Is the theory of evolution actually falsifiable?

[Christian Doc]

Response to David M

“And you don't think that the fact that you were training to treat illnesses would have meant that they concentrated on teaching you about mutations that do cause illness?”

If you read what I said again you will notice that this is what I said here: this is obviously due to selection bias. (Doctors only need to learn about the mutations that we will encounter, namely those that will have clinical significance.

“Yes, of the small percentage of mutations that are deleterious a lot of the highly deleterious ones never make it into the gene pool due to failures in embryonic development. That is natural selection in action - something you seem to think isnt happening in humans any more.”

I think you will actually find that the majority of early miscarriages (by that I mean less than 12 weeks) are due to major genetic abnormalities.

I think you will also find that natural selection is being skewed by modern technology. For example, in previous generations the weak would have died of infections before breeding – these are being treated by modern medicine such that they are able to breed. So if anything, modern medicine is contributing to a weakening of the gene pool. I don’t think I would be the only person to recognise that once a species can adapt the environment and improve their survival without the need for mutations they are stepping away from natural selection.

“No, the majority of mutations are neutral. As a Doctor you are concerned with harmful mutations that make people sick, thats why your training concentrated on them.”

Well, I refer you to a couple papers that would suggest that you are wrong.

Heredity - Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations?

In the introduction, “Most researchers agree that mutations with phenotypic effects are usually deleterious.”

The summary statement in the abstract is telling isn’t it:

“It is argued that, although most if not all mutations detected in mutation accumulation experiments are deleterious, the question of the rate of favourable mutations (and their effects) is still a matter for debate.”


[FONT=&quot]In the section that is titled “On detecting favourable mutations...[/FONT]



[FONT=&quot]“[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Yet most experiments looking at multicellular organisms have so far failed to produce any information on such mutations.”[/FONT]



[FONT=&quot]I therefore conclude that I am not making wild statements without evidence. I had searched at the time of my university education and this is what I was finding. At the time I had full access to pretty much all the journals online thanks to King College London internet access. I lack that now. However, it is fairly easy to see that the number of beneficial mutations are so small in number as to be improbable to improve the human species.[/FONT]



[FONT=&quot]I think that with Adam and Eve, we started with genetic perfection. Then since that time we have been accumulating mutations ever since then. The variation that we see around the world is due to the mutations of the DNA passed down to us.[/FONT]



[FONT=&quot]So I would argue that we are not evolving up, we are evolving down. I refrain from using the term devolution because somebody would merely point out that evolution does not have a necessary direction. However, I think you can see what I am saying. The human genome is deteriorating at a fast rate. In order for this to be possible, I think that the human species is young.[/FONT]




Just so you can see that this is not an isolated source

High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids : Abstract : Nature

I do not have access to the full journal but surely title is suggestive of the content of the article and the background information to it:

[FONT=&quot]High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids[/FONT]



Now, don’t get me wrong – I do not accept their idea that humans are derived from hominids, however, if experts in human genetics are making statements like “High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids”, I can say that mutations in human DNA are almost always deleterious?

I am not without evidence when I say that the vast mutations in humans are deleterious.




Gunfinger,

I suspect that a lot of what you have said has been answered above.

“You claimed that there have never been beneficial mutations. The video clearly shows that while there is little objective measure of beneficial there have been plenty of mutations that would fit into what we would consider "beneficial".”

I have already thanked you for the link regarding beneficial mutations. However, I think you will see that I do have the backing of top geneticists that there is a high rate of deleterious mutations in humans. Therefore, although I am skewed with selection bias regarding mutations – I do have published articles on the topic.


Where are the publications stating the majority of mutations are neutral?

”However, if you look up the height of the vikings based on unearthed skeletons, they were about 5'5" tall on average. So yes, human beings ARE evolving.”

Hmm, now is the height difference due to genetics or diet and improved child health?

