Evolution My ToE

[Jose Fly]

Well here is the whole post, since you chose to only put part...

Spoiler: Your response

They're random, since they don't show any signs of occurring relative to an organism's specific need. If that were the case, then we'd have a heck of a time fighting pathogens and pests, since whatever measure we used against them, they'd just immediately mutate a counter-measure (and every individual in the population would do so instantaneously). Plus, the idea that some entity is secretly directing mutations would mean that entity is pretty evil, given how so many mutations are the bane of our existence. I mean, is this entity trying to mess with us by giving bacteria and pests the ability to resist our treatments? Is it deliberately giving people cancer?

What if I did like you, and left off part...
Your response...
They're random, since they don't show any signs of occurring relative to an organism's specific need. If that were the case, then we'd have a heck of a time fighting pathogens and pests, since whatever measure we used against them, they'd just immediately mutate a counter-measure (and every individual in the population would do so instantaneously).

I gotta ask (and please don't take offense because this is a genuine question)....is English your first language?

That looks more like it.
I read the words that followed but was not interested, because they weren't relevant to my question, and so, meant nothing to me at the time because I found the idea weird - How could someone actually think that God was sitting down playing with genes?

Okay, that's very helpful. To be clear, you don't believe God intentionally "designs" genetic sequences.

Yes, I appreciate the apology, because it does make me wonder about your intentions when you say things, and then just take portions of what was someone said, which twists or warps the context of the quote.
Can you blame me for being suspicious and cautious with you, especially when things like this rekindle my suspicions?

Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about. One thing that's become very apparent is that you have a unique way of expressing yourself that tends to lead to confusion about what you mean, as your exchanges with others over the last couple of days show.

All I can say is, I have absolutely no intention of twisting or warping what you've said. It wouldn't make sense for me to do so, since my intent here is to understand your viewpoint.

Again you asked... Do you believe God deliberately designed bacteria to resist antibiotics?
I gave you the answer twice, why you ask again is bearing me silly.
Let me try something.
What do you understand from this?
I believe the cell was purposefully designed with the mechanisms for repairing, resisting, and removing or eliminating foreign invaders or problems to the genome.

To me, that comes across as rather vague and not very informative. That's why I keep asking follow-up questions on this topic. So let's see if we can clear this up. Here is what I think you believe....

In creating organisms like bacteria, God created them with the ability to adapt, including the potential to adapt ways of resisting antibiotics.

What I don't yet understand is what that specifically means. Do you believe God designed bacteria to undergo random mutations (as part of the means of adaptation)? Do you believe God designed the process of natural selection? Do you believe God designed those two processes to work together so that bacteria can adapt to changing conditions?

I already said before. Asking questions is not an indication one does not know the answer. Asking question is a form of reasoning, and it also allows one to clearly get a perspective of the one they are talking to.
That's what I do. It's part of how I was trained. Jesus was a stilled teacher, because that was one of his effective methods. Paul also, when reasoning with the people, he asked questions. JWs are the same.

I am a quick learner. I read and study, and grasp the underlying structure, and discard of the superficial fluff that given to the public.

That's probably one of the main obstacles to our discussion. You're trying to score debate points, whereas I'm just trying to understand. So your questions aren't really asked in good faith, and are instead attempts to "stump the evolutionist".

I hope you appreciate how that kinda makes me reluctant to bother answering. Because under that approach, if I give an answer, your tendency will be to discard it and just move on to the next question.....and play that out until you find questions that I can't answer.

What did I say to you when we were discussing how natural selection acts on variation?
I said...
If I express that I don't see how something is the case, it doesn't automatically mean I don't understand. It may mean I don't agree.

Please, feel free to do your best to explain it, if you so wish to, but please bury the thought that I will accept it after you explain it.
Bear in mind that a person may explain his position / view / understanding, of something, but the listener may not agree, and have a different view.

You said I expressed confusion, but that is not true.
If someone has a presumption, it is more likely it will affect what the person sees.
So seeing... I think this article is a bit misleading." may be translated in that person's mind as, "This article is confusing. I don't understand it." ...and the action that follows will be, in your case, to help them understand.... which is a good action, but the conclusion is not accurate... and it's usually due to the fact that the person is referring to something you believe is right, so the person must be confused. That's my theory on that.

