Has man stopped evolving?

[Dante Writer]

yeah...it seems Man is destined for extinction.

I still have hope that brains will win out over brawn!

 

[Dante Writer]

I did hear from one of those science documentaries....about the way we might fail....

seems the planet has enough fresh water and elemental essentials for 9billion people.
we are almost there.

in the current scheme of increase and if I live to be 85 (25yrs to go)
that number I will live to see.

oooops

The demand for resources is certainly going to play a role in whether our species survives but there again with intelligent use of resources and finding new resources maybe from other planet or yet undiscovered here on earth and through recycling and reducing what we use I believe we can extend our existence indefinitely.

Population will have to be regulated at some point and maybe that is why humans have maintained a natural disposition for war as it limits population growth which we do not seem to do well with other means.

 

[Thief]

The demand for resources is certainly going to play a role in whether our species survives but there again with intelligent use of resources and finding new resources maybe from other planet or yet undiscovered here on earth and through recycling and reducing what we use I believe we can extend our existence indefinitely.

Population will have to be regulated at some point and maybe that is why humans have maintained a natural disposition for war as it limits population growth which we do not seem to do well with other means.

yeah.....and so much for natural selection.....

 

[Smart_Guy]

I believe in evolution, but not the way current scientific theories talk about. I believe we are a completely separate being called human with no evolution relationship with other beings, but only physical and organic similarities. Evolution the way I see it, could involve height, some body parts size, hair distribution in the body, resistance/weakness to surrounding conditions, and stuff like that. But drastic changes don't make sense to me. Peoples live for generations and generations close to the see but they never grew gills or something else related to water.

Just a thought I wanted to share.

 

[Dante Writer]

I believe in evolution, but not the way current scientific theories talk about. I believe we are a completely separate being called human with no evolution relationship with other beings, but only physical and organic similarities. Evolution the way I see it, could involve height, some body parts size, hair distribution in the body, resistance/weakness to surrounding conditions, and stuff like that. But drastic changes don't make sense to me. Peoples live for generations and generations close to the see but they never grew gills or something else related to water.

Just a thought I wanted to share.

Thanks for sharing your philosophy!

Evolution by natural selection within a species makes sense and is seen everyday as humans choose a mate because of certain physical traits that will be passed on to the next generation.

Evolution of one species to another is a much harder theory to explain reasonably and scientists are still trying to find that missing link.

Personally I swing to the science side and to get to the basics which is all about energy. The one thing that separates living things from non-living is energy for action and the ability to reproduce. You do not find that in non-living things so I find it hard to believe that man or any living organism came from non-living elements as a process of spontaneous life.

That is why Darwin steered well clear of the origin of life argument and evolution only explains how a species can over time through natural selection, migration and the occasional random mutation and genetic drift a species can develop new traits. It in no way explains the origins of that species and that is the crux of the argument between evolutionists and creationists.

Evolutionists are trying to explain origin of life which that theory was never intended to do and creationists reject the origin argument and ignore the obvious evolution that can be seen through fossil history.

I am somewhere in between both camps and I believe there is a major part of the picture missing and if we remain rigid in either school of thought we will probably never discover what that missing piece is that made it all possible.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Thanks for sharing your philosophy!

You're welcome

 

[Parsimony]

Bacterial resistance is not evidence of evolution:

"Evolutionists frequently point to the development of antibiotic resistance by bacteria as a demonstration of evolutionary change. However, molecular analysis of the genetic events that lead to antibiotic resistance do not support this common assumption. Many bacteria become resistant by acquiring genes from plasmids or transposons via horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal transfer, though, does not account for the origin of resistance genes, only their spread among bacteria. Mutations, on the other hand, can potentially account for the origin of antibiotic resistance within the bacterial world, but involve mutational processes that are contrary to the predictions of evolution. Instead, such mutations consistently reduce or eliminate the function of transport proteins or porins, protein binding affinities, enzyme activities, the proton motive force, or regulatory control systems. While such mutations can be regarded as “beneficial,” in that they increase the survival rate of bacteria in the presence of the antibiotic, they involve mutational processes that do not provide a genetic mechanism for common “descent with modification.” Also, some “relative fitness” cost is often associated with such mutations, although reversion mutations may eventually recover most, if not all, of this cost for some bacteria. A true biological cost does occur, however, in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems or functions. Such loss of cellular activity cannot legitimately be offered as a genetic means of demonstrating evolution."

