Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh, wow, I've been talking about eugenics in relation to Darwin's theory for some time now, thanks for bringing it up again. It's a sad story. Be prepared for denials and excuses. (Thanks for being here.)

It doesn't take much evidence or effort to refute the 'robust' claims of people that have less than an elementary school understanding of the subjects.

Eugenics was a misguided attempt to artificially select people. Those putting it forward abused sound knowledge and theory over ethics that reflects zero on the validity of the theory.I

Recall this when someone points out the Inquisition and blames God.

 

[gnostic]

The thing is, Darwin's oft-quoted "survival of the fittest" imagines this sort of antagonistic struggle.

Except that Darwin didn't coin that phrase.

That phrase was invented by Herbert Spencer, Darwin's contemporary.

You won't "survival of the fittest" in On Origin of the Species.

As to the rest of your post, it also have nothing to do with Charles Darwin or his theory on Natural Selection Evolution.

Natural Selection have nothing to do with politics, racism, wars, genocides.

And again, it was Herbert Spencer, not Charles Darwin who used "survival of the fittest" in human activities (eg politics, racism, wars).

NS is purely biology, and related how the environments can affect, for instances, species surviving in arid environment, or species surviving in the glacial period, where regions can be covered in ice sheets for thousands or tens of thousands of years.

Only ignorant and dishonest creationists would confuse Natural Selection would portray Evolution with Nazi government policies.

Jews and Germans are humans, THEY ARE NOT OF DIFFERENT SPECIES. Humans killing humans, whether through wars or murders, are not natural process of Evolution. You would know this, if you actually bother to read biology textbooks, instead of reading some stupid creationist's propaganda pamphlets, books or webpages.

Only creationists would make such narrow-minded comparison.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh, wow, I've been talking about eugenics in relation to Darwin's theory for some time now, thanks for bringing it up again. It's a sad story. Be prepared for denials and excuses. (Thanks for being here.)

Denials and excuses are your rock and specialty.

 

[gnostic]

Oh, wow, I've been talking about eugenics in relation to Darwin's theory for some time now, thanks for bringing it up again. It's a sad story. Be prepared for denials and excuses. (Thanks for being here.)

Yes, and you are as narrow-minded as every other creationists who use the eugenics card.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

For the record, all the internal, external, biotic and abiotic aspects of the environment can select the heritable variation of living things. I could stay listing them and go on for several posts and still not include all the potential factors. Temerature, soil type, drainage, atmospheric content, other species, organ function, inter- and intraspecific competition, morphology, range, size, color, etc., etc., etc.

Random events are not part of this. A chance lightning strike that toppled a tree on a tiger with the highest fitness does not falsify the theory. It may alter the fitness profile of the population and this could change the evolution but natural selection is still in play.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, and you are as narrow-minded as every other creationists who use the eugenics card.

Logic stemming from survival of the fittest is the outcome of that. True that raccoons and other animals get rabies and become murderous, but can you say that's a product of evolution too? Is sickness a product of evolution?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, and you are as narrow-minded as every other creationists who use the eugenics card.

Isn't or wasn't that a man-made solution to survival for and of the best (or fittest)? Of course it was. I'm beginning to think you are not rational. I am being convinced of that. By you and others similar who support the theory of evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Except that Darwin didn't coin that phrase.

That phrase was invented by Herbert Spencer, Darwin's contemporary.

You won't "survival of the fittest" in On Origin of the Species.

As to the rest of your post, it also have nothing to do with Charles Darwin or his theory on Natural Selection Evolution.

Natural Selection have nothing to do with politics, racism, wars, genocides.

And again, it was Herbert Spencer, not Charles Darwin who used "survival of the fittest" in human activities (eg politics, racism, wars).

NS is purely biology, and related how the environments can affect, for instances, species surviving in arid environment, or species surviving in the glacial period, where regions can be covered in ice sheets for thousands or tens of thousands of years.

Only ignorant and dishonest creationists would confuse Natural Selection would portray Evolution with Nazi government policies.

Jews and Germans are humans, THEY ARE NOT OF DIFFERENT SPECIES. Humans killing humans, whether through wars or murders, are not natural process of Evolution. You would know this, if you actually bother to read biology textbooks, instead of reading some stupid creationist's propaganda pamphlets, books or webpages.

Only creationists would make such narrow-minded comparison.

It is more than a little mystifying, that in this day age, when volumes of information on biology and the theory of evolution are widely available and in highly consumable forms for even the scientifically illiterate, that we should be under wave after wave of the same ignorance. Yet here we go again.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Isn't or wasn't that a man-made solution to survival for and of the best (or fittest)? Of course it was. I'm beginning to think you are not rational. I am being convinced of that. By you and others similar who support the theory of evolution.

You! You think someone else here is not rational? I can barely understand your post. What is your first sentence even talking about?