I suspect you will find that where there has been a substantial rise in the standard of living in a culture, the children will be taller than their parents. You will also probably find that they are wider! ;-)

As I said before, humans have got to the stage where we are adapting our environment such that a lot of changes that we see are due to us meddling with our environment or coming up with other strategies – such as childhood immunisations, good sanitation etc. As an example of this (which is related to the next bit is lactose intolerance), we may find an increase in congenital lactase deficiency. They previously died as infants, now they may live to reproduce and pass on their autosomal recessive genes. Just one piece of evidence that shows that humans are getting beyond the scope of natural selection – we still have selection, it is no longer natural.



Autodidact

“Congratulations, you have just discovered your first of many beneficial human mutations.”

Interesting that you assume that the ability to digest milk is new. I think you have jumped a couple steps. You would need to show that the entire population on the globe were incapable of digesting milk in previous generations. And then suddenly a small population started to be able to digest milk. The headline would read – “Family can now digest milk!”

However, what we see is that there are people who do not express lactase into adulthood (i.e. not long enough for their culture). They still have the genetic information, they just do not express it. So you are incorrect on this one, hence I couldn’t see where you were going with this one. All that is happening is that the lactase is being expressed into adulthood.

The YEC would say that farming was present from Genesis 4 onwards. Thus, I would say that lactase was present and expressed into adulthood at the beginning. People then no longer expressed it into adulthood because of a nomadic life style. Therefore, there is nothing more than a change in expression. Thus this is not a beneficial mutation per se. This is a change in expression of a gene in response to a change in diet – not exactly ground breaking stuff is it?

“Yes, there are, and, as ToE explains, as a result they die out and do not spread throughout the population. The fact that you don't already know this is the sort of thing that is causing us to doubt that you ever actually studied ToE.”

Er, Autodidact – you say “The fact that you don’t already know this” I DID know this. I mentioned it because otherwise people might underestimate the harmful mutations. It is a significant number of harmful mutations that are not recognised by non-medics. It consumes a significant amount of energy such that if it is not factored into the equation of harmful vs benefitial mutations, you will end up with an inaccurate result.

 

[Christian Doc]

Angellous


Entry requirement for medical school requiring somebody being able to defend evolution? Well, I would have been able to jump through that hoop. I could outline the mechanisms of evolution and state things as evolutionary theory states them. Only if I was directly asked would I have to say that I don’t believe it. It was definitely not a requirement when I entered medical school. Nor should it be.

“A clear working knowedge of it is essential to understanding the human body and its reactions to various medications and therapies.”

What job do you do? Are you involved in the medical field? Do you have any basis for this statement? I suspect not.

The understanding of the human body does not require a belief in evolutionary theory – that is something an Evolutionist might argue but is plainly incorrect. I’ll make a few points.

1) You can have an understanding of something without believing. I understand evolution. I just don’t believe that it explains the origin of life nor does it explain the variety of kinds.
2) You do not need to understand evolutionary biology to understand physiology, pharmacology, anatomy etc. What you need is intelligence, good memory and hard work.
3) Which is better – blind faith in evolutionary theory (as is the case of the majority of doctors who sign up to evolution) or somebody who has assessed the evidence, understands the theory and rejects it?

I suspect you still don’t believe I’m a doctor. Nevermind. Not my problem. Not a problem for my patients.


“I've read all my posts on this thread and I'm truly at a loss as to why you would write such a thing.”

The reason why I asked you this is because I always try to treat my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ with gentleness and respect. You have neither been respectful, gentle nor encouraging. As Christians, I believe we should be like Jesus. Do you think that Jesus would have accused me of lying and been disrespectful in the manner that you have been on this thread and the many other threads? I don’t think so.

I’ve read your blog and I would appeal to you that you adopt the methodology of Paul – admonish with all gentleness and respect please. I am very happy to be corrected. However, I do think I deserve more from a Christian brother – particularly one who is as well read scripturally as you are. Remember that I am a real person – easy to forget on internet debating.


