Evidence For And Against Evolution

[randix]

I believe it has been discovered that some mutations that could be viewed as genetic damage or a disadvantageous anomaly or abnormality within a member of a species, subsequently inherited by its descendants, can also confer some benefits, such as disease resistance (to the plague, malaria or HIV, for example).

 

[ecco]

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?

To begin with, you are taking "survival of the fittest" completely out of context. For starters, strong sperm will be more likely to impregnate eggs than weaker sperm. Stronger, mentally and physically, members of a species will be more likely to reproduce than weaker members.

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.

Why are you even discussing a Disney Movie in a post about science and evolution? Is this where you get your information from?

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.

Again, you are taking "survival of the fittest" way out of context. In nature, the predators will often go after the young because, in context, the young are less fit in terms of being able to avoid getting eaten.

Man turns this on its head a bit as you pointed out.

4. On the other hand both environmental adaptations and natural aptitude seem to be real things.

Of course, they are real. And survival of the fittest also refers to being the most fit to survive a changing environment. Dinosaurs weren't. Small mammals were.

 

[Polymath257]

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

Well, part of the issue is that you use words like 'try' when talking about protein folding a mutations. That is assuming a conscious intent which is clearly not there. And *that* suggests a whole ontology that is counter to the way science is done. And, frankly, the support of ID also feeds into this suggestion.

So, do you think there is a mechanism to pre-select beneficial mutations? If so, how are beneficial vs harmful mutations differentiated? At what point is the pre-selection made? Are germ cells that show a harmful mutation selectively killed prior to being released? Or are harmful mutations somehow prevented from appearing at all? And how would *that* be accomplished?

 

[ecco]

I am not exactly sure of what you call scientists. Because there are some that believe in God.

I call scientists people who are scientists. I am well aware that most of them believe in God. The difference between you and them is that they do not take the Bible literally. They understand the Bible is a series of stories written by relatively ignorant humans to, at least, help cope with the world they saw.

The theory of evolution is not correct, even if they say it's based on evidence (which is really not there, otherwise there would not be continual changes of thought and direction among them)...

Nonsense. As I said, your objections to science have nothing to do with science and everything to do with the fact that you believe Genesis to be a literal account of nature.

 

[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.

The truth is that such mechanisms do exists, organisms can learn from their environment and change their genome such that new proteins (or stuff) arise to supply the organisms needs........ An example of this mechanism is natural genetic engineering.

That these mechanisms excist and that they can produce small micro-evolutionary changes is uncontroversial..... The controversy is on whether if these mechanisms can be stretched and produce "large" macro evolutionary changes.

But in my opinion these mechanisms are more viable candidates to explain things like the eye or the flagella, because by this mechanisms multiple independent parts of the genome can change at the same time to supply a benefit that would then be selected by NS

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?

The claim is not that random mutations do not ocurre, the claim is that non random mutations also occure and that they play a relevant role in explaining the diversity of life

 

[ecco]

Again -- let's say evolution is true for the sake of discussion. So 'scientists' say that "life" (yes, I know abiogenesis is not evolution) may have emerged from water, isn't that right?

Life may have formed in water.

But they don't know and would you say there is evidence that is true? It's about the same evidence there is with the so-called first emergence from non-living water/matter/whatever of a "unicell."

What's your point? There are things science does not know now. We know more now than we did 500 years ago. We know more than we did 2000 years ago. That's called progress. People used to believe that thunder and lightning were caused by: GodDidIt.

If you were around a few hundreds of years ago you would have been writing letters complaining about the heresy of those people who were suggesting that God's earth was not the center of the universe.

No, I am not against science. I go to doctors who are trained in research, trial and error, even though they can and do make mistakes and also change opinions from time to time. That's just one example. I also like to listen to music on my computer sometimes. A result of science.

Perhaps you should take a long look at your beliefs. You accept science and the findings of hard-working, highly educated people - scientists. But you do so only up to the point that their findings conflict with your fundamentalist literal reading of Geneses, then they all become a bunch of arguing know-nothings. It's really amazing that you haven't figured this out for yourself. But I do understand that the power of a strong childhood indoctrination is difficult to overcome.