https://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.php

Funny, I never mentioned bacterial resistance. It is, however, evolution. It is a change in the allele frequencies of the population over time. That is evolution. Not to mention that some of the mutations I mentioned do give the organisms abilities that they didn't have before (such as nylonase and aerobic citrate metabolism).

 

[Dante Writer]

Funny, I never mentioned bacterial resistance. It is, however, evolution. It is a change in the allele frequencies of the population over time. That is evolution. Not to mention that some of the mutations I mentioned do give the organisms abilities that they didn't have before (such as nylonase and aerobic citrate metabolism).

Bacterial resistance is NOT evidence of evolution:

"Antibiotic resistance occurred by a loss of information."

Mutations harmed the ribosome of the bacteria so that antibiotics were not able to attach. This made the individuals resistant; however, it came about from a loss of information. No new 'machines' or functions able to destroy antibiotics were added."

http://evolutiondismantled.com/resistance


Citric Metabolism occurs through a modification of a transporter already existing in the cell. Not evidence of evolution of a new transporter or function.

In order to be an evolution there has to be evidence that a new machine or function must be created.

Both examples are evidence only that existing machines and functions can be modified.

 

[Parsimony]

Bacterial resistance is NOT evidence of evolution:

Evolution is, again, a change in the frequencies of alleles in a population over time.

"Antibiotic resistance occurred by a loss of information."

Mutations harmed the ribosome of the bacteria so that antibiotics were not able to attach. This made the individuals resistant; however, it came about from a loss of information. No new 'machines' or functions able to destroy antibiotics were added."

Doesn't matter if this specific example was caused by a loss of information. It's evolution by the definition I mentioned before.

Citric Metabolism occurs through a modification of a transporter already existing in the cell. Not evidence of evolution of a new transporter or function.

If you can do something that you couldn't do before, then it is a new function. There were several mutations involved in it, and each one improved the cell's ability o digest citrate aerobically. That's how all new genes come about in the first place: modification of existing genes. New genes don't pop up out of nothingness. Nylonase is one of the prime examples, since it allowed the cells to digest a material that doesn't even exist in nature and therefore nylonase had to be a new enzyme.

In order to be an evolution there has to be evidence that a new machine or function must be created.

Straw man. Evolution, as I'll say again, a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. It doesn't matter whether information is added, destroyed or kept the same.

 

[Dante Writer]

Evolution is, again, a change in the frequencies of alleles in a population over time.

Doesn't matter if this specific example was caused by a loss of information. It's evolution by the definition I mentioned before.

If you can do something that you couldn't do before, then it is a new function. There were several mutations involved in it, and each one improved the cell's ability o digest citrate aerobically. That's how all new genes come about in the first place: modification of existing genes. New genes don't pop up out of nothingness. Nylonase is one of the prime examples, since it allowed the cells to digest a material that doesn't even exist in nature and therefore nylonase had to be a new enzyme.

Straw man. Evolution, as I'll say again, a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. It doesn't matter whether information is added, destroyed or kept the same.

Well we will have to disagree then because just a modification of a function is not evolution.

Population genetics tries to hard to claim things are evolution that can be explained through other causes.

 

[Parsimony]

Well we will have to disagree then because just a modification of a function is not evolution.