Again, you and I have very different ways of expressing ourselves.

I don't mind someone stepping in to help, as you did, because I might be missing something, which the person may provide, and that happens. It happened in the case of the stick insect.
However, having the view that I ask questions because I need help, is in my opinion, not appropriate, for debate forums. Q&A yes. Or some other DIR.

I will definitely keep that in mind with your future questions. It's disappointing, but I appreciate you being honest.

And if you'd prefer that I change my approach and start debating you more than engaging in a discussion, let me know. I can certainly do that.

When I want something specific, that may be hard to find on the web, I would ask... like when I asked where I could find the charts for stick insects... things like that, but to come and ask what is a mutation, on a debate forum, seems to me . However, I do my own personal research. I search for stuff, myself.
I would ask a question like, "if mutations are random, how blah blah blah?" and that's because I am trying to get the perspective of the person in the discussion. Those questions are appropriate. It does not mean I don't know the answer from my perspective.

I hope you understand.

I guess. In the future, I'd suggest that you phrase your questions in a way that makes it clear that you're only looking for my perspective.

You see how perception works?
You don't have to worry about that. I know you are trying, and I already told you, go ahead and sing your JWs song, since it probably brings you peace. Beside I realize you can't seem to help it.

Like I keep saying, it's really hard for me to believe that in reality, all Witnesses are both experts in evolutionary biology and evolution denialists.....especially given the discussions I've had.

No. The problem with that, is that I created threads to discuss particular subjects. As I said, I like to be organized (easier to find stuff ), So I did create a thread specifically dealing with design, and evidence for God, but like I said, some people you don't see, and the few you see, drop in to make disparaging comments. So when the question is asked again, I don't take the question seriously.
I really don't mind discussing that with you at all. I think it might be interesting. You can find the thread here.
Feel free to comment when you like.

Okay, will do.

So far, I think I've actually learned quite a bit. It's obvious to me that you and I think very differently, communicate very differently, and approach these discussions very differently. Nothin' wrong with that, and actually it's one of the main reasons why I do this. I like to find out what makes people tick...what motivates them to certain viewpoints. Our exchange has been very enlightening in that regard, so thanks!

 

[shunyadragon]

Well here is the whole post, since you chose to only put part...

Spoiler: Your response

They're random, since they don't show any signs of occurring relative to an organism's specific need. If that were the case, then we'd have a heck of a time fighting pathogens and pests, since whatever measure we used against them, they'd just immediately mutate a counter-measure (and every individual in the population would do so instantaneously). Plus, the idea that some entity is secretly directing mutations would mean that entity is pretty evil, given how so many mutations are the bane of our existence. I mean, is this entity trying to mess with us by giving bacteria and pests the ability to resist our treatments? Is it deliberately giving people cancer?

What if I did like you, and left off part...
Your response...
They're random, since they don't show any signs of occurring relative to an organism's specific need. If that were the case, then we'd have a heck of a time fighting pathogens and pests, since whatever measure we used against them, they'd just immediately mutate a counter-measure (and every individual in the population would do so instantaneously).

This accurate when put in proper context, but creationists take the concept of randomness out of context. The individual mutations are indeed random, and do not meet any individuals needs, but evolution is not based on nor dependent on individual mutations, Evolution takes place in the resulting genetic diversity in populations that are the accumulated result of mutations in individuals.

I brought this up many times concerning the misuse of the concept of randomness in genetics and evolution, but of course it is ignored. Randomness of individual mutations, nor any events in nature do not cause anything nor prevent anything. In terms of the genetics of DNA mutations simply increase the genetic diversity in populations.

 

[YoursTrue]

nPeace said: ↑When you say "have observed it directly", what is it?

Micro and macro-evolution, speciation.

Now I'm looking forward to your answer about that...how is micro and macro evolution observed directly? (It can't be like the building or taking apart or switching parts in an airplane, can it? Please advise, thank you.)

 

[YoursTrue]

In science opinions do not count. neither do religious agendas..

