Isn't this cute?

[Wildswanderer]

They are random with respect to survival, yes. But they happen by known chemistry and physics.

A mutation is simply a change in the DNA. That is all. Some base in the DNA, AGTC changes to another. Some changes are a bit more likely than others, but that is what a mutation is.

The effect of a mutation is that some protein is slightly different. It may have a slightly different strength of binding something (if it is an enzyme), or a slightly different strength (if it is structural), or it may allow something through the cell membrane a bit faster or slower.

But what *that* means is that some developmental process might go slightly longer or shorter. Which means a bone may be longer or shorter, or the skull might have slightly different properties.

The most important proteins for evolution are those that control a wide range of other developmental processes. A slight change in these can change the way an organism look quite dramatically.

And, by the way, NONE of this is speculative. ALL is verified in the lab on actual organisms.

So, the mutations that occur are random.

But which individuals survive to pass on the changed gene is NOT random. It is determined by the environment. And that means some mutations are more likely to exist in the *next* generation than others. And *that* is natural selection.

So large scale changes are driven mostly by the environment acting on the available mutations. And there are *always* mutations from parents to children. Most of those mutations are neutral with respect to survival. Some are bad and the child dies. Others are beneficial and the child lives. That is evolution: a change in genes over generations, leading to changes in the population.

Evolution is NOT about X-men or individual adaptation. it is not about changing skin because you spent the day in the sun. It is NOT about being able to breath better because you exercised. THOSE changes are not genetic. So they are not evolution. Evolution is about changes in the genes.

Here's the problem:
You assume that the small, microevolutionary changes (which can be observed) lead on to larger macroevolutionary changes (which can never be observed).
It's an assumption. . not a fact.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hogwash. Science didn't start in 1600 AD. I don't know if it's just that we are so arrogant or if we think we evolved suddenly at the so called scientific revolution but the ancients knew far more than most people think.

Actually, they knew far, far less than what we now know.

My question is, why rely on ancient ways of thinking and understanding the world when we know so much more than those people could have ever dreamed about the world we live in?
Why wouldn't you want to advance your knowledge base and instead cling to ancient ways of thinking about the world?

 

[SkepticThinker]

In your fantasy world.

No, in actual reality.

Which you would know had you ever attended a post-secondary educational facility and taken some courses.

Go look up Francis Collins, if you dare.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course it's so much more important to understand how DNA works than to understand that you have an eternal soul. Because everyone on their death bed says: " Golly, I sure wish I would have studied my science books harder."
Science doesn't answer the most important questions at all.

In a science class, absolutely.
Souls are not demonstrable or measurable in any way.
If you could find a way to do that and publish your research, you might be able to change the world.
You better get on that.

 

[Wildswanderer]

What do "liberals" have to do with the discussion? No need to inject politics into something that isn't remotely political.

You haven't attended a post-secondary educational institution, have you?

I have had people in my family who did. I have read a bit from the text books. The indoctrination is obvious to me.

 

[Polymath257]

Here's the problem:
You assume that the small, microevolutionary changes (which can be observed) lead on to larger macroevolutionary changes (which can never be observed).
It's an assumption. . not a fact.

And you assume there is an uncrossable boundary for each species. And there is no evidence of such a boundary.

We *know* that small changes can add up to give larger changes. We can compare the genetics of different species and see how the actual genes changed and how the changes in those genes lead to the larger scale changes we see between the species.

And you also deny the relevance of the fossil record, which shows what species lived at various times. And, in that record we find that the species living at different times are different. The observed species at different times are different.

So, for example, if you go back 1 million years, there simply were no modern humans. There were no modern cows. There were no modern dogs. But there *were* species that were similar in many ways to the modern ones. Similar but distinct.

If you go back 2 million years, there were *different* species than those that existed merely 1 million years ago. And the species that lived 10 million years ago were different than those from 2 million years ago. But, for each species from 2 million years ago, there is a *similar, but different* species that lived 10 million years ago. We detect the similarities in the bone structures, in their shapes, etc.

Biological species change over time. That *is* evolution. And yes, those changes can, in many cases, be quite large.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think the problem is that the vast majority of people ultimately take almost everything they learn on faith. They *never* learn to look at the details and test their beliefs with them. They *never* learn to think critically, logically, and analytically. it is simply not a skill they have ever really needed and have not been trained to use.

And, if you don't think critically, all education can look like indoctrination. it can look like simply the clash of different interpretations by people who don't really know anything.

But part of this is also the denial that there can be experts in such subjects whose understanding is really better and whose opinion is more likely to be correct. if it is *all* indoctrination of the sort they get in church, then it is all a matter of interpretation by experts that cannot know what they claim. Just because that is what happens in their religion.

That sounds spot on.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have had people in my family who did. I have read a bit from the text books. The indoctrination is obvious to me.

