question for those who reject biological evolution

[F1fan]

You are like 120 years out of date.....

How is that when I will read what experts report in 2024?

It's those who try to question evolution only because they have adopted some form of an obsolete interpretation of Genesis who are lost in the past.

today scientists know (or at least think) than non random mutations (or non random genetic variation) occure and play an important role .... there is more than just random mutations




@Subduction Zone can confirm this claim..... there are other mechanism appart from random mutations that play an important role.

I will accept what experts report. I don't accept the distortions and anti-science rhetoric by those who have been negatively influenced by religion. Your history of posting shows a role that goes beyond what experts report.

 

[Pogo]

Maybe, but you have to support the assertion , you need to;

1 define random with a proper source

2 show a paragraph where I missused the term random


At this point all we have is you are wrong because I say so

Here is a start, it is only 24 pages long. Randomness in biology

It won't explain all of what was wrong with your paragraph because much of the error was due to prior misconceptions that led to the paragraph.

Take the example of spontaneous genetic mutations: there is no doubt that they can ultimately be explained by physical laws, but this does not change the fact that they seem to appear randomly at the DNA scale (whether they are subsequently corrected or not is an independent issue here). So biologists find it more useful to take this randomness for granted, and describe the occurrence of mutations using probabilistic laws, rather than waiting for some elusive Laplacian supercomputer that could integrate all subtomic particles interactions to predict where and when a mutation will appear. In doing this, they acknowledge a practical form of randomness, which does not rule out a possible hidden determinism.

 

[Pogo]

You are like 120 years out of date..... today scientists know (or at least think) than non random mutations (or non random genetic variation) occure and play an important role .... there is more than just random mutations


@Subduction Zone can confirm this claim..... there are other mechanism appart from random mutations that play an important role.

@leroy you really don't get it. RM+NS is not one mechanism, it is just a shorthand way of indicating that we are dealing with the mechanisms of the current theory of evolution. We also use Descent with Modification. These are not the limited terms you seem to think.
You brought up epigenetics and retroposons as examples of not RM+NS and you were sort of right at one point because they were new mechanisms that were hypothetical, but once they were demonstrated sufficiently they were incorporated into the current theory.
To say that RM+NS is false because it doesn't include temporary methylation is either ignorance or evidence of a deficit due to an overly literal thought process.

As for randomness, read the paper I linked and get an education that is not just reading buzz words at creationist websites.
We know you do this because these old arguments some of them from when Pinky and the Brain was on you and my kids had barely made it to High School. You dig up a paper from 2014 which you have obviously not read but you parrot the arguments from AIG or possibly another site from when the paper was sort of news and expect us to think it is original thought on your part.

As for educating you, it is not our responsibility and it will never happen anyhow until you learn how to learn, the first step of which is not listening to websites that lie to you by playing on your religious beliefs. They don't care, they just want your money.

The country may be in danger from people who think like you but science is safe.

Thanks for the chuckles.

 

[leroy]

How is that when I will read what experts report in 2024?

It's those who try to question evolution only because they have adopted some form of an obsolete interpretation of Genesis who are lost in the past.

I will accept what experts report. I don't accept the distortions and anti-science rhetoric by those who have been negatively influenced by religion. Your history of posting shows a role that goes beyond what experts report.

But you haven’t been capable of quoting any comment made by me, that contradicts what scientists say…………. So your accusations are false, an apology is expected.




you where wrong in your previous post, and I showed that you where wrong with a proper source............. why cant you do the same with my comments? (talking about your claim that mutatiosn are always radnom)

 

[leroy]

Here is a start, it is only 24 pages long. Randomness in biology

It won't explain all of what was wrong with your paragraph because much of the error was due to prior misconceptions that led to the paragraph.

Sure, I accept that defintion/description of random.

Can you quote a comment made by me that missuese the term “random”. ……… no you can´t………..so an apology is expected.

Using that description of random…………… do you affirm that all relevant mutations (and genetic variations) are random?

 

[leroy]

@leroy you really don't get it. RM+NS is not one mechanism, it is just a shorthand way of indicating that we are dealing with the mechanisms of the current theory of evolution. We also use Descent with Modification. These are not the limited terms you seem to think.
You brought up epigenetics and retroposons as examples of not RM+NS and you were sort of right at one point because they were new mechanisms that were hypothetical, but once they were demonstrated sufficiently they were incorporated into the current theory.
To say that RM+NS is false because it doesn't include temporary methylation is either ignorance or evidence of a deficit due to an overly literal thought process.