Alceste

“I can't either, but on the million to one chance Doc is genuine, I'd like to point out that fundamentalists are notorious liars when it comes to their own credentials, and this feeds into my disbelief at least as much as the unlikelihood of a YEC MD.”

As I said earlier, I do not have a MD. I have an MBBS. One in a million – well, I suppose as an evolutionist, you should be good at believing improbable things. Do you believe that life evolved from non-life by chance? What are the chances of this happening?

“Fundamentalists are notorious liars”

Well, I am not a liar. It seems that the Evolutionists on this forum are becoming notorious for accusing people of liars when they are not.

 

[DeitySlayer]

In the introduction, “Most researchers agree that mutations with phenotypiceffects are usually deleterious.”

This paper was quoted in response to a claim that the majority of mutations are neutral. As a doctor, I would have expected you to know the difference between the genotype and the phenotype. The genotype, is, as a gross simplification, the 'coding' present in the genes of an organism. The phenotype is what is actually expressed in a visible, physical form.

Therefore, whilst the paper may be correct in stating that mutations with phenotypic effects are usually deleterious (I do not endorse or reject this claim, having not read sufficiently on the subject), it ignores the neutral mutations, which by definition would not HAVE any phenotypic effects, only genotypic effects.

In essence, someone has said that most of 'A' is neutral.

In repsonse, you have quoted a paper stating that most of 'B', a minority subdivision of 'A', is deleterious. Somewhat illogical, I think.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Christian Doc says:

"1) You can have an understanding of something without believing. I understand evolution. I just don’t believe that it explains the origin of life nor does it explain the variety of kinds."

"Do you believe that life evolved from non-life by chance?"

Did you perchance miss the fact that evolution does not imply anything about the origins of life, whether by God or naturalistic processes? Evolution is merely concerned with the diversification and development of life, given an initial simple prokaryotic organism. Evolutionary theory does not care how that organism got there, only that once it was there, it evolved. There are several Christian scientists, such as K. Miller (Catholic), who believe that God 'created' the first form of prokaryotic life, but defend evolution with intellectual vigour and astonishing zeal.

Oh, and just to point out one more thing; as an intelligent individual, could you not fall back on the 'evolution/abiogenesis is chance (and therefore unlikely)' mantra commonly spewed out by Creationists. Both involved selection processes which meant that although parts of the overall process were indeed random chance, the overall process was continuously refined by naturalistic forces, and was therefore not chance.

 

[Autodidact]

Doc:

I think you are contradicting yourself. On the one hand you say that evolution is happening at a hyper rate, much faster than what we actually observe. On the other hand you say that evolution is impossible.

 

[Autodidact]

I think you will actually find that the majority of early miscarriages (by that I mean less than 12 weeks) are due to major genetic abnormalities.

Exactly. These abnormalities result in miscarriages, and so are eliminated from the genetic pool. This is actually evolution in action.

I think you will also find that natural selection is being skewed by modern technology. For example, in previous generations the weak would have died of infections before breeding – these are being treated by modern medicine such that they are able to breed. So if anything, modern medicine is contributing to a weakening of the gene pool. I don’t think I would be the only person to recognise that once a species can adapt the environment and improve their survival without the need for mutations they are stepping away from natural selection.

This is true. Humans are much less subject to selection pressures, at least in some parts of the world, than other species or than we used to be.

Well, I refer you to a couple papers that would suggest that you are wrong.

Heredity - Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations?

In the introduction, “Most researchers agree that mutations with phenotypic effects are usually deleterious.”[/quote] Most mutations don't have phenotypic effects; their effect is nuetral. Many are negative, as in this paper, but, as we discussed above, they never reproduce. A few are beneficial. They survive, reproduce, and eventually spread throughout the population.

