How Do Evolutionists Explain Mass Extinctions in their Theories?

[Dante Writer]

Climb out of your quote mine.

Here's it is in context:

"A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory; a law will always remain a law.

Theories and laws are also distinct from hypotheses. Unlike hypotheses, theories and laws may be simply referred to as scientific fact."

Funny- I am pretty sure that is what I said. Did it change and now a theory is a law?

Hmmmmm? Nope!

 

[Sapiens]

No, you quoted a snippet, out of context, that greatly changed the meaning. That's called "quote mining" and is considered to be a form of lying.

 

[Sapiens]

Night? It's mid-afternoon!

Anyway, good night, your likely need to rest now. Have a good night's sleep.

 

[Dante Writer]

No, you quoted a snippet, out of context that greatly changed the meaning That's called "quote mining" and is considered to be a form of lying.

Did that theory change into a law yet?

Nope!

Posting comics- what is next? Will you hang the Intelligent Design supporters as heretics?

 

[Sapiens]

Did that theory change into a law yet?

Nope!

Posting comics- what is next? Will you hang the Intelligent Design supporters as heretics?

No. But I did hear that Ben Stein was giving up his place in California and moving, full time, to Idaho ... thereby significantly raising the average IQ of both states.

 

[sayak83]

Thanks and I will take a look at it!

"Mutations are still random, but the cells weaken the machinery they use to remove mutations when they divide under stress"

Is that random if it happens only under that condition or is it designed for the survival of the species?

"if genes did not evolve that tried to gain control of the process itself"

That is some damn smart genes that could predict a response to an event that has not even happened. Real prophet genes you might say!

If that is true then what might be the result of a major stressor on human evolution which we may face with rapid climate change?

Genes do not have foresight. Changes in genes affect the efficiency and the fidelity of the gene duplication mechanism and this tune up or tunes down how many mutations occur on average on a given cell division. If a set of genes happens to land on a variation that causes the cell to have a cell division strategy that helps it survive tough times by increasing the rate of evolutionary change, then that set will be outcompete the ancestral set through natural selection processes and hence become the dominant form in the descendants. I do not know what the exact mutations in this case are, the researchers will know better, but usually a fairly small set of mutations can create such effects in a cell fairly easily.

In general the evolutionary process of mutation-selection repeats are an extremely efficient form of optimum solution search strategy and are widely used in Computer Optimization systems. Google certainly used evolution inspired mutation-selection algorithms to create its search algorithms that tailor to your click patterns. In that case, the various mutations are the various search results google shows in the webpage. Then there is "natural" selection by you selecting one of them by clicking on it. So the next generation of searches are "mutational" descendants of the websites you clicked on in your past browsing. Thus google algorithm progressively tailor their search results to optimize for what your desire is. Life is a system of mutually interacting organic molecules that have hot upon this mathematically powerful method of environmental demand matching by the virtue of the laws of chemistry.

 

[Dante Writer]

Genes do not have foresight. Changes in genes affect the efficiency and the fidelity of the gene duplication mechanism and this tune up or tunes down how many mutations occur on average on a given cell division. If a set of genes happens to land on a variation that causes the cell to have a cell division strategy that helps it survive tough times by increasing the rate of evolutionary change, then that set will be outcompete the ancestral set through natural selection processes and hence become the dominant form in the descendants. I do not know what the exact mutations in this case are, the researchers will know better, but usually a fairly small set of mutations can create such effects in a cell fairly easily.

In general the evolutionary process of mutation-selection repeats are an extremely efficient form of optimum solution search strategy and are widely used in Computer Optimization systems. Google certainly used evolution inspired mutation-selection algorithms to create its search algorithms that tailor to your click patterns. In that case, the various mutations are the various search results google shows in the webpage. Then there is "natural" selection by you selecting one of them by clicking on it. So the next generation of searches are "mutational" descendants of the websites you clicked on in your past browsing. Thus google algorithm progressively tailor their search results to optimize for what your desire is. Life is a system of mutually interacting organic molecules that have hot upon this mathematically powerful method of environmental demand matching by the virtue of the laws of chemistry.

"If a set of genes happens to land on a variation that causes the cell to have a cell division strategy that helps it survive tough times by increasing the rate of evolutionary change, then that set will be outcompete the ancestral set through natural selection processes"

OK and what good are those genes if they only start replacing the old system when under a stressor as the evolution would take time and by then the organism would be dead and unable to pass on that information to any offspring?

That makes sense for some responses and I would say those responses are hard wired into DNA like the adrenaline rush for a flight or fight response.