Apparently science opinions DO count, otherwise peer reviews in a negative OR positive fashion would not count either way, whether the reviewer accepted the findings, or whether he did not. And then there could be contests among the reviewers. So opinions certainly do count in science.

 

[YoursTrue]

That wasn't my point. My point was that computers demonstrate the reliability of the scientific method, not specifically evolution.

Again, computers demonstrate humans putting together and harnessing whatever physical forces there are in a computer along with manufactured parts made by humans. They require an outside maker.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oldy moldy news and just revels the obvious, there is a human element in the peer review process that over time weeds out the bad ones. The studies that are comprehensive on this subject shows that the reliability of peer review varies by discipline, and this article does not address these differences. Social sciences, and medical statistical research,and those funded by industry are the worst, and the research on the basic sciences of Chemistry, physics, and Biology have the best record, but nonetheless poor research is sometimes published, but the repetition of research, and later scrutiny corrects science over time.

The bottomline is the advancement of knowledge is a long term self correcting process that eventually weeds out the bad apples. Fortunately the absolutely phony work by those scientists associated with the Discovery Institute on Intelligent Design can't even pass the hurdles of peer review of any accepted scientific journals on the subject for obvious reasons

Airplanes fly, computers work, and science and technology still advances regardless of the human problems and issues.

Still waiting for a coherent response not motivated by an anti-science religious agenda.

OK, let's see what think about this one, if you think it's motivated by an "anti-science religious agenda." From the NewScientist. It's about the weight of atoms and the teaching of the atomic turntable.

"The problem with this approach, says Tyler Coplen of the US Geological Survey’s Reston Stable Isotope Laboratory in Virginia, is that it perpetuates a misconception. “Teachers are teaching their students that atomic weights are fundamental constants of nature,” he says. …"
Read more: Rewriting the textbooks: The periodic turntable

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, let's see what think about this one, if you think it's motivated by an "anti-science religious agenda." From the NewScientist. It's about the weight of atoms and the teaching of the atomic turntable.

"The problem with this approach, says Tyler Coplen of the US Geological Survey’s Reston Stable Isotope Laboratory in Virginia, is that it perpetuates a misconception. “Teachers are teaching their students that atomic weights are fundamental constants of nature,” he says. …"
Read more: Rewriting the textbooks: The periodic turntable

I can't read past the paywall, but I can tell from even the little bit that I read that you did not understand the article. Care to discuss it?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What does that have to do with what was written in the science paper?

Because the science paper may be using a different definition of macro-evolution, since macro-evolution IS something that we have directly observed. That is a fact.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

nPeace said: ↑When you say "have observed it directly", what is it?

Now I'm looking forward to your answer about that...how is micro and macro evolution observed directly? (It can't be like the building or taking apart or switching parts in an airplane, can it? Please advise, thank you.)

I've already provided these links in this thread twice, now, but here you go:

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Extraordinarily rapid speciation in a marine fish
Speciation in real time
Observed Instances of Speciation
Instances of Observed Speciation on JSTOR

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Again, computers demonstrate humans putting together and harnessing whatever physical forces there are in a computer along with manufactured parts made by humans. They require an outside maker.

What relevance does that have to the fact that science demonstrates its reliability through the ability to create computers?

What do think my point was when I brought up computers? Because I've already explained it three times now and you still don't seem to understand it.

 

[nPeace]

nPeace said: ↑When you say "have observed it directly", what is it?

Now I'm looking forward to your answer about that...how is micro and macro evolution observed directly? (It can't be like the building or taking apart or switching parts in an airplane, can it? Please advise, thank you.)

@ImmortalFlame is using an argument that Atheists try to use to hit a "home run".
That of arguing the speciation is macroevolution.
They feel that by making that argument they no longer have to deal with the macroevolution that they can't see. In other words, they try to create a bypass valve.

The fact of the matter is speciation does not cover macroevolution. It is just said by some to be one form of it.
Microevolution over time leads to speciation or the appearance of novel structure, sometimes classified as macroevolution.

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes of allele frequencies within a species or population.
The process of speciation may fall within the purview of either, depending on the forces thought to drive it.