Of course. Accepting the best science based on the evidence is not rational, but denial based on undeniable ignorance and emotion in the face of that evidence is? Incredible!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Logic stemming from survival of the fittest is the outcome of that. True that raccoons and other animals get rabies and become murderous, but can you say that's a product of evolution too? Is sickness a product of evolution?

mammals are a niche that can be exploited by other living things like disease organisms. Both the disease causing species and the host species can evolve due to the interaction. The host racoon and its biological systems are part of rabies environment and any of them can naturally select for the firmness of rabies. The same is true for the rationality regards to rabies. Rabies is a selection pressure on the racoon population. Raccoons that are not effected can have greater fitness than those that are effected. If the entire population is wiped out this can result in increased fitness in neighboring racoon populations, since their environment has changed.

I know you want to deny this and no amount of reason or evidence will persuade you, but it is a fact.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Isn't or wasn't that a man-made solution to survival for and of the best (or fittest)? Of course it was. I'm beginning to think you are not rational. I am being convinced of that. By you and others similar who support the theory of evolution.

I see. So, in your world, the abuse of knowledge reflects on the validity of the knowledge and not the poor qualities of the people abusing that knowledge. So blaming God for atrocities commuted by people in His name is a justly framed accusation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps I'm weird, but I'ma bigger fan of Lamarck's theories, than those of Darwin.

The thing is, Darwin's oft-quoted "survival of the fittest" imagines this sort of antagonistic struggle. The thing is, it doesn't pan out.

1. Cooperation, and not conflict, is the real foundation for survival. If there is a struggle for survival, people tend to be trying to get rid of each other because they see others as rivals. Sound familiar? What about Nazi mentality? Or eugenics experiments?
2. Any attempts to show altruism (that is, putting aside one's own life for the survival of the group) have been in vain. Supposedly lemmings jump off cliffs, but this turned out to be a wive's tale based on a faked Disney movie, where they actually pushed them off. No joke.
3. For another thing, some of those who survive are clearly not the fittest. Obese people get to stay alive and drink beer, while our fittest? They go to war to be killed. Lest you think this is humans only, the biggest fish tend to be caught, while the weakest and smallest tend to survive.
4. On the other hand both environmental adaptations and natural aptitude seem to be real things.

That is only because the phrase is often taken out of context or misunderstood. Darwin's version of evolution is still demonstrably more correct than that of Lamarck. And we have gone far beyond Darwin's understanding. The simple solution is that if you do not like that phrase you do not have to use it.

 

[leroy]

@shunyadragon
article I cited clearly determines that the process if protein folding is not 'entirely random' and is constrained by factors in natural biological processes and Natural Laws. ...

Sure, but the question is are they constrained by the potential benefits of a given" folding" is there a bias towards funcional/benefitial foldings or benefitial mutations in general?

Do mutations, foldings etc try to supply the needs of the organism? This is what is meant by random

In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
Mutations are random

So are mutations, foldings etc random (using this definition of random) ?

Darwinists would say "yes" or at most, that non random mutations play a minor role in explaining the complexity and diversity of life

I (together with many other scientists) would say that non random mutations and folding occurs and that they play a mayor role in explaining the complexity and diversity of life.


So on which side are you? .... Are Darwinists correct? Your comments seem to indicate that your answer is NO, but I rather ask you directly and prevent any misunderstandings

 

[shunyadragon]

Sure, but the question is are they constrained by the potential benefits of a given" folding" is there a bias towards funcional/benefitial foldings or benefitial mutations in general?

Do mutations, foldings etc try to supply the needs of the organism? This is what is meant by random.

'Try?!?!?' This far too anthropomorphic to be real. Nature does not try to do anything. You need to deal with more sound science in the references I cited and try to understand them. The folding is constrained by Natural Laws, and natural processes to the point it is not random. The only thing that is random is the timing of individual mutations and folds. As cited in several peer reviewed scientific references the 'folding' processes are not random.

Mutations and folding only provide the genetic drift and diversity in the population, which is available for natural selection

So are mutations, foldings etc random on this sence?

Only in the timing of individual mutations and foldings.

Darwinists would say "yes" or at most, that non random mutations play a minor role in explaining the complexity and diversity of life.

I (together with many other scientists) would say that non random mutations and folding occurs and that the play a mayor role in explaining the complexity and diversity of life. [/quote]

Absolutely false. All mutations that are not damaging to the survival provide the diversity in the populations and genetic drift

So on which side are you? Some of your comments seem to suggest that you are on my side, but you always comment in a tone where you seem to be disagreeing with me, so what is your position? Using my definitions.... Are Darwinists correct?

I am on the side of science. No, we do not remotely agree, and there are many many flaws in Behe's and your view of the role and nature of mutations and the concept of randomness not only in the sciences of abiogenesis and evolution but all of nature as the contemporary science supports.

The 'elephant in the room' and the biggest flaw in Behe's work and your view is the horrendous and unethical misuse of 'statistics and probability' to justify an ID religious agenda.

 

[leroy]

'Try?!?!?' This far too anthropomorphic to be real. Nature does not try to do anything. You need to deal with more sound science in the references I cited and try to understand them. The folding is constrained by Natural Laws, and natural processes to the point it is not random. The only thing that is random is the timing of individual mutations and folds. As cited in several peer reviewed scientific references the 'folding' processes are not random.

Mutations and folding only provide the genetic drift and diversity in the population, which is available for natural selection





Only in the timing of individual mutations and foldings.