So I would argue that we are not evolving up, we are evolving down. I refrain from using the term devolution because somebody would merely point out that evolution does not have a necessary direction. However, I think you can see what I am saying. The human genome is deteriorating at a fast rate. In order for this to be possible, I think that the human species is young.

do you see the flaw in your logic? You say you understand that those negative mutations result in miscarriage--isn't it obvious that therefore they never impact the gene pool?

But again, if mutations do not result in evolution, how do you get from your limited number of "kinds" to the millions of species we have today?

Now, don’t get me wrong – I do not accept their idea that humans are derived from hominids, however, if experts in human genetics are making statements like “High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids”, I can say that mutations in human DNA are almost always deleterious?

THE DELETERIOUS ONES DON'T GET REPRODUCED.

I am not without evidence when I say that the vast mutations in humans are deleterious.

No, the vast majority are nuetral or deleterious, and die out. A few are beneficial, and survive, reproduce and spread. It wouldn't matter if it was 99 nuetral/bad to 1 good--only the good ones survive and reproduce and spread throughout the gene pool.

If this were not so, how could you get the millions of new species that you say have emerged in a few thousand years?

Autodidact

Interesting that you assume that the ability to digest milk is new. I think you have jumped a couple steps. You would need to show that the entire population on the globe were incapable of digesting milk in previous generations. And then suddenly a small population started to be able to digest milk. The headline would read – “Family can now digest milk!”

However, what we see is that there are people who do not express lactase into adulthood (i.e. not long enough for their culture). They still have the genetic information, they just do not express it. So you are incorrect on this one, hence I couldn’t see where you were going with this one. All that is happening is that the lactase is being expressed into adulthood.

Here's the genetic mutation that allows adults to drink milk. It's a single mutation. It's beneficial. It exists.

Er, Autodidact – you say “The fact that you don’t already know this” I DID know this. I mentioned it because otherwise people might underestimate the harmful mutations. It is a significant number of harmful mutations that are not recognised by non-medics. It consumes a significant amount of energy such that if it is not factored into the equation of harmful vs benefitial mutations, you will end up with an inaccurate result.

Deleterious mutations have little effect on whether ToE is correct. ToE includes and explains their effect. They are understood and accounted for...and necessary in your hypothesis.

Basically, do you not accept the entire ToE, differing only about the number of original ancestors, whether one or many?

 

[Alceste]

Doc, the chance of something that has already happened happening is 100%.

 

[Christian Doc]

Autodidact

"Most mutations don't have phenotypic effects; their effect is nuetral. Many are negative, as in this paper, but, as we discussed above, they never reproduce. A few are beneficial. They survive, reproduce, and eventually spread throughout the population."

I disagree. The difficulty is that a lot of deleterious mutations do not necessarily give rise to problems until after reproductive age. Thus, the deleterious mutation is passed on. The idea that the will "never" produce is just not true. The idea that the beneficial mutation will "eventually" spread throughout the population is mere speculation and I would go as far as to say - faith. Your faith in the evolutionary process.

"THE DELETERIOUS ONES DON'T GET REPRODUCED."

Putting it in block capitals doesn't change the fact that people with deleterious mutations are reproducing all the time.

Only severely deleterious mutations result in infertility (for whatever reason) or death before reproductive age.

"You say you understand that those negative mutations result in miscarriage--isn't it obvious that therefore they never impact the gene pool?"

I am giving examples of deleterious mutations. You have to include all of them. From those that are so severe that they don't get beyond 8 weeks of gestation to those that are minor that they accumulate in the population. Over time we are a collection of all of our ancestor's mutations. We have just hope that the base pairs can mutate back to how they were supposed to be (I suspect that this is the case in some that are minor deleterious ones)

"But again, if mutations do not result in evolution, how do you get from your limited number of "kinds" to the millions of species we have today?"

We have been limiting ourselves to human genetics - you know by now that I think humans are a different "kind" from all other animals. Our mutations do not result in new species and sub kinds of humans.