My college textbook (from 2004) defines evolution as: "Originally defined as descent with modification, or changes in the characteristics of populations over time. Currently defined as changes in allele frequencies over time." The TalkOrigins website, (which is run by evolutionary biologists) lists this definition: "evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations". "Biology" (Curtis and Barnes, 1989), says "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next". Douglas J. Futuyma, an evolutionary biologist says, "The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions." Just so you know, changing the definition of a word to support an argument is called the "straw man fallacy".

Population genetics tries to hard to claim things are evolution that can be explained through other causes.

Evolution is not a "cause" so much as it is a "result" of genetic inheritence and population dynamics (as per the definitions I listed before).

 

[Dante Writer]

My college textbook (from 2004) defines evolution as: "Originally defined as descent with modification, or changes in the characteristics of populations over time. Currently defined as changes in allele frequencies over time." The TalkOrigins website, (which is run by evolutionary biologists) lists this definition: "evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations". "Biology" (Curtis and Barnes, 1989), says "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next". Douglas J. Futuyma, an evolutionary biologist says, "The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions." Just so you know, changing the definition of a word to support an argument is called the "straw man fallacy".

Evolution is not a "cause" so much as it is a "result" of genetic inheritence and population dynamics (as per the definitions I listed before).

"changes in the characteristics of populations over time"

Yes I am aware of that extremely watered down definition text book writers are now using to define evolution.

I clearly said just a modification of an existing function is not evidence of evolution.

The reason for that watered down definition is it allows scientists to claim any change to offspring through mating as an evolution.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"changes in the characteristics of populations over time"

Yes I am aware of that extremely watered down definition text book writers are now using to define evolution.

I clearly said just a modification of an existing function is not evidence of evolution.

That's like saying "a smaller mass being drawn to a larger mass is not evidence of gravity".

"Evolution" is the name we give to the process through which existing forms and functions are modified over time in living populations, just as "gravity" is the name we give to the phenomenon of certain objects that are drawn to each other.

The reason for that watered down definition is it allows scientists to claim any change to offspring through mating as an evolution.

How on earth could it do that when the definition specifically says "populations", not "individuals"?

 

[Dante Writer]

That's like saying "a smaller mass being drawn to a larger mass is not evidence of gravity".

"Evolution" is the name we give to the process through which existing forms and functions are modified over time in living populations, just as "gravity" is the name we give to the phenomenon of certain objects that are drawn to each other.


How on earth could it do that when the definition specifically says "populations", not "individuals"?

What do you know you finally got something right!

"Evolution" is the name we give to the process through which existing forms and functions are modified over time in living populations"

Right and it is not just one process and that process can take on many mechanisms and are not all natural.

Cloning is a process and so is genetic modification that can create organisms with new functions. Not natural selection or a natural process.

Is cloning and genetic modification by a scientist evolution?

If so then you must accept intelligent design!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What do you know you finally got something right!

"Evolution" is the name we give to the process through which existing forms and functions are modified over time in living populations"

Right and it is not just one process and that process can take on many mechanisms and are not all natural.

Cloning is a process and so is genetic modification that can create organisms with new functions. Not natural selection or a natural process.

Again, the definition includes the terms "living populations". Cloning creates an organism with new features or functions, it doesn't cause already living populations allele frequencies to change over time. You seem somewhat blind to this distinction between something occurring on an individual or family level and something occurring at the level of population. Allow me to explain:

A baby rabbit being born (by whatever means) that carries with it a mutation for slightly darker fur = A INDIVIDUAL MUTATION, not evolution

A population of rabbits changing over time because darker fur leads to less of their number being spotted by predators and therefore darker fur being naturally selected for and increasing the number of dark-furred rabbits being born in that population = EVOLUTION

What you are saying here is like saying "rivers can be created by unnatural means, such as taking a bucket of water out and dumping it on the lawn - thus making a new river". It's not that simple. If, however, you dug an entirely new trench and allowed water from a source to pour through it on a large scale, then you have created a new river.

Is cloning and genetic modification by a scientist evolution?

