Evolution: Just A Reminder *sigh*

[Subduction Zone]

The fact that none of you can show a single PR article that shows/conclude that evolution is true beyond reasonable doubt, shows that evolution is still a controvertial idea

To say that there is no evidence supporting other beliefs is simply wrong...... Alternative models are discussed all the time in PR literature

You do ot know how science is done. You also asked a foolish question. You won't find a PR article that says that the sky is blue beyond a reasonable doubt either.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In the context of this thread every time I use the term evolution I mean what was defined as evolution in the first post of this thread. (Unless I clarify otherwise)

The definition in the OP is "Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."

The links I provided are clear-cut examples of this.

The articles that you provided show at most that the process of random mutations and natural selection is responsible for some of the diversity that we observe, but none of the show that this process is responsible for all (or nearly all) the diversity that we observe.

Again, this is nonsense. We have directly observed species reproducing, with variation, and this variation coupled with environmental attrition results in allele frequency within living populations changing over time. We directly observe both cause and result of this process - it is unambiguous.

Unless you want to assert an unseen, magical power into the mix which can neither be identified nor observed, this argument is meaningless.

Which is not a big deal, even the most extremist irrational and fanatic YEC accept that this process is responsible for some of the diversity of life

Not true. There have (and continue to be) creationists who will deny even the observation of evolution.

Where is the evidence that shows that the process of random mutations and natural selection are responsible for all (or most) of the diversity of life ?

These observations coupled with what we observe in the fossil record and genetics. Common ancestry isn't a conclusion reached by looking at individual pieces of evidence. It is reached by looking collectively at all of the available evidence. To summarize is an incredibly over-simplistic way:

- We know that living populations change over time, producing variations within their taxa.
- We know that this change is due to slight variations in inheritable genes going through selective environmental pressures.
- We know that all life on earth shares some part of their genetic lineage.
- We know that living organisms pass on their genes through reproduction.
- We know of no alternative method by which two organisms can share close genetic ties other than relation through reproduction.
- We know that the fossil record exhibits a nested hierarchy of organisms that increases in diversity over time, with subsequent generations exhibiting new traits and features.

We put all of this information together, and there is one reasonable conclusion:

All life shares common ancestry through reproduction from a universal common ancestor, and evolved through reproduction, mutation and selection into the myriad of forms and taxa we see today from a single genetic stock.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Evolution as defined in the first post of this thread is controversial,

No, it is not. Populations of organisms change over time.

This is not controversial.

while it is true that random mutations and natural selection are responsible for some of the diversity of life, scientist debate on whether if there are other relevant mechanisms, and some even suggest that other mechanisms are more relevant. _(for example James Shapiro would argue that natural genetic engineering is the main driving force) and his work has been published in PR articles

Examples?

all I am saying is that there is controversy in the scientific community,

Not about evolution in general. The specifics of evolution, perhaps.

Perhaps Neo-Darwinists are correct, perhaps shapiro is correct, perhaps some other model is correct. To suggests that there is no controversy is just “ Propaganda from atheists youtubers ” that is not supported by scientists, (not even Richard Dawkins would deny that such controversy excists.)

You're distorting reality. There is no controversy that evolution, i.e changes in allele frequency over time, occurs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fact that none of you can show a single PR article that shows/conclude that evolution is true beyond reasonable doubt, shows that evolution is still a controvertial idea

To say that there is no evidence supporting other beliefs is simply wrong...... Alternative models are discussed all the time in PR literature

If I am wrong then find such an article.

 

[WalterTrull]

No, how would you show that? Do you understand what scientific evidence is in the first place?

I think so.

“Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.”

First comes the theory, then the evidence. Doesn’t that seem like begging the question?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think so.

“Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.”

First comes the theory, then the evidence. Doesn’t that seem like begging the question?

Not at all. How is that begging the question?

Edit: And first comes the testable hypothesis. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and confirmed countless times.

 

[leroy]

You're distorting reality. There is no controversy that evolution, i.e changes in allele frequency over time, occurs.