However, I believe that mutations and variations in expressions of genes will result in various species within the kinds of animals and plants.



"

It wouldn't matter if it was 99 nuetral/bad to 1 good--only the good ones survive and reproduce and spread throughout the gene pool."

I think it would make a big difference. If the harmful mutations to beneficial mutation rate was so bad then the DNA in all animals would have deteriorated so quickly in the last 3 billion years.

Surely the rate of harmful mutations is favour of a more recent development of a "good" genome, from which harmful mutations are knocking away?

Deleterious mutations are incredibly relevant to evolution. The ToE is trying to say that simple organisms give rise to complex organisms.

How can this possibly happen when the genetic information is mutating and vital proteins are being knocked off or damaged?

"Basically, do you not accept the entire ToE, differing only about the number of original ancestors, whether one or many?"

Well, kind of. The difficulty is the bits that I do not accept are the bits that are essential for the ToE (I can't help but think of Trans-Oesophageal Echocardiogram everytime I see this!).

For example, I do not accept millions and billions of years.
I do not accept a common ancestor for all life.
I am not convinced by the entirely random nature of mutations in the formation of species, I do think that God had his hand in guiding the mutations. (I know you won't like this one!)
Some people extrapolate the ToE to explain the origins of life - I just can never believe the impossible.

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact
I disagree. The difficulty is that a lot of deleterious mutations do not necessarily give rise to problems until after reproductive age. Thus, the deleterious mutation is passed on. The idea that the will "never" produce is just not true. The idea that the beneficial mutation will "eventually" spread throughout the population is mere speculation and I would go as far as to say - faith. Your faith in the evolutionary process.

And here you were telling us how they result in miscarriage.

No, like most of the Theory of Evolution (ToE), it has actually been observed. We can track a beneficial mutation moving through the population and eventually becoming widespread.

By "deleterious" I mean--tending to reduce the chances of surviving and reproducing. Thus by definition we see that the more deleterious the mutation, the less likely to be passed on.

Putting it in block capitals doesn't change the fact that people with deleterious mutations are reproducing all the time.

Remember, people are the exception. Most organisms don't have anti-biotics or wheelchairs. Anything that disadvantages an organism is going to make it less likely to survive and reproduce. That is very basic evolutionary theory.

Only severely deleterious mutations result in infertility (for whatever reason) or death before reproductive age.

O.K., then severely deleterious, if that's the terminology you want to use.

For example, if a mutation makes an organism more susceptible to a certain virus, and that virus is present, that individual is less likely to survive and reproduce than an individual without that mutation.

I am giving examples of deleterious mutations. You have to include all of them. From those that are so severe that they don't get beyond 8 weeks of gestation to those that are minor that they accumulate in the population. Over time we are a collection of all of our ancestor's mutations. We have just hope that the base pairs can mutate back to how they were supposed to be (I suspect that this is the case in some that are minor deleterious ones)

Remember, we are only one of twelve million or so species. It's stiff competition out there in nature. Any little advantage or disadvantage will tell.

We have been limiting ourselves to human genetics - you know by now that I think humans are a different "kind" from all other animals. Our mutations do not result in new species and sub kinds of humans.

Yes, well you're mistaken. We are simply another species of animal. Given enough time, chances are that new species will arise out of homo sapiens. In any case, your beliefs are just that--beliefs.

However, I believe that mutations and variations in expressions of genes will result in various species within the kinds of animals and plants.

Yes, at an astronomical rate. Yet you've been arguing strenuously that this is impossible. You need to give up one or the other of these beliefs, as they contradict each other.

I think it would make a big difference. If the harmful mutations to beneficial mutation rate was so bad then the DNA in all animals would have deteriorated so quickly in the last 3 billion years.

No, because natural selection culls them out.

Surely the rate of harmful mutations is favour of a more recent development of a "good" genome, from which harmful mutations are knocking away?

Sorry, you lost me here.