Only if it leads to changes in the allele frequency of a living population.

If so then you must accept intelligent design!

Nope. "Evolution can be influenced by intelligence" does not mean "therefore all evolution is caused/influenced by intelligence". This is a logical fallacy.

 

[Dante Writer]

Again, the definition includes the terms "living populations". Cloning creates an organism with new features or functions, it doesn't cause already living populations allele frequencies to change over time. You seem somewhat blind to this distinction between something occurring on an individual or family level and something occurring at the level of population. Allow me to explain:

A baby rabbit being born (by whatever means) that carries with it a mutation for slightly darker fur = A INDIVIDUAL MUTATION, not evolution

A population of rabbits changing over time because darker fur leads to less of their number being spotted by predators and therefore darker fur being naturally selected for and increasing the number of dark-furred rabbits being born in that population = EVOLUTION

What you are saying here is like saying "rivers can be created by unnatural means, such as taking a bucket of water out and dumping it on the lawn - thus making a new river". It's not that simple. If, however, you dug an entirely new trench and allowed water from a source to pour through it on a large scale, then you have created a new river.


Only if it leads to changes in the allele frequency of a living population.


Nope. "Evolution can be influenced by intelligence" does not mean "therefore all evolution is caused/influenced by intelligence". This is a logical fallacy.

"therefore all evolution is caused/influenced by intelligence"

Now show me where I said that since you put quotations around it?

Now you made a huge stink in another thread about quotes being edited and taken out of context and here you are making up a quote I never even said.

Hypocrite!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"therefore all evolution is caused/influenced by intelligence"

Now show me where I said that since you put quotations around it?

I didn't say you said it - it's called a logical analogy. You also never said "evolution can be influenced by intelligence". This seemed to have slipped your notice. What you are suggesting is that if we accept that human cloning or genetic modification as a form of evolution (which they aren't, but that's another subject), then we "must accept intelligent design". This is like saying "If you believe meat can come in a can, you must believe that all meat comes in a can". It's the same logic you are using.

Now you made a huge stink in another thread about quotes being edited and taken out of context and here you are making up a quote I never even said.

Hypocrite!

If I intended people to think I was quoting you directly, I would have put it in quotation html. Now you're just scratching the bottom of the barrel.

 

[Parsimony]

"changes in the characteristics of populations over time"

Yes I am aware of that extremely watered down definition text book writers are now using to define evolution.

That's more or less how it's always been defined. Darwin said that "descent with modification" was evolution, he didn't say that it had to be extreme modification in order to count.

I clearly said just a modification of an existing function is not evidence of evolution.

And you are wrong. Even back in the 1800's, Darwin used the phrase "descent with modification" for evolution.

The reason for that watered down definition is it allows scientists to claim any change to offspring through mating as an evolution.

Even in accordance with Darwin's original definition, that would be evolution.

 

[Dante Writer]

That's more or less how it's always been defined. Darwin said that "descent with modification" was evolution, he didn't say that it had to be extreme modification in order to count.

And you are wrong. Even back in the 1800's, Darwin used the phrase "descent with modification" for evolution.

Even in accordance with Darwin's original definition, that would be evolution.

1- "more or less" which is the crux of the problem as the definition has been watered down to make any mating and off spring an evolution.

2- I have no doubt that natural selection occurs and genetics are passed on. That in no way bridges the gap of evolution from one species to another which may not fit that definition at all and is why laying that definition down is dangerous to science.

 

[Parsimony]

1- "more or less" which is the crux of the problem as the definition has been watered down to make any mating and off spring an evolution.

How can that be a "watered down" definition when "descent with modification" was the original definition in the first place?

2- I have no doubt that natural selection occurs and genetics are passed on. That in no way bridges the gap of evolution from one species to another which may not fit that definition at all and is why laying that definition down is dangerous to science.

What you are talking about is the difference between microevolution (evolution within a species) and macroevolution (evolution of new species). Both are still evolution.