That's not the same as you yourself attending, is it?

My uncle is a doctor. That doesn't make me a doctor or anything anywhere close to it. Reading a few lines from a medical textbook doesn't make me a doctor either.

How can indoctrination be so obvious to you when you've never even entered the institution where you are so certain this takes place?
If you did attend a post-secondary institution you'd probably be a lot better with logic and reasoning. Just a thought.

 

[Wildswanderer]

And you also deny the relevance of the fossil record, which shows what species lived at various times. And, in that record we find that the species living at different times are different. The observed species at different times are different.

Only that only works if you believe that they are right in how the layers were formed. The layers don't represent time periods.

Fossils are obviously the remains of dead animals and plants that were buried in layers that later hardened to solid strata.
So it's not a record of life.. but of death.
It's a record of the order in which they were buried and then fossilized, not a time capsule.
Since you don't know how quickly the strata was deposited as you really don't know how much time it represents.
All the animals deposited could have lived at the same time.

 

[Polymath257]

Only that only works if you believe that they are right in how the layers were formed. The layers don't represent time periods.

Really? Then why did people studying biology, long before Darwin, recognize them to be representative of time periods? And what do you propose for an alternative?

No, layers from floods do not work. That wouldn't allow for the observed sequences alternating between igneous rock and sedimentary rock multiple times. Also, it fails to address depositions that simply could not happen quickly (like the chalk deposits at Dover).

Fossils are obviously the remains of dead animals and plants that were buried in layers that later hardened to solid strata.
So it's not a record of life.. but of death.

But those species lived before they died. So it is also evidence for what lived. And yes, the fossils often tell quite a bit about the circumstances of death.

It's a record of the order in which they were buried and then fossilized, not a time capsule.
Since you don't know how quickly the strata was deposited as you really don't know how much time it represents.

But we *do* know how long it takes in many cases.

And the radioactive dating techniques also give the times when the strata were deposited. That gives the ages.

All the animals deposited could have lived at the same time.

No, they could not be. it would be impossible to have the sequences actually observed happen all at the same time. Some deposits take millions of years *at least* to form. And that is simply because of the chemistry involved.

And you haven't explained why the radioactive dates give the results they do, and are consistent across different methods, involving different physics and different reactions.

Sorry, but this 'interpretation' simply does not fit the actual evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What do "liberals" have to do with the discussion? No need to inject politics into something that isn't remotely political.

There is no need to mention politics here, but I see it as a link in a predictable sequence.

You haven't attended a post-secondary educational institution, have you?

I quickly came to my own conclusions on this based on the evidence presented.

 

[Polymath257]

I have had people in my family who did. I have read a bit from the text books. The indoctrination is obvious to me.

Yeah, that works as a qualification: members of my family got an education and I read a bit from their books!

 

[Wildswanderer]

And the radioactive dating techniques also give the times when the strata were deposited. That gives the ages.

These dates are based on interpretations of the data.
The dates must be arrived at based on assumptions about certain ratios.
And the relative age of that particular rock layer is based on the assumption that we know the ages of the rocks around it.
It sounds kinda like circular reasoning to me.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yeah, that works as a qualification: members of my family got an education and I read a bit from their books!

They got an indoctrination at the same time. It's no secret that most college professors are on the liberal side. Those that can do. Those that can't teach. At least in many cases.

 

[ratiocinator]

I have had people in my family who did. I have read a bit from the text books. The indoctrination is obvious to me.

It's amazing that you managed to work out it was indoctrination without actually learning anything at all about the subject matter.

 

[ratiocinator]

These dates are based on interpretations of the data.
The dates must be arrived at based on assumptions about certain ratios.
And the relative age of that particular rock layer is based on the assumption that we know the ages of the rocks around it.
It sounds kinda like circular reasoning to me.

So we can add dating methods to evolution in the list of things you don't understand. Here's a Christian to tell you how dating methods work, how they can be checked against each other, and how it isn't circular at all: Radiometric Dating

 

[Polymath257]

These dates are based on interpretations of the data.
The dates must be arrived at based on assumptions about certain ratios.

Certain ratios, huh? Not even going to try to be specific?

What is relevant is the ratio between the amount of daughter nuclei and the amount of parent nuclei. This is something that can be directly measured.

Also relevant is the amount of daughter nuclei in the sample originally. This can be determined by the type of crystal the rock is made from and the chemistry of the rock.

Finally, the decay rate of the parent nuclei, which can be measured in the lab today.

And the relative age of that particular rock layer is based on the assumption that we know the ages of the rocks around it.

Yes. The rocks on top are usually younger. The rocks below are usually younger. And you can tell if this fails is there is a discontinuity, which is something geologists look for.

We don't need to know the absolute ages (which radioactive dating gives) to know the relative ages (which stratigraphy gives). That the two wildly different methods gives consistent results is part of the evidence that the results are correct.