Deleterious mutations are incredibly relevant to evolution. The ToE is trying to say that simple organisms give rise to complex organisms.

No. ToE says that new species evolve from existing ones, both more and less complex.

How can this possibly happen when the genetic information is mutating and vital proteins are being knocked off or damaged?

You're right, it's impossible. Your hypothesis is wrong. New species do not evolve. And now you have a wooden boat with several million organisms on it, including two hippopotami and two African elephants.

Well, kind of. The difficulty is the bits that I do not accept are the bits that are essential for the ToE (I can't help but think of Trans-Oesophageal Echocardiogram everytime I see this!).

Except that you agree with what you're arguing against, which is that new species evolve according to the mechanism described in ToE.

For example, I do not accept millions and billions of years.

Yes, you reject science, including all of Geology and most of physics.

I do not accept a common ancestor for all life.

Exactly.

I am not convinced by the entirely random nature of mutations in the formation of species, I do think that God had his hand in guiding the mutations. (I know you won't like this one!)

That's religion, not science. No way to dispute it scientifically, so as far as I'm concerned you can hold on to it here. I will point out though that we actually know how mutations occur, and measure the degree of randomness.
Some people extrapolate the ToE to explain the origins of life - I just can never believe the impossible.[/quote]

 

[evolved yet?]

You believe that our genome would deteriorate with evolution, but we just lessened our selection pressures so our genome has just recently started to deteriorate, so not reflecting the age of the Earth, merely the beginning of reduced selection pressures, taking the way the logic of your argument.

 

[Christian Doc]

DeitySlayer

If you read through my response you will see that I do understand the difference between phenotype and genotype. I appeal to the difference regularly when discussing the diversity of life coming from a relatively small number of kinds. i.e. many species have identical/near-identical genotype but are phenotypically different to result in speciation and be declared a species by biologists.


I posted the papers because people on this forum have continually attacked my intellect and assume I have not read around the subject. I had access to the journals as a student, I no longer do (sadly). I read around the area of mutations in the human genome when I was at university. This was pivotal in me rejecting many of the claims of ToE. Therefore, I posted this paper.

It also does cast doubt on whether the ToE can ever truly swim against the tide and get more complex organisms evolving from simple organisms when the DNA is undergoing more deleterious mutations than beneficial mutations.

I still wait to see the article that says the majority of human mutations are neutral.


Either way - Deleterious + Neutral >>>>>>> Beneficial + Neutral.

I have then reduced this formula to - Deleterious >>>>>> Beneficial.

"Oh, and just to point out one more thing; as an intelligent individual, could you not fall back on the 'evolution/abiogenesis is chance (and therefore unlikely)' mantra commonly spewed out by Creationists. Both involved selection processes which meant that although parts of the overall process were indeed random chance, the overall process was continuously refined by naturalistic forces, and was therefore not chance."

I may not have worded it like this but I would argue that the chance of life evolving from non-life are so minute as to be impossible. Selection can only take place once information is available - we are talking about the formation of information in the first place.

What is the difference between:

The overall process was continuously refined by naturalistic forces, and was therefore not by chance.

AND

The overall process was continuously refined by God, and was therefore not by chance.

Answer - nothing really, just terms. I believe/worship God.

Some people believe in naturalistic forces - I respect the rights of all people to believe what in what ever religion they want to.

"Evolutionary theory does not care how that organism got there, only that once it was there, it evolved."

Well, that depends on who is speaking. I have heard many Evolutionists start spouting on that the ToE explains how life began and developed on earth. This always amuses me.

 

[Noaidi]

I have heard many Evolutionists start spouting on that the ToE explains how life began and developed on earth. This always amuses me.

Hopefully not on these threads. It has beeen iterated a number of times that abiogenesis is separate from ToE. ToE seeks to explain how life evolved after it got started (by whatever means), not how it got started.