I am still thinking that is less an evolution mechanism as it is hard wired into our DNA as even babies have a startle response and many hold overs from past evolutions that we no longer need like goose bumps.

There is something more at play I believe.

 

[Sapiens]

"If a set of genes happens to land on a variation that causes the cell to have a cell division strategy that helps it survive tough times by increasing the rate of evolutionary change, then that set will be outcompete the ancestral set through natural selection processes"

OK and what good are those genes if they only start replacing the old system when under a stressor as the evolution would take time and by then the organism would be dead and unable to pass on that information to any offspring?

That makes sense for some responses and I would say those responses are hard wired into DNA like the adrenaline rush for a flight or fight response.

I am still thinking that is less an evolution mechanism as it is hard wired into our DNA as even babies have a startle response and many hold overs from past evolutions that we no longer need like goose bumps.

There is something more at play I believe.

But ... there is nothing in our DNA that did not get there (or that was not preserved there) by an evolutionary mechanism ... like goose bumps and the ability of some to wiggle their ears. In some cases it is DNA that was, in the past, selected for, but that today is neutral so it is kept ... no extra charge. If there is a cost involved (e.g, human tails) it is selected against and becomes passing rare.

 

[Dante Writer]

But ... there is nothing in our DNA that did not get there (or that was not preserved there) by an evolutionary mechanism ... like goose bumps and the ability of some to wiggle their ears. In some cases it is DNA that was, in the past, selected for, but that today is neutral so it is kept ... no extra charge. If there is a cost involved (e.g, human tails) it is selected against and becomes passing rare.

" there is nothing in our DNA that did not get there (or that was not preserved there) by an evolutionary mechanism"

OK let's assume you are correct. Then by that logic we would have many many millions of evolutions in our genetic history that would be response related (goosebumps etc.) stored in our DNA and passed on to our offspring.

Yet we see only a few common response reactions in all humans. Now that could mean there are responses stored in our DNA that we have not yet experienced because a certain stressor is no longer present or has not happened yet and if it does we would have that response.

That is a trigger hard wired into our DNA.

Now if you reject that idea then how do you explain only some responses being common to all humans and not all responses we have stored through millions of evolutions?

This gets to my idea that evolution as a result of a stressor is also hardwired into our DNA and that would explain why rapid evolution happened because our DNA responds to that stressor and tells our system to go into overdrive.

That would indicate intelligent design not natural evolution by random mutations and selection has more to do with survival after a major extinction event or severe stressor.

 

[Sapiens]

there is nothing in our DNA that did not get there (or that was not preserved there) by an evolutionary mechanism"

OK let's assume you are correct. Then by that logic we would have many many millions of evolutions in our genetic history that would be response related (goosebumps etc.) stored in our DNA and passed on to our offspring.

By "evolutions" I assume you mean point mutations? If you do, well you have over a million point mutations per cell, every day ... most are repaired. There are those that subscribe to the hypothesis that there is no such thing as a neutral mutation, that any difference in molecules means a difference in energetics and that, over time, the difference will show in a small fitness difference. Frankly, I'd say that is lost in the random noise of the system and does not get through as a signal to the selective process. Still ...

Yet we see only a few common response reactions in all humans. Now that could mean there are responses stored in our DNA that we have not yet experienced because a certain stressor is no longer present or has not happened yet and if it does we would have that response.

What do you mean by "common responses?" Some examples please.

There are no "responses" stored in your DNA except by past selective processes, if our genome has not yet explored a given niche space, than any DNA that we have that would help or hinder our fitness is a carry over, unless it is a new mutation.

That is a trigger hard wired into our DNA.

If you mean what I think you do that is just genetic deus ex machina, complete rubbish.

Now if you reject that idea then how do you explain only some responses being common to all humans and not all?

Humans are no monoclonal organisms, they have great variability some of it produced by niche variability and balancing selection.

This gets to my idea that evolution as a result of a stressor is also hardwired into our DNA and that would explain why rapid evolution happened because our DNA responds to that stressor and tells our system to go into overdrive.

You're gilding the lily, remember parsimony ... such a switch is unnecessary with sufficient variability. As long as the genotype to meet the challenge is available, the rate of evolution is dependent upon the severity of the challenge or the advantage of the breakthrough. In either case it is a question of niche availability. The sucking sound you hear is unfilled niche space calling you, so to speak.

That would indicate intelligent design not natural evolution by random mutations and selection has more to do with survival after a major extinction event or severe stressor.

It might, I'd have to think about that, but since it is a hypothetical, with nothing to support it, I doubt that I'd bother till shown evidence of the viability of the concept.