So you don't really know if life came from the soil or water or something flew in from outer space. Do you?

So what. I do know that the concept of a forever-and-ever entity doing it is as childishly silly as believing that the earth is the center of the universe.

You don't believe that the earth is the center of the universe, do you?

 

[Polymath257]

The truth is that such mechanisms do exists, organisms can learn from their environment and change their genome such that new proteins (or stuff) arise to supply the organisms needs........ An example of this mechanism is natural genetic engineering.

That these mechanisms excist and that they can produce small micro-evolutionary changes is uncontroversial..... The controversy is on whether if these mechanisms can be stretched and produce "large" macro evolutionary changes.

But in my opinion these mechanisms are more viable candidates to explain things like the eye or the flagella, because by this mechanisms multiple independent parts of the genome can change at the same time to supply a benefit that would then be selected by NS

The main issue I can see is that the known examples of NGE can only select from mutations that have already 'been tried' in the sense that they had already appeared in the population at a frequency that allows the development of a feedback mechanism. This type of feedback, while an extreme, is perfectly allowed under the standard model.

On the other hand, what you will require is a mechanism to detect potentially beneficial mutations that have never occurred yet. That is the sort that would be required if you want to explain structures like the eye using this process. But this is precisely where there is no mechanism.

Because of this, I feel the NGE is a red-herring. it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but is instead a minor variant of the standard theory.

 

[ecco]

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

Golly gee. Back in the old days, people who really wanted answers would go to libraries and do their own research or would go to schools and get taught by trained educators.

 

[gnostic]

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?

Sorry, but getting disease won’t change the outcomes of selection, of the whole population in the future generations to come.

You keep overlooking that Evolution isn’t about individual cases, but what affect the whole population.

Second, and this very important, whatever the changes that may occur within population of species, IT MUST PASS THE CHANGES THROUGH THE GENE, WHICH DESCENDANTS WILL INHERIT - the changes that will benefit them and ensure their survival.

In evolutionary biology, it isn’t about being the strongest or the smartest, but about adapting to the changes, and passing those changes that allow for changed species to survive and thrive.

Evolution is never about killing, like mass murders or wars. The extinction of the species is caused because the older ancestral species didn’t inherit the correct genes that could aided their survival.

Do you understand what I am saying here, YoursTrue?

But let me go one step further with your raccoon with rabies example for a moment.

One of the problems that have become apparent to me with your silly example is that you really don’t understand the disease, let alone understanding the evolution.

As you know, the disease cause animals to attack others, not only other animals, as well as among their own species. They spread the diseases through bites (and possibly through scratches, but I am not certain about this).

BUT, you are forgetting one vital detail, animals with rabies will eventually succumb to their diseases and eventually die. Rabies are fatal.

What they don’t do, rabid animals don’t go around seeking mates to produce offspring, to spread this viral disease.

So, if the rabid raccoons don’t mate, therefore don’t produce offspring, and therefore won’t have descendants, then how is your stupid rabid raccoons even relate to Evolution.

Evolution is about survival, not killing.

Clearly you really don’t understand anything about Evolution. All you are concern is about killing, murdering and wars, which have absolutely nothing to do with Evolution.

Now if you were rational, and if you actually understood Evolution, then you could turn your example around into smarter example.

For instance. Let’s say rabid raccoons attack a population of raccoons, but for whatever reasons, some did become infected and they died, but the other group survive, because they have developed resistant or immunity to this fatal viral disease.

This group passed their immunity to rabies through genes and DNA, to offspring and their descendants continue to exist, leading to a new subspecies of raccoons - raccoons with immunity to rabies.

Now that would be Natural Selection and Evolution.

Evolution is about survival, not going extinct as a population.

But my alternative example of the raccoons with rabies is merely hypothetical.

Confusing Natural Selection, or any other mechanisms of evolution with Social Darwinism or with nazi racial policies of genocide, not only make you ignorant but also dishonest.