It sounds kinda like circular reasoning to me.

But it isn't.

 

[Jose Fly]

Same old talking points from you that have been addressed ad nauseam and a pile arguments from incredulity.

You really need some new material.

A few months ago I watched the movie Inherit the Wind, which led me to read H.L. Mencken's dispatches from the Scopes trial. In doing that, I was able to look at some of the pamphlets the Christians handed out during the trial and it was fascinating how many of the talking points from over 100 years ago are still used by creationists today.

So yeah....they certainly need new material, but I seriously doubt any is forthcoming.

 

[Polymath257]

They got an indoctrination at the same time. It's no secret that most college professors are on the liberal side. Those that can do. Those that can't teach. At least in many cases.

Be careful. The term 'indoctrination' does not mean the same as 'teaching things you disagree with'.

We are discussing science classes, not classes in liberal arts. Science requires testing each and every idea, seeing where it can go wrong, and controlling for those.

You have given a number of objections that are common in creationist writings that *any* amount of actual research will show are ungrounded. The actual scientists doing research in these areas are not 'just teachers' (as if your stereotype was correct). They often go out into the field to collect data. They are specialists looking at details at a level you probably cannot even imagine, just to be sure they get the correct answers.

And you think the objections you mention weren't deal with a hundred years ago by the professionals in the subject? Right. You seem to think the scientists are idiots and that their salaries depend on towing some sort of ideological line. Sorry, but that is what happens for leaders of churches, not scientists at universities or research centers.

In real life, the scientist that successfully challenges the current model is rewarded for their insights. But they have to have the evidence on their side. They can't ignore contrary evidence and they have to be able to come up with a better explanation than the current one.

And yes, that *is* difficult. The reason it is difficult is that the current views are based on mounds of evidence accumulated over centuries. many other ideas were proposed and rejected because the evidence didn't support them.

Among the ideas that the evidence simply doesn't support, and it was known over 200 years ago not to support, is the idea that the Earth is tens of thousands of years old and that there was a global flood in that time period. This, remember, was the *default* position for people working 250 years ago because of the dominant religious doctrines of the time.

But the evidence showed that position to be untenable. The actual data from the real world is much, much more complicated than that 'theory' could account for. Even the extended theory that there were a series of catastrophes, of which the flood was the last, simply doesn't fit the actual evidence on the ground. Even the fact that species change over time (evolution) was well known before Darwin. Darwin just proposed a mechanism for those observed changes. But that changes occurred was not in dispute because that is precisely what the evidence showed.

 

[Wildswanderer]

It's amazing that you managed to work out it was indoctrination without actually learning anything at all about the subject matter.

It wasn't an evolution textbook, grasshopper.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Be careful. The term 'indoctrination' does not mean the same as 'teaching things you disagree with'.

We are discussing science classes, not classes in liberal arts. Science requires testing each and every idea, seeing where it can go wrong, and controlling for those.

You have given a number of objections that are common in creationist writings that *any* amount of actual research will show are ungrounded. The actual scientists doing research in these areas are not 'just teachers' (as if your stereotype was correct). They often go out into the field to collect data. They are specialists looking at details at a level you probably cannot even imagine, just to be sure they get the correct answers.

And you think the objections you mention weren't deal with a hundred years ago by the professionals in the subject? Right. You seem to think the scientists are idiots and that their salaries depend on towing some sort of ideological line. Sorry, but that is what happens for leaders of churches, not scientists at universities or research centers.

In real life, the scientist that successfully challenges the current model is rewarded for their insights. But they have to have the evidence on their side. They can't ignore contrary evidence and they have to be able to come up with a better explanation than the current one.

And yes, that *is* difficult. The reason it is difficult is that the current views are based on mounds of evidence accumulated over centuries. many other ideas were proposed and rejected because the evidence didn't support them.

Among the ideas that the evidence simply doesn't support, and it was known over 200 years ago not to support, is the idea that the Earth is tens of thousands of years old and that there was a global flood in that time period. This, remember, was the *default* position for people working 250 years ago because of the dominant religious doctrines of the time.

But the evidence showed that position to be untenable. The actual data from the real world is much, much more complicated than that 'theory' could account for. Even the extended theory that there were a series of catastrophes, of which the flood was the last, simply doesn't fit the actual evidence on the ground. Even the fact that species change over time (evolution) was well known before Darwin. Darwin just proposed a mechanism for those observed changes. But that changes occurred was not in dispute because that is precisely what the evidence showed.

I made no statements about the age of the earth or a flood. But now that you mentioned it, fossils just don't get laid down when anything dies. It takes a very specific set of conditions to form a fossil. The charts of a nice linear line of layers just aren't reality. You have an extinction sized event and you expect it's going to result in layers representative of different time periods? Doesn't make sense to anyone who really thinks about it.