 

[sayak83]

"If a set of genes happens to land on a variation that causes the cell to have a cell division strategy that helps it survive tough times by increasing the rate of evolutionary change, then that set will be outcompete the ancestral set through natural selection processes"

OK and what good are those genes if they only start replacing the old system when under a stressor as the evolution would take time and by then the organism would be dead and unable to pass on that information to any offspring?

That makes sense for some responses and I would say those responses are hard wired into DNA like the adrenaline rush for a flight or fight response.

I am still thinking that is less an evolution mechanism as it is hard wired into our DNA as even babies have a startle response and many hold overs from past evolutions that we no longer need like goose bumps.

There is something more at play I believe.

Most species do go extinct and they do so because the environment stress was too much for the blind processes to respond to. There is a lot of good and bad luck involved here.

 

[metis]

Most species do go extinct and they do so because the environment stress was too much for the blind processes to respond to. There is a lot of good and bad luck involved here.

Yes, and also there is often competition within even the same species for survival. For example, how many humans have been killed by other humans, directly or indirectly, over millions of years?

 

[viole]

The evolutionists often defend their theories by saying it took billions of years for life to evolve into the forms we see today.

Actually, the majority of life forms we see today happened in the much much shorter space of less than 200 million years. That is a short space of time when you consider the massive amounts of evolution changes that would have had to occur. Modern humans are said to have evolved just 200,000 years ago.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm

There have been 5 mass extinctions recorded in our history: https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth-sciences/big-five-extinctions

Your thoughts?

Whoever said that is an "evolutionist". So, I am not sure what your point is.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Acim]

Dostoevsky wrote: Sarcasm is the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded.

No, you quoted a snippet, out of context that greatly changed the meaning That's called "quote mining" and is considered to be a form of lying.

Ahem.

For even this (below) is "quote mining" and not providing full context, but is far more context than the snippet above:

"Why are you--" she began and stopped. But I understood: there was a quiver of something different in her voice, not abrupt, harsh and unyielding as before, but something soft and shamefaced, so shamefaced that I suddenly felt ashamed and guilty.

"What?" I asked, with tender curiosity.

"Why, you..."

"What?"

"Why, you ... speak somehow like a book," she said, and again there was a note of irony in her voice.

That remark sent a pang to my heart. It was not what I was expecting.

I did not understand that she was hiding her feelings under irony, that this is usually the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded, and that their pride makes them refuse to surrender till the last moment and shrink from giving expression to their feelings before you. I ought to have guessed the truth from the timidity with which she had repeatedly approached her sarcasm, only bringing herself to utter it at last with an effort. But I did not guess, and an evil feeling took possession of me.

"Wait a bit!" I thought.

 

[Sapiens]

Ahem.

For even this (below) is "quote mining" and not providing full context, but is far more context than the snippet above:

No it is not. There is another element to quote mining:

Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.

 

[Midnight Rain]

The evolutionists often defend their theories by saying it took billions of years for life to evolve into the forms we see today.

Actually, the majority of life forms we see today happened in the much much shorter space of less than 200 million years. That is a short space of time when you consider the massive amounts of evolution changes that would have had to occur. Modern humans are said to have evolved just 200,000 years ago.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm

There have been 5 mass extinctions recorded in our history: https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth-sciences/big-five-extinctions

Your thoughts?

What does it have to do with evolution?

 

[Acim]

No it is not. There is another element to quote mining:

Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.

How is this different? Never mind. I'm sure weasel words will help you out of the self made predicament.

 

[Sapiens]

What predicament? There are two parts to the description and you were only considering one of them.

 

[Acim]

No, you quoted a snippet, out of context, that greatly changed the meaning. That's called "quote mining" and is considered to be a form of lying.

What predicament? There are two parts to the description and you were only considering one of them.

What are the two parts here (in above quote)?

Is this just going to result in your justifying your quote mining, taken out of context and thus perfectly fine; whereas another person doing that is determined (solely by you) as completely unjustifiable? If yes, we need not continue this exercise.

 

[Sapiens]

What are the two parts here (in above quote)?

Is this just going to result in your justifying your quote mining, taken out of context and thus perfectly fine; whereas another person doing that is determined (solely by you) as completely unjustifiable? If yes, we need not continue this exercise.

Just taking out of context, with no intent or attempt to make the quoted hold a position other than the one they actually do is not the issue and is not quote mining ... it is quoting, and is properly done all the time, albeit often as part of a misplaced argument from authority.

Here is what DW posted:

Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Here's it is in context:

Well, it could come about in the following way: it could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of our chemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable, process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.

The bolded section that was not quoted shows that Dawkins, while acknowledging the rather remote possibility found the suggestion rather unlikely.