However, there are debates and controversies over speciation - even speciation of Darwin's finches" is called into question.
I'm not debating that issue.

@ImmortalFlame even knows this, because she separated the two, as you saw for yourself..

Micro and macro-evolution, speciation.

The fact the paper I quoted, did not include speciation is clear, so I am not going to argue back and forth with @ImmortalFlame.

I'm signing off for the day though. Enjoy.

 

[shunyadragon]

OK, let's see what think about this one, if you think it's motivated by an "anti-science religious agenda." From the NewScientist. It's about the weight of atoms and the teaching of the atomic turntable.

"The problem with this approach, says Tyler Coplen of the US Geological Survey’s Reston Stable Isotope Laboratory in Virginia, is that it perpetuates a misconception. “Teachers are teaching their students that atomic weights are fundamental constants of nature,” he says. …"
Read more: Rewriting the textbooks: The periodic turntable

The atomic weights used in high schools is adequate for understanding chemistry at that level, and even Organic Chemistry when I was in College would not change .The only problem here is yes textbooks need to be revised, and teaching that the atomic weights are not 'fundamental constants' simply needs to changed as with other knowledge of chemistry like the addition of elements. The contemporary advancements in Quantum Mechanics has determined they are not fundamental constants.' and of course the textbooks need to updated. I am uncertain where you consider this a major problem. As we both acknowledged the knowledge of science changes and advances, and theories and hypothesis are revised, sometimes 'big time.' no problem. Still by far most of the basics of chemistry and the periodic table will not change. Yes textbooks need to be revised, and actually today the use of electronic media in schools makes that easier to update and change expensive textbooks. I can remember when I was in college some textbooks needed to be revised every several years.

By the way older textbooks are indeed inadequate concerning the scientific knowledge of evolution, abiogenesis, math and contemporary cosmology. I sometimes substitute in schools, and do note that most of the updated information is available in electronic media, and teachers need to keep themselves updated to they can keep their teaching up to date.

One concept I found inadequate in math is the knowledge of fractal math, and Chaos Theory used today in science and technology.

This does not change the problem of fundamental Christianity perpetuated 'anti-science' agendas perpetuating misconceptions based on science thousands of years old 'big time.'.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

@ImmortalFlame is using an argument that Atheists try to use to hit a "home run".
That of arguing the speciation is macroevolution.

Because it is. Macro-evolution is defined as evolution at or above the level of species. That is the literal, scientific definition.

Here you go:
Evolution at different scales: micro to macro
Macroevolution - Wikipedia
What is macroevolution?
Philosophy of Macroevolution (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Macroevolution
Definition of MACROEVOLUTION
Examples of Macroevolution
Definition of macroevolution | Dictionary.com

Also, it's not "atheists" who say that. It's scientists, and anybody who knows the definition macro-evolution.

They feel that by making that argument they no longer have to deal with the macroevolution that they can't see. In other words, they try to create a bypass valve.

No. We just address the claim that macro-evolution hasn't been observed, or that there is no evidence of it occurring. There is two possibilities for people who make such a claim:

1) They are ignorant of the science.
Or
2) They don't know what the definition of "macro-evolution" actually is.

If they wish to talk about larger-scale evolutionary change, then what they need to do is talk about COMMON ANCESTRY, not "macro-evolution".

The fact of the matter is speciation does not cover macroevolution. It is just said by some to be one form of it.
Microevolution over time leads to speciation or the appearance of novel structure, sometimes classified as macroevolution.

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes of allele frequencies within a species or population.
The process of speciation may fall within the purview of either, depending on the forces thought to drive it.

However, there are debates and controversies over speciation - even speciation of Darwin's finches" is called into question.
I'm not debating that issue.

@ImmortalFlame even knows this, because she separated the two, as you saw for yourself..

I've always been extremely clear about the definition of macro-evolution, and even your source here agrees with me. ALL evolution above the level of species is macro-evolution, and we have observed speciation multiple times, so to make claim "macro-evolution is unsupported and unobserved" is false.

The fact the paper I quoted, did not include speciation is clear, so I am not going to argue back and forth with @ImmortalFlame.

I'm signing off for the day though. Enjoy.