I (together with many other scientists) would say that non random mutations and folding occurs and that the play a mayor role in explaining the complexity and diversity of life.

Absolutely false. All mutations that are not damaging to the survival provide the diversity in the populations and genetic drift



I am on the side of science. No, we do not remotely agree, and there are many many flaws in Behe's and your view of the role and nature of mutations and the concept of randomness not only in the sciences of abiogenesis and evolution but all of nature as the contemporary science supports.

The 'elephant in the room' and the biggest flaw in Behe's work and your view is the horrendous and unethical misuse of 'statistics and probability' to justify an ID religious agenda.

More semantic games, unrelated comments and ambiguous answers.

Just change the word "try" for a lees anthropic word. Stop playing stupid word games



This is what scientist usually mean with random in the context of biology.... (they don't mean truly random, but random with respect to the potential benefits)

Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
For example, in the U.S. where people have access to shampoos with chemicals that kill lice, we have a lot of lice that are resistant to those chemicals. There are two possible explanations for this

So do you belive that non random mutations occure (using this definition of random)?

Do you belive that non random mutations play a mayor role in explaining the complexity and diversity of life?



.... Just kidding, I know that you will not provide a direct answer.

 

[ecco]

Did god really say all he said in Job 38 to 41, or is the author portraying god as petty tyrant?

Read Heinlein's Job: A Comedy of Justice to get the real poop.

 

[randix]

It seems to me that where evidence and faith collide, evidence is more convincing and faith more defensive or offensive in response, as the case may be, and evidence is on the side of evolution and even favors abiogenesis (life from its constituent nonliving physical components and raw materials) as a more plausible hypothesis than what amounts to a giant supernatural being with a magic wand.

While abiogenesis and evolution do not rule out the existence of a possible nonphysical intelligence or being of some sort, if the physical universe or reality as a whole is a product of, or literally composed at a fundamental level of the consciousness or material of that being, I see no reason why abiogenesis and evolution could not be a part of that, by design, or by spontaneous creativity (which is a type of something-from-nothing, come to think of it), or whatever.

 

[Polymath257]

Sure, but the question is are they constrained by the potential benefits of a given" folding" is there a bias towards funcional/benefitial foldings or benefitial mutations in general?

No, there is no such bias. In fact, there is no feedback to the mutations that *could* produce such a bias.

Do mutations, foldings etc try to supply the needs of the organism? This is what is meant by random

Try??? They are not conscious entities. They do not try to do anything. They operate by the laws of physics. A mutation is simply a change in the DNA sequence. The sequence for a protein determines the amino acids in that protein and that determines the folding pattern(s). That is not a random process.

Once you have the amino acid sequence, the folding is determined by the interaction with water (or whatever environment the protein is in).

So your question is whether the changes in the DNA are determined by what might be good for the progeny. So let me ask: what sort of feedback from 'potential good' to DNA do you propose as the mechanism to promote 'positive mutations'?

So are mutations, foldings etc random (using this definition of random) ?

Well, if you define random to mean there is no 'trying', then yes, they are random. But then, the orbit of the Earth is random. The problem is in your definition. There are many processes in nature that have no intent but are not random.

Darwinists would say "yes" or at most, that non random mutations play a minor role in explaining the complexity and diversity of life

I will go further. Except for the very few mutations that have been specifically made in a lab, ALL mutations are rnadom by your definition. Once again, the problem is in your definition: it labels some phenomena as random that have structure and order.

I (together with many other scientists) would say that non random mutations and folding occurs and that they play a mayor role in explaining the complexity and diversity of life.

There is a limited amount of 'non-random' changes that are allowed by epi-genetics. The folding of a protein is NOT random at all: it is determined by the sequence of amino acids and the environment by electrostatic forces.

So on which side are you? .... Are Darwinists correct? Your comments seem to indicate that your answer is NO, but I rather ask you directly and prevent any misunderstandings

I'd say your concept of randomness is confused and misleading.

 

[Polymath257]

More semantic games, unrelated comments and ambiguous answers.

Just change the word "try" for a lees anthropic word. Stop playing stupid word games

This is what scientist usually mean with random in the context of biology.... (they don't mean truly random, but random with respect to the potential benefits)

OK, so you are asking if there is a feedback mechanism from potential benefits to mutations?

So do you belive that non random mutations occure (using this definition of random)?

Do you belive that non random mutations play a mayor role in explaining the complexity and diversity of life?

.... Just kidding, I know that you will not provide a direct answer.

No, there is no mechanism to pre-select beneficial mutations (how would that possibly happen, anyway?). So whether a mutation will be beneficial or not does not have a baring on whether it appears or not.

You almost seem to be advocating a causality that goes backwards in time, so a possible beneficial mutation would be able to increase its likelihood of arising. otherwise, how would it be possible to detect beneficial verses harmful mutations at all?

 

[leroy]

OK, so you are asking if there is a feedback mechanism from potential benefits to mutations?




No, there is no mechanism to pre-select beneficial mutations (how would that possibly happen, anyway?). So whether a mutation will be beneficial or not does not have a baring on whether it appears or not.

You seem to be the only one who can provide simple and direct answers