Granted there is no controversy on the fact that changes in allele frequency over time, occurs, and universal common descend is not controversial ether.

The controversy is on whether if the process of random genetic change + natural selection account for all (or most) of the diversity that we observe today….agree? yes or no?...........I am sorry if I ignored the rest of your comments, but I feel that you are not understanding my argument. I don’t deny “change over time” nor that we share a common ancestor with other species, my only argument is that weather if the process of random genetic change + natural selection can account for the diversity of life is controversial.

 

[leroy]

If I am wrong then find such an article.

sure, we have this article Written by Shapiro, who proposes that organisms evolve mainly by a process of natural genetic engineering rather than by a process of random change + natural selection.

In other words, it can be argued that much of genome change in evolution results from a genetic engineering process utilizing the biochemical systems for mobilizing and reorganizing DNA structures present in living cells.

In their ensemble, these results show that living cells have (and use) the biochemical apparatus to evolve by a genetic engineering process

It is easier to understand how genetic change can be regulated and used to meet adaptive needs if we think of it as a biochemical process rather than as a blind consequence of physicochemical damage. Such damage does occur, of course, but it is anticipated, and the contribution of purely chemical events to genetic change is kept at a very low level by elaborate repair systems

http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.1992.Gentica.NatGenEngInEvo.pdf

And just to be clear, I am not asserting that Shapiro is correct, (perhaps he is, perhaps he is wrong) I am simply showing an example of an alternative process that is being discussed in the scientific community.



I am just showing that the claim “the diversity that we observe is caused mainly by a process of random change + natural selection is controversial,

 

[Skwim]

OK so what is the evidence that shows that evolution is true beyond reasonable doubt?

.​

 

[Subduction Zone]

sure, we have this article Written by Shapiro, who proposes that organisms evolve mainly by a process of natural genetic engineering rather than by a process of random change + natural selection.









http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.1992.Gentica.NatGenEngInEvo.pdf

And just to be clear, I am not asserting that Shapiro is correct, (perhaps he is, perhaps he is wrong) I am simply showing an example of an alternative process that is being discussed in the scientific community.



I am just showing that the claim “the diversity that we observe is caused mainly by a process of random change + natural selection is controversial,

It appears that you misunderstand his article. Can you quote relevant passages that support your claim? At best it looks as if you are trying to use a strawman.

 

[WalterTrull]

Not at all. How is that begging the question?

We might be talking past each other a little here. Oh well.
It is my feeling that mind creates its own objects, therefore, its own evidence.
The thought preceding the evidence is sort of like begging the question.
I’d love to figure out just how my mind relates to mind in general. The maps I’ve come across turn out to be mostly political posters.

 

[leroy]

It appears that you misunderstand his article. Can you quote relevant passages that support your claim? At best it looks as if you are trying to use a strawman.

Sure my claim is that Shapiro is proposing an alternative process that accounts for a relevant portion of the diversity of life, he is putting in to question the idea that all (or nearly all) the diversity that we observe was caused by a process of random genetic change and natural selection.


I copied 3 relevant passages

In other words, it can be argued that much of genome change in evolution results from a genetic engineering process utilizing the biochemical systems for mobilizing and reorganizing DNA structures present in living cells.

In their ensemble, these results show that living cells have (and use) the biochemical apparatus to evolve by a genetic engineering process

It is easier to understand how genetic change can be regulated and used to meet adaptive needs if we think of it as a biochemical process rather than as a blind consequence of physicochemical damage. Such damage does occur, of course, but it is anticipated, and the contribution of purely chemical events to genetic change is kept at a very low level by elaborate repair systems

 

[Subduction Zone]

We might be talking past each other a little here. Oh well.
It is my feeling that mind creates its own objects, therefore, its own evidence.
The thought preceding the evidence is sort of like begging the question.
I’d love to figure out just how my mind relates to mind in general. The maps I’ve come across turn out to be mostly political posters.