As for randomness, read the paper I linked and get an education that is not just reading buzz words at creationist websites.
We know you do this because these old arguments some of them from when Pinky and the Brain was on you and my kids had barely made it to High School. You dig up a paper from 2014 which you have obviously not read but you parrot the arguments from AIG or possibly another site from when the paper was sort of news and expect us to think it is original thought on your part.

As for educating you, it is not our responsibility and it will never happen anyhow until you learn how to learn, the first step of which is not listening to websites that lie to you by playing on your religious beliefs. They don't care, they just want your money.

The country may be in danger from people who think like you but science is safe.

Thanks for the chuckles.

You brought up epigenetics and retroposons as examples of not RM+NS and you were sort of right at one point because they were new mechanisms that were hypothetical, but once they were demonstrated sufficiently they were incorporated into the current theory.

Sure, other non random mechanism are now part of the TOE, that is and has always been my point……………. You where the one who explicitly denied this fact.

So what happened, did you change your mind within a few days?. Do you admit that you disagreed with me just of the sake of disagreeing, without even reading my comments?.......... what happened?

 

[Pogo]

Sure, other non random mechanism are now part of the TOE, that is and has always been my point……………. You where the one who explicitly denied this fact.

So what happened, did you change your mind within a few days?. Do you admit that you disagreed with me just of the sake of disagreeing, without even reading my comments?.......... what happened?

No your entire problem and justification is semantic garbage based on your misunderstandings, new mechanisms was not your point.

Your pretend point was that the example of convergent evolution in a 2014 creationist spiel was evidence that the ToE was wrong and that this was evidence for your God. Denying this makes you a bearer of false witness.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sure, I accept that defintion/description of random.

Can you quote a comment made by me that missuese the term “random”. ……… no you can´t………..so an apology is expected.

Using that description of random…………… do you affirm that all relevant mutations (and genetic variations) are random?

No, only the timing of individual mutations and whether a mutation is useful, neutral or harmful are random. The mechanisms of mutation are not random they are determined by Natural Laws

Mutation, Randomness, and Evolution

Abstract. Mutation, Randomness, and Evolution presents a new understanding of how the course of evolution may reflect biases in variation and unites key co

academic.oup.com

Mutation, Randomness, and Evolution​

Arlin Stoltzfus

Abstract​

Mutation, Randomness, and Evolution presents a new understanding of how the course of evolution may reflect biases in variation and unites key concerns of molecular and microbial evolution, evo-devo, evolvability, and self-organization by placing these concerns on a solid theoretical and empirical foundation. It situates them within a broader movement away from externalism and towards a focus on the internal details of living systems, including their evolutionary causes and their predictable evolutionary consequences. In the neo-Darwinian theory, by contrast, selection is the potter and variation is the clay: external selection does the important work of evolution, and gets all the credit, while variation merely supplies an abundance of random raw materials. Indeed, one of the meanings of the randomness doctrine is that any peculiarities or tendencies of mutation are ultimately irrelevant. The theory that the course of evolution is determined externally, without any dispositional role for internal factors, was particularly attractive before the molecular revolution, when biologists had little systematic knowledge of internal factors. Today, scientists are deeply immersed in the molecular, genetic, and developmental details of life. The potential for a new understanding of the role of these internal factors rests on the recognition that the introduction process is a distinctive kind of cause, not the same thing (conceptually, historically, or theoretically) as the classical “force” of mutation, but with different implications, including the ability to impose biases on adaptive evolution. This predicted influence is verified by recent evidence from episodes of adaptation traced to the molecular level.


The process of genetic mutations only determines the genetic diversity on a populations that can evolve based on changing environments. Mutations like all cause and effect events in nature ONLY occur within a possible range of outcomes based on Natural Laws with all of Nature

Evolution is NOT a random process. It is driven by changes in the environment.

Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions

www.pbs.org

Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment. Whether or not an individual survives and reproduces depends on whether it has genes that produce traits that are well adapted to its environment.