So, YoursTrue, stopping making fool of yourself, and read actual biology textbooks and ask questions and learn, instead of the bloody propaganda craps you have been reading.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Golly gee. Back in the old days, people who really wanted answers would go to libraries and do their own research or would go to schools and get taught by trained educators.

But we have the internet today:

Warning, move monitor out of punching range. Do not eat or drink while watching since severe choking danger exists. Recommended hand and head wear:

 

[gnostic]

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

Yes, but so have shunyadragon and Dan From Smithville, but you often ignore them, and you are in self-denial, when your own knowledge are sadly lacking.

 

[shunyadragon]

More semantic games, unrelated comments and ambiguous answers.

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

Translation - unable to respond to the post. Still waiting . . .

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)

Actually no. The mutations, of protein folding are either present or not in the diversity in the population. If they are there they are available for potential benefits for natural selection. For example if the genetic variation for the light sensitive cell is present in the population of Jellyfish or it is not. If it is and has a benefit for survival it will be selected for that benefit, If the light sensitive cell is not present it will not be selected for in future generations. This is not a random 'process' as previously cited in scientific references.

So do you believe that non random mutations occur (using this definition of random)?

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

What is called non-random mutations are simply a part of the total mutations that contribute to the genetic diversity of the population. The genetic diversity of the population through genetic drift is the basis of the potential benefit for Natural selection

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

Direct and specific answers have been provided. Your avoiding the specific references and my answers. You already misrepresented one source you cited, which contains NO MATH to support your assertions, as I specifically cited. Still waiting . . .

Again . . .

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.

Still waiting . . .

 

[gnostic]

Again -- let's say evolution is true for the sake of discussion. So 'scientists' say that "life" (yes, I know abiogenesis is not evolution) may have emerged from water, isn't that right? But they don't know and would you say there is evidence that is true? It's about the same evidence there is with the so-called first emergence from non-living water/matter/whatever of a "unicell." No, I am not against science. I go to doctors who are trained in research, trial and error, even though they can and do make mistakes and also change opinions from time to time. That's just one example. I also like to listen to music on my computer sometimes. A result of science.
So you don't really know if life came from the soil or water or something flew in from outer space. Do you?

This is why scientists (in Abiogenesis) are trying to seek these answers, by seeking to discover evidence, either in the labs or in the fields.

They have some success in finding evidence and some of their questions being answered, but they still seeking more evidence and more answers.

That’s why Abiogenesis is falsifiable, because some tests have been carried out, but not enough to conclusively agree that they have a complete solution.

At the moment, there are several competing models (or versions) of Abiogenesis. Each ones have their values, and evidence that independently supported these several models.

And despite not being able to find which version is the right one, they are doing better jobs then those who advocated for unfalsifiable and untested Intelligent Design or Behe’s own Irreducible Complexity.

 

[gnostic]

I know you don't believe in the truthfulness of the Bible. But I have come to realize that it is true, a message from God transmitted to human writers, compiled and put together over a thousand years. The evidence is twofold: the Bible and life. Romans 1:20 speaks of this: "For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God." But as the one conversation with the preacher led me to understand, it is God alone that can give you this faith.

Wow!

Those are your evidence.

There is connection between god and the Bible, because books within the Bible, do speak of the god, because he is one of the characters within those books and some of these books do supposedly reported what god say.

But nothing in the books that claimed what god did or say, cannot be verified, let alone witness his ultimate power.

There are no actual evidence that can actually verify god was responsible for creation of life, because older religions than Judaism and Christianity have made similar claim about creating life, eg from Egypt, from Mesopotamia and from Vedic/Hinduism.

 

[YoursTrue]

Wow!

Those are your evidence.

There is connection between god and the Bible, because books within the Bible, do speak of the god, because he is one of the characters within those books and some of these books do supposedly reported what god say.

But nothing in the books that claimed what god did or say, cannot be verified, let alone witness his ultimate power.

There are no actual evidence that can actually verify god was responsible for creation of life, because older religions than Judaism and Christianity have made similar claim about creating life, eg from Egypt, from Mesopotamia and from Vedic/Hinduism.

