systems evolve mainly by a mechanism of non random mutations, NGE seems to be a more viable mechanism than Darwinism...... Agree?

A single mutation could easily produce or deepen an eyespot cup, for example.

Yes that particular step could be a result of the mechanism of random mutation, + natural selection......... remember the claim is not that this mechanism can't explain anything, the claim is that this mechanism can't explain everything.

 

[leroy]

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

Behe talks about a limit of maximum 2 coordinated mutations.

If a "step" requires 2 mutations in order to get a selective benefit (where 1 mutation by itself would be useless) such an even would be very unlikely but possible (specially for univelukar organisms)

beyond 2 coordinated mutations it would be ststistically impossible to do it.

So for example if an organism requires 3 mutations in order to become immune to an antibiotic such an event won't occur, not even in 10 billion years. (as long as each individual mutation has no selective benefit)

 

[gnostic]

I would say that God would be the cause of these mechanisms in the same way God would be the ultimate cause of everything.

You do realize that’s still the same thing as believing in superstitions?

How does “God did it” differ from Thor or Zeus causing thunder and lightning, or Poseidon being the cause of earthquake, or Hades or Osiris being cause of the afterlife?

In this day and age, where science have been able to explain many of mechanisms of the natural world, there are still people who believe in “God did it” superstitions.

Creationists and ID adherents are still trying to hinder science progress to explain how nature works, with their outdated primitive superstitions.

 

[McBell]

Behe talks about a limit of maximum 2 coordinated mutations.

If a "step" requires 2 mutations in order to get a selective benefit (where 1 mutation by itself would be useless) such an even would be very unlikely but possible (specially for univelukar organisms)

beyond 2 coordinated mutations it would be ststistically impossible to do it.

So for example if an organism requires 3 mutations in order to become immune to an antibiotic such an event won't occur, not even in 10 billion years. (as long as each individual mutation has no selective benefit)

Never did understand how someone can seriously claim that something that has already happened could not have happened because the odds are against it.

 

[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?

An interesting thought was offered at scitechdaily about the start of life. New Answers in the Search for the Origin of Life
These evidently are necessary components for living matter, but -- to make cells replicate and continue replicating, is, frankly, unfathomable by my mind and scientists alike, which is why I believe scientists can't figure it out.
Right in the first chapter of the Bible it says, "And to every beast of the earth and every bird of the air and every creature that crawls upon the earth—everything that has the breath of life in it—I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so." Speaks of the what has the breath of life in it. Not just light, or water, or minerals, but what has the breath of life in it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Never did understand how someone can seriously claim that something that has already happened could not have happened because the odds are against it.

What has happened? Life starting? Have scientists figured it out yet? New Answers in the Search for the Origin of Life

 

[gnostic]

Yes that particular step could be a result of the mechanism of random mutation, + natural selection......... remember the claim is not that this mechanism can't explain anything, the claim is that this mechanism can't explain everything.

You keep saying that. Evolution doesn’t explain everything, and it was never meant to explain everything.

Why do you think there are active research on the Abiogenesis hypothesis?

Abiogenesis is attempts to explain how life started on Earth, that Evolution doesn’t explain.

But it isn’t just Evolution. Every natural science disciplines are broken down into different fields and sub-fields, which allow for specialized knowledge.

To give you an example, in medical school, you won’t see teachers of dentistry teach students about neuroscience or cardiovascular medicine. Dentistry don’t teach everything about medicine, nor do neuroscience or cardiovascular science.

To give you an example of my experience. When I got out of high school to do civil engineering course, I had to learn many things that are related to design and construction of buildings and sewerage systems, roads and bridges, and so on, and I could specialize in certain areas. One of the many things that I need to learn are some physics that are relevant to this courses, such as Newtonian mechanisms about mass and forces, and hydrology science.

What physics I didn’t need to know, eg (Special or General) Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Nuclear Physics, Electrical and Electronics, Astrophysics, and so many other physics disciplines I did have to learn, because I don’t require to learn everything.

It would be counterproductive to learn everything. And no science teach everything.

So you repeating yourself with this silly strawman that Evolution can’t teach and explain everything just show how little you understand science.

But guess what, leroy...you believe that god cause everything, especially natural world, and your main sources about god, come from the Bible and church teachings.

And yet the Bible explain absolutely nothing about science behind nature, and the Bible certainly DOESN’T EXPLAIN “EVERYTHING”.

Nothing in the Bible explain everything about biology, it cannot even explain basic anatomy and physiology of any parts of the human body. It doesn’t explain everything about astronomy.

And in Job 38, it explain absolutely nothing about rain, snow, thunderstorms and sea tides. All you see when reading about God being the cause of everything in Job 38 to 41, ranting like a petty child about his ultimate powers, and yet explain absolutely nothing.