Which is why I asked you what you thought macro-evolution meant, which is something you continually avoided doing, because you knew answering it honestly would expose that any claim about macro-evolution not being evidenced or observed was demonstrably false.

Don't blame us for your misuse and misunderstanding of scientific terminology.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you refuse to address the posts I referred you to, which you falsely claimed were addressed, you will just keep repeating your claims.
Feel free to do that... and please don't ask me questions while refusing to look at a post I created to discuss the phylogenectic tree among other hypotheses.

You can complain about posts in other threads, in those threads.

So please, explain how the predictions concerning ERV's that I mentioned is apparantly "subjective".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Apparently science opinions DO count, otherwise peer reviews in a negative OR positive fashion would not count either way, whether the reviewer accepted the findings, or whether he did not. And then there could be contests among the reviewers. So opinions certainly do count in science.

When a scientist reviews a paper, he's not just sharing his mere "opinion" about it. It's rather an evaluation of the quality of a paper, based on specific parameters.

It's not just an opinion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again, computers demonstrate humans putting together and harnessing whatever physical forces there are in a computer along with manufactured parts made by humans. They require an outside maker.

It's like you are missing the point on purpose.

The human ability to build a computer, requirs the development of plenty of technologies, like CPU's, transistors, etc.

These technologies are practical applications of scientific theories and models of reality.

What @ImmortalFlame is saying, is that the sheer fact that we are capable of building computers that actually work, demonstrates that the scientific method is a reliable method to find out how reality works.

If science wasn't a reliable method, we wouldn't be able to build advanced tools like computers, satellites, etc.
The fact that we CAN make such things, means that the science that underpins those technologies is accurate. Which in turn means that the method by which we obtained that scientific knowledge, is a reliable method.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@ImmortalFlame is using an argument that Atheists try to use to hit a "home run".

You're showing your intellectual dishonesty again, by trying to pretend that evolution theory is some kind of model exclusive to "atheism", which is off course completely bonkers.

PLENTY of evolutionary biologists are theists, many of them christians.

This is yet another piece of evidence that your objection to this science, is nothing more or less then religiously motivated. That's why you say stuff like that. And honestly, I think you know very well that this is just nonsense. You are very much aware that plenty of theists are evolutionary biologists who have no problems at all with evolution and who think just as much as "we atheists" that to deny it is either sheer ignorance or just religious dogma.

That of arguing the speciation is macroevolution.
They feel that by making that argument they no longer have to deal with the macroevolution that they can't see. In other words, they try to create a bypass valve.

Sounds like you are complaining that we can't directly observe processes that take millions of years to unfold.

Here's something to think about for you....
An orbit of Pluto takes 248 years. Pluto was discovered in 1930 - thus less then 100 years ago. Meaning that we haven't even seen Pluto complete a single orbit. And even if it were discovered in 1600, one orbit takes longer then a human lifetime, so a single person could never see Pluto complete an orbit.


Yet, we know it takes 248 years.

So, how do we know this, do you think?
Do you have a problem with that number as well? After all, we can't observe it directly....

The fact of the matter is speciation does not cover macroevolution.

The fact of the matter is that actually, "macroevolution" isn't actually a thing but rather a concept. And what it means, is heavily dependend on context.

People like you, who are obviously ignorant about evolutionary biology, don't seem to realise that the process backing macro evolution and micro evolution is the exact same process.

There is no difference. It's not like macro-evolution is something "special". It isn't.
The only difference is amount of generations (and thus amount of accumulated changes over those generations).

You understand how accumulation works, right?
Consider the process of "walking" in terms of distance.
You can walk a "micro-distance", which might be taking 10 steps.
You can also walk a "macro-distance", which might be taking 1000 steps.

Is there a difference in the process of "walking" between both? Nope.
It's still just walking.. Step 1 + step 2 + step 3 + step 4 + ......
The only difference is time.
In 1 minute, you'll take X steps.
In 4 hours, you'll take a lot more steps and thus cover a bigger distance.

1+1+1+1+1+....+1+1+1 = inevitably a huge number.

However, there are debates and controversies over speciation - even speciation of Darwin's finches" is called into question.