 

[leroy]

No your entire problem and justification is semantic garbage based on your misunderstandings, new mechanisms was not your point.

This doesn’t changes the fact that a few days ago………you affirmed that complex organisms evolved from simpler organisms by RM+NS alone, and now you seem to reject that notion……. So I am asking a valid question--------- what happened did you changed your view, or did you misunderstood my comments?

Yes my point is and has always been about nonrandom mutations }(or nonrandom genetic variation in general) being a relevant mechanism

Your pretend point was that the example of convergent evolution in a 2014 creationist spiel was evidence that the ToE was wrong and that this was evidence for your God. Denying this makes you a bearer of false witness.

No my point is that this example of convergent evolution between bats and dolphins is better explained by nonrandom mutations than by random mutations…………

I never said that this was evidence against the current TOE nor evidence in favor of God, you are just making things up………… are you willing to admit that you are making things up about me and apologize?

The article is only a problem if you affirm that echolocation evolved in both lines by random mutations and NS alone , which is no longer a problem for you, because you are now seem to be open to the idea of nonrandom mutations.

 

[F1fan]

But you haven’t been capable of quoting any comment made by me, that contradicts what scientists say………….

You admit to not being an expert. So why should anyone take your criticism of experts seriously?

So your accusations are false, an apology is expected.

You should apologize for disrespecting experts.

 

[Pogo]

This doesn’t changes the fact that a few days ago………you affirmed that complex organisms evolved from simpler organisms by RM+NS alone, and now you seem to reject that notion……. So I am asking a valid question--------- what happened did you changed your view, or did you misunderstood my comments?

Yes my point is and has always been about nonrandom mutations }(or nonrandom genetic variation in general) being a relevant mechanism


No my point is that this example of convergent evolution between bats and dolphins is better explained by nonrandom mutations than by random mutations…………

I never said that this was evidence against the current TOE nor evidence in favor of God, you are just making things up………… are you willing to admit that you are making things up about me and apologize?

The article is only a problem if you affirm that echolocation evolved in both lines by random mutations and NS alone , which is no longer a problem for you, because you are now seem to be open to the idea of nonrandom mutations.

And you are still all wrong and your good of the gaps argument is still a failure

No my point is that this example of convergent evolution between bats and dolphins is better explained by nonrandom mutations than by random mutations………

This is a totally unevidenced assertion, that you don't specifically invoke God for it doesn't change your argument.

You are a cdesign proponentsist.

 

[leroy]

You admit to not being an expert. So why should anyone take your criticism of experts seriously?

I havent made any criticism of experts

You should apologize for disrespecting experts.

i am not disrespecting experts. you should apologize for your false accusation

 

[F1fan]

This doesn’t changes the fact that a few days ago………you affirmed that complex organisms evolved from simpler organisms by RM+NS alone, and now you seem to reject that notion……. So I am asking a valid question--------- what happened did you changed your view, or did you misunderstood my comments?

Yes my point is and has always been about nonrandom mutations }(or nonrandom genetic variation in general) being a relevant mechanism

Who cares what your point is?

Where is your citation of experts agreeing with you?

 

[leroy]

And you are still all wrong and your good of the gaps argument is still a failure

No body is making a God of the gaps argument, nor any argument for God,…………. Why do you keep repeating that lie?

This is a totally unevidenced assertion, that you don't specifically invoke God for it doesn't change your argument.

I am not like you,……….. I do support my claims

This assertions I s supported by:

1 we know that non random mutations occur (as you seem to admit and as has been shown with peer reviewed sources)

2 the fact that it is highly unlikely for 2 random mutations hitting the same spot multiple tiems (as has been explained by )

The combination of 1 and 2 strongly suggests that echolocation evolved in part by non random mutations.

You may or may not agree……….. but the difference between you and I is that atleast I support my claims with sources………… I don’t say “you are wrogn because I say so”

d

You havent answered my question……….. did you changed your view about random mutations, or did you misunderstood my comments, or what happened?

 

[leroy]

Who cares what your point is?

Where is your citation of experts agreeing with you?

"Where is your citation of experts agreeing with you?"
post 380

you even saw and responded to that post......................... my sources describes how experts agree with me on the issue of random mutations........


you have misrepresented my view multiple times , I have corrected you, and you haven´t apologize……….why not?