And yet you believe that the Bible being true, particularly in creation, and yet Genesis don’t exhibit any real knowledge about the Earth or anything about life, including human.

In Genesis 2, God creating man from dust, is a perfect example of how little the author(s) understand human anatomy and dust. The whole dust being transformed into living male adult human, is nothing more than make believe fantasy.

Well, the Genesis creation doesn’t explain everything. It explain absolutely nothing, certainly nothing useful.

 

[YoursTrue]

Irreducible Complexity remained untested, leroy.

Even Behe has not tested his concept, because it is unfalsifiable. All Behe have done is make unsubstantiated assumptions about the eyes and about flagellum.

So Irreducible Complexity isn’t even science. There is no need to refute claims that re already unfalsifiable.

You really don’t understand the concepts of Falsifiability and of Scientific Method, do you?

You are making as if Behe has the fact regarding to Irreducible Complexity, and yet he has not once provided a single evidence to support his claim.

You keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again, using his eye and flagellum examples, but these are his claims, which he has never been able to test and verify.

It just how very little you really understand what is and what isn’t science.

But you say trying to figure out how life started is science? New Answers in the Search for the Origin of Life

 

[YoursTrue]

Good night?!?!?!? Your turning the lights on sound science and math that that if the foundation of our entire knowledge of our physical existence, and the reason airplanes fly and computers work, and do not crumble to dust

No. I'm not "turning the lights" off on what you call sound science. I'm saying that things like airplanes flying and computers working do not help figure out how life got started. New Answers in the Search for the Origin of Life. What is amazing (fantastic) is that we can explore the things of nature around us.

 

[YoursTrue]

You keep saying that. Evolution doesn’t explain everything, and it was never meant to explain everything.

Why do you think there are active research on the Abiogenesis hypothesis?

Abiogenesis is attempts to explain how life started on Earth, that Evolution doesn’t explain.

But it isn’t just Evolution. Every natural science disciplines are broken down into different fields and sub-fields, which allow for specialized knowledge.

To give you an example, in medical school, you won’t see teachers of dentistry teach students about neuroscience or cardiovascular medicine. Dentistry don’t teach everything about medicine, nor do neuroscience or cardiovascular science.

To give you an example of my experience. When I got out of high school to do civil engineering course, I had to learn many things that are related to design and construction of buildings and sewerage systems, roads and bridges, and so on, and I could specialize in certain areas. One of the many things that I need to learn are some physics that are relevant to this courses, such as Newtonian mechanisms about mass and forces, and hydrology science.

What physics I didn’t need to know, eg (Special or General) Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Nuclear Physics, Electrical and Electronics, Astrophysics, and so many other physics disciplines I did have to learn, because I don’t require to learn everything.

It would be counterproductive to learn everything. And no science teach everything.

So you repeating yourself with this silly strawman that Evolution can’t teach and explain everything just show how little you understand science.

But guess what, leroy...you believe that god cause everything, especially natural world, and your main sources about god, come from the Bible and church teachings.

And yet the Bible explain absolutely nothing about science behind nature, and the Bible certainly DOESN’T EXPLAIN “EVERYTHING”.

Nothing in the Bible explain everything about biology, it cannot even explain basic anatomy and physiology of any parts of the human body. It doesn’t explain everything about astronomy.

And in Job 38, it explain absolutely nothing about rain, snow, thunderstorms and sea tides. All you see when reading about God being the cause of everything in Job 38 to 41, ranting like a petty child about his ultimate powers, and yet explain absolutely nothing.

And yet you believe that the Bible being true, particularly in creation, and yet Genesis don’t exhibit any real knowledge about the Earth or anything about life, including human.

In Genesis 2, God creating man from dust, is a perfect example of how little the author(s) understand human anatomy and dust. The whole dust being transformed into living male adult human, is nothing more than make believe fantasy.

Well, the Genesis creation doesn’t explain everything. It explain absolutely nothing, certainly nothing useful.

I have not had God speak to me about how He made man from the dust, and now I do take it at its word -- that God made Adam from the dust, and Eve from Adam's rib. Perhaps one day I'll meet someone who knows more about the process. Let's leave that aside for a moment, though. Because what does speak to me (now) in a way, is that life coming from a natural somehow combination of elements, said to produce the first cell which replicates is both not verifiable or reasonable, as far as I am concerned. Meantime, you'd rather believe that humans came about as a result of combination of mutations leading to the formation of humans. There's so much more to it, but that's where I'll leave it for now.

 

[YoursTrue]

You keep saying that. Evolution doesn’t explain everything, and it was never meant to explain everything.

Why do you think there are active research on the Abiogenesis hypothesis?

Abiogenesis is attempts to explain how life started on Earth, that Evolution doesn’t explain....