 

[Christian Doc]

Autodidact,

I'm just about to go to sleep but before I do I think I need to clarify an important point that I think you are confusing in my theories.


There is a distinction between what I am saying happens when a "kind" mutates to form various species and what the ToE says.

I am suggesting that the mutations within a kind leads to a loss of information and therefore two populations will form, leading to speciation. A similar process but subtly different.

So, if we start with population A.

A subgroup of population will have a mutation in a gene that will eventually lead to the formation of population B.

Population A continue.
Population B continue, with their mutation (loss of integrity of a protein and loss of function)

Population A experiences another mutation that gives rise to population C (loss of a different protein). Population B will have another mutation resulting in reduced expression of a protein resulting in population D.

So we end up with 4 populations via mutations. But none of them have gained new information compared with population A.



However the ToE is different.

It would say something more like this:

Population A develops a mutation (deleterious - loss of function) which results in population B. Population B thrive in a different environment where it actually results in an advantage and therefore succeeds. (So far, no real difference from previous example.

The real difference is when population A mutates a duplication and forms a new protein that improves the metabolic process and therefore forms population C.

In the ToE - Population A can give rise to population B (deteriorating genetic code)
or population C ("Improving" genetic code)
or stay the same.

I think that speciation is only possible through a deterioration in the genetic code resulting in variety that can give rise to benefit in certain circumstances.


Ultimately, I do believe that God guided this diversification process after the flood so give rise to the variety that we see.

 

[Christian Doc]

Noaidi,

I suppose Dawkins is the most famous person who talks about the theory of evolution explaining the origin of life. He goes beyond on what science says to do so but he does it anyway.

I do often get it from people that ToE explains the origin of life - I find that amazing. I think it is a clear leap of faith - far more than I have!

 

[Noaidi]

I think that speciation is only possible through a deterioration in the genetic code resulting in variety that can give rise to benefit in certain circumstances.

You are stating that a 'deterioration' has occurred, but what if that change produces a selective advantage to that species? Would it still be seen as a 'deterioration'?

Ultimately, I do believe that God guided this diversification process after the flood so give rise to the variety that we see.

That, of course, is your perogative. But can you account for the mode of the diversification, without resorting to evolution?

 

[Autodidact]

I may not have worded it like this but I would argue that the chance of life evolving from non-life are so minute as to be impossible. Selection can only take place once information is available - we are talking about the formation of information in the first place.

The chance of something happening which has in fact happened is exactly 100%.

What is the difference between:

The overall process was continuously refined by naturalistic forces, and was therefore not by chance.

AND

The overall process was continuously refined by God, and was therefore not by chance.

One is scientific, the other religious. btw, these two statements do not contradict each other. Science, all science, including Biology, is simply silent or agnostic on the existence of God. (for the millionth time for, though not with you) Science is not about who, it's about how. Assuming that God created the first, last and every other living and non-living thing, as I assume you believe, science investigates HOW He did so, not whether.

Answer - nothing really, just terms. I believe/worship God.

That's fascinating, and irrelevant to this thread.

Some people believe in naturalistic forces - I respect the rights of all people to believe what in what ever religion they want to.

Naturalistic forces are what science studies. And you're in favor of science, correct?

Well, that depends on who is speaking. I have heard many Evolutionists start spouting on that the ToE explains how life began and developed on earth. This always amuses me.

I call bull. I have been debating this issue steadily for around 8 years, and I have never heard the pro-science (what you inaccurately call "evolutionist") side state that, exactly the opposite. The creationists wrongly raise the issue, and the forces of science explain patiently and repeatedly that is a separate issue.

It's a bit tough to spend your life explaining to people that X is not the case, until you're sick to death of it, and then get accused of claiming that X is the case.

I challenge you to find a single pro-science post here that claims that ToE explains the origin of life. If you cannot, I see you are the kind of decent person who will retract your inaccurate claim.