And there's a good evolutionary reason for that: gradualism.
There comes a point when you zoom in on a certain lineage where it becomes relatively arbitrary to state "now it's a new species". Because if you would go look at the parents of that generation - they'ld be the same species.

It's the nature of gradualism.

 

[dad]

I've already provided these links in this thread twice, now, but here you go:

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Extraordinarily rapid speciation in a marine fish
Speciation in real time
Observed Instances of Speciation
Instances of Observed Speciation on JSTOR

From the first link I see this..
"But just because we can't see all speciation events from start to finish doesn't mean we can't see species splitting."


Likewise, just because we do see some speciation events now does not mean all life came to exist BY speciation.

 

[shunyadragon]

From the first link I see this..
"But just because we can't see all speciation events from start to finish doesn't mean we can't see species splitting."


Likewise, just because we do see some speciation events now does not mean all life came to exist BY speciation.

The problem with this is that it is a vain effort from 'argument from ignorance' and a negative assertion which cannot be falsified. Your intent here is that because there is missing evidence therefore the hypothesis is false. The evidence clearly indicates a progression of evolution of life from one celled animals billions of years to multicellular animals to a great variety of complex species. This fossil evidence existence in a very uniform progression in the sedimentary record over the billions of years necessary for the deposit of the sediments and limestone in shallow seas. The progressive evolution has evidence in great detail for the origins of amphibians, mammals, birds and other animals. Yes, there are of course missing gaps in the evolution of life, but there are discoveries constantly coming to light that fill those gaps. Human primate evolution has no come up with close to a complete evolution among primates.

The problem with the fundamentalist Creationists they have not come up with an alternate explanation that can be verified by the evidence. The other problem is you do not acknowledge the evidence we have concerning the history of life, our planet and universe.

 

[dad]

Your intent here is that because there is missing evidence therefore the hypothesis is false.

There is no evidence at all, forget missing evidence. Total belief. Why not stick to talking about the little adaptations we can see today?

The evidence clearly indicates a progression of evolution of life from one celled animals billions of years to multicellular animals to a great variety of complex species.

False. The evidence indicates that smaller creatures were the first to die and get fossilized. The part where you think the bigger things evolved from whatever little things happen to be in the record is frankly ridiculous. Like some weird denial trip by a cult that is fanatical about denying creation, so interprets all evidences in a way that omits it as a possibility. All the scenarios of science regarding the past are based on vile beliefs alone, and embraced by people who desire the resulting loony fables with their heart.

This fossil evidence existence in a very uniform progression in the sedimentary record over the billions of years necessary for the deposit of the sediments and limestone in shallow seas.

Doesn't matter that a sequence exists. What matters is the actual dates (which you have rejected in favor of your religion) and what percentage of life on earth as a whole formed the fossil record. If the nature was different, and most animals could not leave fossil remains at all, as seems to be the case, then the fossils we do see are useless because they represent a tiny tiny percentage of the variety of life on earth in the far past. Yet you hold that up, and obsess over it, and use it to represent what life as a whole was like in any given layer!! Worse still, you then turn around and proclaim that the larger dead creature we see in that hopelessly inadequate record evolved from the smaller ones!!!!!!!

The progressive evolution has evidence in great detail for the origins of amphibians, mammals, birds and other animals.

False, you mean your biased and skewed and religious idea based on misreading evidences (in your case now purposefully).

Yes, there are of course missing gaps in the evolution of life, but there are discoveries constantly coming to light that fill those gaps. Human primate evolution has no come up with close to a complete evolution among primates.

The fossil record is a record of death. To be more precise, a record of maybe 5% or whatever ting percentage of life on earth that died. You cannot prove that the present laws/nature existed, therefore any claims that animals should have left fossil remains if they existed is total imagination, and assumption.

The problem with the fundamentalist Creationists they have not come up with an alternate explanation that can be verified by the evidence.

False. In fact the explanation is glowingly simple. You have read the record wrong.

The other problem is you do not acknowledge the evidence we have concerning the history of life, our planet and universe.

The evidence says nothing about what you thought it did. The evidences all fit Scripture. God was right all along.