So does science say what life is? Someone here said (if I recall correctly) that scientists don't even agree on what life is. Actually, that is in accordance with the following article:
"Although biology is the study of life, even biologists don't agree on what 'life' actually is."
A Biologist Explains: What Is Life?

 

[shunyadragon]

No. I'm not "turning the lights" off on what you call sound science. I'm saying that things like airplanes flying and computers working do not help figure out how life got started. New Answers in the Search for the Origin of Life. What is amazing (fantastic) is that we can explore the things of nature around us.

My statement concerning the sciences that are the basis of airplanes and computers is the same science that is the basis for abiogenesis and evolution. I am speaking from the perspective of a scientist with 50 years of experience and an extensive background in science and math.

 

[shunyadragon]

So does science say what life is? Someone here said (if I recall correctly) that scientists don't even agree on what life is. Actually, that is in accordance with the following article:
"Although biology is the study of life, even biologists don't agree on what 'life' actually is."
A Biologist Explains: What Is Life?

Biologists do indeed agree as to what biological life is. Science considers life to be carbon based organic forms that have the ability to produce or acquire their own energy from other sources, have RNA and/or DNA, and replicate or reproduce. Of course, other life forms may exist on other planets, but it is most likely that they are also carbon based self replicating life forms.

 

[shunyadragon]

With random variation I mean Random mutations or just any random change in the genotype.

But I have to admit that I am lost, what is your point?

Darwin suggested that organisms are born with random variations with respect to their parents, and some of these variations have a selective benefit and are therefore more likely to survive and reproduce. (this is what I mean with "darwinian" mechanism)

There is a problem citing Darwin, and referring to the contemporary science of evolution as 'Darwinian.' Yes, Darwin was the first to develop a coherent hypothesis for evolution based on his scientific research, but his science is over 150 years old, and does not represent the contemporary science of evolution. 'Darwinian mechanism?' nor terms like Neo-Darwinism? do not represent the contemporary science of evolution.

Change in genotype is not random it is response to natural selection, and offspring are not random variations of their parents..

Again the only thing that is random is the timing of each mutation. and the contemporary science concerning the processes over time for evolution are not random.

 

[YoursTrue]

Heck, there isn't any real agreement among biologists as to what life is.

.

That would be in harmony with what is reported about what scientists say.
"We don't have a very good definition of life," said researcher Christopher Voigt of the University of California, San Francisco, who works on synthetic biology. "It's a very abstract thing, what we call life, and at what point we say something doesn't have the necessary components versus it does, it just becomes way too murky."

 

[YoursTrue]

Biologists do indeed agree as to what biological life is. Science considers life to be carbon based organic forms that have the ability to produce or acquire their own energy from other sources, have RNA and/or DNA, and replicate or reproduce. Of course, other life forms may exist on other planets, but it is most likely that they are also carbon based self replicating life forms.

Not according to the following:
We don't have a very good definition of life," said researcher Christopher Voigt of the University of California, San Francisco, who works on synthetic biology. "It's a very abstract thing, what we call life, and at what point we say something doesn't have the necessary components versus it does, it just becomes way too murky."

 

[shunyadragon]

Not according to the following:
We don't have a very good definition of life," said researcher Christopher Voigt of the University of California, San Francisco, who works on synthetic biology. "It's a very abstract thing, what we call life, and at what point we say something doesn't have the necessary components versus it does, it just becomes way too murky."

Stating the 'belief of one scientist does not preclude the definition I gave, which is the generally accepted definition of life. He failed to define what is murky. There are some arguments describing bacteria is the border between life and non-life in the evolutionary scheme of things, because bacteria cannot produce there own energy, and use the cells of more advanced living organisms for reproduction, but as far as I know this is the only issue between non-life and life.

 

[shunyadragon]

I would say that God would be the cause of these mechanisms in the same way God would be the ultimate cause of everything.

This I believe God is the Creator of all of our physical existence and the origin and evolution of life, but this based on my belief, and not questioning the natural mechanisms and Natural Laws as the physical cause. There is no mileage arguing the cause and effect from a scientific perspective to justify the existence of God nor the cause of our physical existence as Creation.

 

[YoursTrue]

Stating the 'belief of one scientist does not preclude the definition I gave, which is the generally accepted definition of life. He failed to define what is murky. There are some arguments describing bacteria is the border between life and non-life in the evolutionary scheme of things, because bacteria cannot produce there own energy, and use the cells of more advanced living organisms for reproduction, but as far as I know this is the only issue between non-life and life.

Regardless of how scientists differ on the definition of what is life, the idea that life came about (and "is") without believing in the prime intelligent inventor causing life as we generally know it, is unfathomable as far as I am concerned. Scientists may explore the mechanics of combinations of chemicals in living matter (as many look at it) but that's where it stops.