 

[LuisDantas]

Truth be told, many evolutionists do indeed believe that the origin of life is a minor mistery once the ToE is in place, and therefore tend to speak of the matter as solved already, or close enough for most purposes anyway.

It is a very reasonable stance to have, IMO. After all, no better speculation ever came to be.

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact,

I'm just about to go to sleep but before I do I think I need to clarify an important point that I think you are confusing in my theories.

I am confusing it because you stated as much. You said that you accept ToE, except faster, with more ancestors, and God at the wheel.

There is a distinction between what I am saying happens when a "kind" mutates to form various species and what the ToE says.

Neither categories nor individuals mutate; genes do.

I am suggesting that the mutations within a kind leads to a loss of information and therefore two populations will form, leading to speciation. A similar process but subtly different.

You have now incorporated two completely meaningless terms into your description. Unless you want to tell us what on earth you mean by "information" and how it is lost by genetic mutation, and how that would lead to a new species. Otherwise you are in effect saying, "I am suggesting that mutations within a bleepmorp leads to a loss of bargamarga, and therefore..." We already had bleepmorp, now you've added bargamarga. Your sentences are no longer making sense.

So, if we start with population A.

A subgroup of population will have a mutation in a gene that will eventually lead to the formation of population B.

Population A continue.
Population B continue, with their mutation (loss of integrity of a protein and loss of function)

Population A experiences another mutation that gives rise to population C (loss of a different protein). Population B will have another mutation resulting in reduced expression of a protein resulting in population D.

So we end up with 4 populations via mutations. But none of them have gained new information compared with population A.

Define "information." If population C has a mutation that allows the adult members to digest milk, have they gained or lost information? A mutation that makes them bigger? Smaller? Faster? Fatter? Thinner? With or without spots, stripes or patches?

However the ToE is different.

I

t would say something more like this:

Population A develops a mutation (deleterious - loss of function) which results in population B. Population B thrive in a different environment where it actually results in an advantage and therefore succeeds. (So far, no real difference from previous example.

Nope, that is not what ToE says. So I have to ask you what I eventually have to ask all creationists. Do you not actually know what ToE says, or are you intentionally distorting it?

The real difference is when population A mutates a duplication and forms a new protein that improves the metabolic process and therefore forms population C.

In the ToE - Population A can give rise to population B (deteriorating genetic code)
or population C ("Improving" genetic code)
or stay the same.

There is no better or worse, only in terms of adaptation to a specific environment. Larger, smaller, spotted or plain may be better or worse in a different environment, with different selection pressures.

I think that speciation is only possible through a deterioration in the genetic code resulting in variety that can give rise to benefit in certain circumstances.

Every mutation is a "deterioration" in the genetic code. That is, the message is changes. Every mutation is a copying error. Some help, some harm, most do nothing.

Ultimately, I do believe that God guided this diversification process after the flood so give rise to the variety that we see.

Again, fascinating and irrelevant. Try to remember we're not talking about WHO, we're talking about HOW.

How do you believe God guides this diversification? Magic intervention?

 

[Autodidact]

Noaidi,

I suppose Dawkins is the most famous person who talks about the theory of evolution explaining the origin of life. He goes beyond on what science says to do so but he does it anyway.

Cite?

I do often get it from people that ToE explains the origin of life - I find that amazing. I think it is a clear leap of faith - far more than I have!

I don't believe you. If you can find such a post here at RF I will retract and apologize.

 

[Atomist]

Population A develops a mutation (deleterious - loss of function) which results in population B. Population B thrive in a different environment where it actually results in an advantage and therefore succeeds. (So far, no real difference from previous example.

The real difference is when population A mutates a duplication and forms a new protein that improves the metabolic process and therefore forms population C.

In the ToE - Population A can give rise to population B (deteriorating genetic code)
or population C ("Improving" genetic code)
or stay the same.

Close... if population B gains an advantage from the "deleterious" mutation then it's actually a good mutation and improves the genetic code ducy?