You say you are the lost one. Why are you lost?

 

[YoursTrue]

This is why scientists (in Abiogenesis) are trying to seek these answers, by seeking to discover evidence, either in the labs or in the fields.

They have some success in finding evidence and some of their questions being answered, but they still seeking more evidence and more answers.

That’s why Abiogenesis is falsifiable, because some tests have been carried out, but not enough to conclusively agree that they have a complete solution.

At the moment, there are several competing models (or versions) of Abiogenesis. Each ones have their values, and evidence that independently supported these several models.

And despite not being able to find which version is the right one, they are doing better jobs then those who advocated for unfalsifiable and untested Intelligent Design or Behe’s own Irreducible Complexity.

Who was it that said his parents made him? As if that means God is out of the question. But then have you seen the first unicell that supposedly started the whole thing!

 

[YoursTrue]

Wow!

Those are your evidence.

There is connection between god and the Bible, because books within the Bible, do speak of the god, because he is one of the characters within those books and some of these books do supposedly reported what god say.

But nothing in the books that claimed what god did or say, cannot be verified, let alone witness his ultimate power.

There are no actual evidence that can actually verify god was responsible for creation of life, because older religions than Judaism and Christianity have made similar claim about creating life, eg from Egypt, from Mesopotamia and from Vedic/Hinduism.

What exactly their claims are, I do not know. But they figured life in the form of humans did not always exist. Now how long ago did these other civilizations exist, such as the Egyptians, and those from Vedic/Hinduism? As far back as the Neanderthals?

 

[YoursTrue]

Wow!

Those are your evidence.

There is connection between god and the Bible, because books within the Bible, do speak of the god, because he is one of the characters within those books and some of these books do supposedly reported what god say.

But nothing in the books that claimed what god did or say, cannot be verified, let alone witness his ultimate power.

There are no actual evidence that can actually verify god was responsible for creation of life, because older religions than Judaism and Christianity have made similar claim about creating life, eg from Egypt, from Mesopotamia and from Vedic/Hinduism.

Besides, looking at the natural world around us, I believe that birds, worms, soil did not just come about by themselves with the help of natural evolutionary chemical forces.

 

[YoursTrue]

I call scientists people who are scientists. I am well aware that most of them believe in God. The difference between you and them is that they do not take the Bible literally. They understand the Bible is a series of stories written by relatively ignorant humans to, at least, help cope with the world they saw.




Nonsense. As I said, your objections to science have nothing to do with science and everything to do with the fact that you believe Genesis to be a literal account of nature.

I don't know what you mean when you say I take the Bible literally. There are things (such as the birth of Jesus) that I take literally, and there are things I do not take literally (such as the Lake of Fire).
Yet, despite interpretation, how someone says that life came up without design, or a purpose, from somewhere unknown but conjectured about, as if that can ever be proved unless there were spy cameras, is beyond me.

 

[ecco]

I don't know what you mean when you say I take the Bible literally. There are things (such as the birth of Jesus) that I take literally, and there are things I do not take literally (such as the Lake of Fire).

So you pick and choose which parts to take literally. That's OK. Most people pick and choose what to accept and what to reject. That's why there are Christians who completely accept evolution and the concepts of abiogenesis.

You didn't mention Genesis, but I'll bet you take all of that literally.

Yet, despite interpretation, how someone says that life came up without design, or a purpose, from somewhere unknown but conjectured about, as if that can ever be proved unless there were spy cameras, is beyond me.

You just must play your silly games with the word "prove" wrapped up in it. You are incredulous. Big deal. I remember hearing a 14-year-old girl echo those same sentiments: "It's all just too incredible." Just as an aside, aren't you aware that most murderers are convicted on "circumstantial evidence"? Do you think there are always cameras present when one person shoots another? You cannot understand how science can put together facts drawn from nature and come to solid conclusions. The main reason is that you were strongly indoctrinated into believing God and the Bible. A second reason is that you never got an education in the sciences. You probably didn't want to get an education in the sciences because you knew, deep down inside, that everything you learned would conflict with your Genesis beliefs.