It appears that you do not quite understand the scientific method and the concept of evidence. Certain ideas cannot be proven absolutely. That is in reality limited to pure mathematics. The best one can do in the real world is to create models and test them. So to have evidence one first needs a testable model. That means that if it is wrong that there is at least one reasonable test that would refute it. So a model is proposed and then the same person that proposed it often is the first to try to disprove it. Quite often those tests agree with the model. That means that the model is confirmed. The results of the test are evidence that the model is correct. This is not begging the question since the results of the test were not known ahead of time. It also does not mean that the model is correct. It could still be wrong. But after millions of tests it is pretty hard to deny a model. For example hardly anyone denies gravity. It is both a "fact" and a theory. The theory explains the fact. The same applies to evolution. It has been tested so many times that it is taken to be both a fact and a theory. It is still falsifiable. If it is wrong there are numerous tests that could conceivably show it to be wrong. That has not happened yet.

 

[leroy]

It appears that you misunderstand his article. Can you quote relevant passages that support your claim? At best it looks as if you are trying to use a strawman.

Just to be clear, what exactly is your position, do you affirm that the diversity and complexity of life was caused mainly by a process of random genetic change + natural (and sexual) selection? Answer yes or no……….. Do you affirm that this statement is uncontrovertibly true? Answer yes or no

 

[sealchan]

.

BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE IS NOT CONCERNED WITH FIRST CAUSE

IT . . . DOESN'T . . . CARE!

​

The science of biological evolution only concerns itself with change. How an organism changes from one form into another, whether the change is large or small.

" Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation. Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population. It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organization, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules."
Source: Wikipedia

​

Note, there is no mention of first cause, be it the hand of a god, abiogenesis, panspermia, chance, or Santa's elves. So, if you want to appear at least moderately well informed don't bringing it up and waste anyone's time.

.

.

Yes, but if you want to talk to people who think that the Theory of Evolution is too complex or that it lacks common sense as far as addressing the deep human need to understand origins...you should be prepared to discuss origins when you talk "across the aisle" about evolution.

If species are like dominoes that fall as each prior generation gives birth (knocks over the next domino) then who started the dominos falling in the first place and who set them up?

If you can't address questions like this then you may not truly reach into the minds of those who might have this or some other limited metaphorical basis for their understanding of the problem of origins.

I believe that aside from cosmology we have the science of complex adaptive systems that gives us some context for addressing this question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure my claim is that Shapiro is proposing an alternative process that accounts for a relevant portion of the diversity of life, he is putting in to question the idea that all (or nearly all) the diversity that we observe was caused by a process of random genetic change and natural selection.


I copied 3 relevant passages

And as I pointed out you are using a bit of a strawman since evolution is not limited to just random genetic change and natural selection. That was an oversimplification error on your part. And your three relevant passages were lacking since they have no explanation of how new traits arise. At best you only demonstrated that Shapiro does not think that it is limited to random mutations and natural selection. He is only arguing about how evolution occurred. He is not bringing up a different cause at all for the variation that we see in life. And his arguments may be largely limited to very simple life forms. When sex is involved then there are more processes than simple random genetic change and natural selection. What you need to find is an example that is outside of evolution. You did not do that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just to be clear, what exactly is your position, do you affirm that the diversity and complexity of life was caused mainly by a process of random genetic change + natural (and sexual) selection? Answer yes or no……….. Do you affirm that this statement is uncontrovertibly true? Answer yes or no

I would say no, since it is inaccurate. That is your strawman.

 

[leroy]

And as I pointed out you are using a bit of a strawman since evolution is not limited to just random genetic change and natural selection.

It is not a straw man since I was using the definition / description of evolution provided in the first post of this tread, which is limited to random genetic change and natural selection (and genetic drift)

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation. Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population. It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organization, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules."

 

[leroy]

I would say no, .

Ok so apparently we don’t have points of disagreement.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is not a straw man since I was using the definition / description of evolution provided in the first post of this tread, which is limited to random genetic change and natural selection (and genetic drift)

You forgot the qualifier: " such as " .

 

[leroy]

You forgot the qualifier: " such as " .

what do you mean?