1 I don’t deny the current TOE (just your own personal 120y old interpretation)

2 if you show that any of my claims is not supported by the consensus of the experts, I would change my view accordingly.

3 I will not assume that I am wrong just because a random anonymous fanatic evolutionist from a forum says so……….. you need to support your claims........


I proved with a peer reviewed source that your view on evolution is wrong and has been known to be wrong for 120 years………and you still don’t admit it , that is the definition of fanatism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe but you haven't shown that my interpretation is wrong......all we have is " you are wrong because I say so. "

Not true. Your inability to understand does not mean that it did not happen.

By the way, how did they determine that echolocation arose in bats twice?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are like 120 years out of date..... today scientists know (or at least think) than non random mutations (or non random genetic variation) occure and play an important role .... there is more than just random mutations




@Subduction Zone can confirm this claim..... there are other mechanism appart from random mutations that play an important role.

You may be the last to know that. I am pretty sure that you are still misinterpreting that fact.

I think that everyone, except maybe for you, will understand that random mutations and natural selection are the two main forces behind evolution.

 

[F1fan]

Sure, other non random mechanism are now part of the TOE, that is and has always been my point……………. You where the one who explicitly denied this fact.

So what happened, did you change your mind within a few days?. Do you admit that you disagreed with me just of the sake of disagreeing, without even reading my comments?.......... what happened?

Are you interpreting non random as intentional?

 

[SkepticThinker]

So, all you responded with is an immature tantrum, a diatribe that my ancestors would be insulted even though they wouldn't have a clue what you'd be talking about anyway and assumptions that I adhere to a particular religion even though I never stated I belonged to one. Well, I guess that shows you don't have much rationale in your own line of thinking either I guess. I've stated a few sources and you've stated absolutely none as well. How are you to be taken seriously yourself?



Do you support fascism?

Well, that was out in left field ...

And it's true that evolution is pseudoscience by definition.

It certainly is not.

Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in populations over time. That's a fact. An observable, demonstrable, measurable fact.
The theory of evolution explains that fact. It's the backbone of modern biology

I will reiterate it again for your sake using human evolution as an example to be more specific; it has never been physically observed in real world time by scientists, you cannot replicate the results of what scientists call evolution and nor can you test the 'theory' because of that, you cannot falsify it because there is no logical contradiction you can formulate against it. This is all unlike the Theory of General Relativity which it satisfies. Therefore, it's pseudoscience. That's how the scientific method works. The way you speak fanatically in defense of evolution makes me think evolution is even more so just a belief like any other religion, thank you for that.

Sounds like you've never heard of genetics. Genetics demonstrates the fact of evolution, as described above. Along with all the other evidence gathered from almost every other field of science.

Gravity is a fact. The theory of general relativity explains that fact. Exactly like with evolution.

Here's one way evolution could be falsified: Finding a rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian layers of the earth.

I was an academic researcher in the past and contributed to the scientific community in another field. And yes, I deny evolution as do many other logically sound individuals that I've come across. One other thing, please use better grammar when typing, thanks.

Hard to believe, given what you've said in this thread.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Lol, go read one of my sources in my quotes about whale evolution fraud. Dr Gingerich an evolutionary paleontologist admitted he was wrong but for a long time kept selling his work as truth to natural history museums. All it took was a simple interview to get him out of the dark to admit the truth about it. It's a classical example of evolutionary fraud but this is much old news now and lots of people know all about it.

You should at least admit evolution could be wrong. It would seem more plausible for it to be true then in that case. There is no 'proof' in science though and anyone that tells you otherwise is full of it and is promoting pseudoscientific beliefs.

This guy?

"Research interests
Mammals have an unusually dense and continuous fossil record, and are thus ideal for evolutionary studies. I am interested in understanding how evolution as a process, acting on generation-to-generation scales of time yields the microevolutionary and macroevolutionary patterns that we observe on longer historical and geological scales of time"

Philip Gingerich | U-M LSA Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (EEB)

lsa.umich.edu

Expert Interview Transcript: Philip D. Gingerich, Ph.D. - Annenberg Learner

Professor of Geological Sciences Gingerich is a professor of geological sciences and director of the Museum of Paleontology at the…

www.learner.org

Sounds to me like he accepts evolution.